 |
|
The Delhi High Court, in a hearing concerning a defamation case filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Wikipedia, expressed serious concerns about the online encyclopedia's open-edit model. Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, labeled the platform's public editing access as 'dangerous,' raising questions about its credibility and the potential for misuse. The court's remarks arose during discussions about the architecture of Wikipedia, where any registered user can edit content, including pages about individuals or organizations.
ANI, in its lawsuit, claims that Wikipedia has allowed harmful edits to its page, including a description of the news agency as a 'propaganda tool' for the Indian government. Currently, the entry refers to ANI as a 'mouthpiece of the incumbent Government of India.' The court had previously ordered Wikipedia to disclose information about three editors involved in these controversial changes, but the Wikimedia Foundation appealed this order, which is now pending before a division bench. The crux of ANI's legal challenge revolves around the alleged defamatory nature of the information presented on its Wikipedia page, and the platform's inability to prevent such edits.
Wikipedia's legal counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, defended the platform, highlighting its distinction from social media platforms. He argued that Wikipedia implements rules to ensure the reliability of information and requires all content to be cross-referenced to credible sources. He further maintained that users are obligated to adhere to legal and content policies when editing or creating pages. However, the court questioned the effectiveness of these safeguards, particularly in light of the ongoing edits and the platform's inability to guarantee the accuracy of all content.
The court also explored the possibility of individuals opting out of having a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. This aspect is crucial to ANI's case, as it highlights the potential for individuals and organizations to be unfairly targeted by defamatory edits. The court ultimately adjourned the case to October 28th, directing both parties to submit concise summaries of their arguments. While Wikipedia asserts its commitment to factual accuracy and cross-referencing, the court's concerns over its open-edit model raise fundamental questions about the platform's ability to protect individuals and organizations from misinformation and potential harm.
This case underscores the growing complexities surrounding online platforms and their role in shaping public discourse. The open-edit model, while empowering users and facilitating the dissemination of knowledge, also presents significant challenges in terms of accuracy, accountability, and the protection of individuals and organizations. The Delhi High Court's scrutiny of Wikipedia's operations highlights the need for robust mechanisms to ensure that online platforms are used responsibly and that their users are protected from harmful content.
Source: Delhi HC calls Wikipedia's open-edit model 'dangerous' in ANI defamation case