Wikipedia article blocked worldwide by Delhi high court. - feddit.org
feddit.org
Original Link. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation] More info. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International#Litigation_against_other_organisations] > In July 2024, ANI filed a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation in the Delhi High Court — claiming to have been defamed in its article on Wikipedia — and sought ₹2 crore (US$240,000) in damages. At the time of the suit’s filing, the Wikipedia article about ANI said the news agency had “been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions”. The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing “false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency’s reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill”. > On 5 September, the Court threatened to hold Wikimedia guilty of contempt for failing to disclose information about the editors who had made changes to the article and warned that Wikipedia might be blocked in India upon further non-compliance. The judge on the case stated “If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India… We will ask government to block your site”. In response, Wikimedia emphasized that the information in the article was supported by multiple reliable secondary sources. Justice Manmohan said “I think nothing can be worse for a news agency than to be called a puppet of an intelligence agency, stooge of the government. If that is true, the credibility goes.” > On 21 October, the Wikimedia Foundation suspended access to the article for Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation due to an order from the court.
  • मुक्तM
    1·
    12 hours ago

    While Wikipedia is largely fact-based, it is not without errors and some articles may show bias.

    Wikipedia aims to be seen as an encyclopedia, but not as an arbiter of truth. This means, like any encylopedia, its articles reflect the status of presently published knowledge. Whether the published knowledge are factual or not comes only into play when someone formally contests what is published, as in the present case.

    However, unlike Wikipedia, courts do position themselves as arbiters of truth and allow both parties to make claims and counters as well as allowing parties to cross examine one another. The court invovled here has to rule if ANI is hurt rightfully, or not. Looks like no one will be contesting against ANI, as Wikipedia has bowed out.

    Wikipedia positioning itself as a mere intermediary has a consequence on how people will view Wikipedia henceforth, including the percieved quality of its articles - Wikipedia itself did not take any position on whether the article is factual or not.