The Ministry raised its concerns over Wikipedia’s “concentrated editorial control” and persistent complaints about its bias and inaccuracies. Yes, because nothing screams impartiality like a user-generated encyclopedia where you can add a citation from your local convenience store’s blog if you really feel like it. But, according to India’s regulators, that’s just not cutting it anymore. Wikipedia, apparently, is not doing enough to keep people from running wild with their "editorial liberties." Shocking, we know.
The timing of this notice comes fresh on the heels of a particularly spicy case in the delhi High court, where judges, in their infinite wisdom, called Wikipedia’s open editing feature “dangerous.” Dangerous, of course, being a euphemism for “we don't trust random strangers on the internet to write about history, politics, or literally anything.” The court is hearing a defamation case brought by Asian news International, which is upset that some Wikipedia editors dared to call it a “propaganda tool” for India’s government. Well, when the shoe fits...
Justice Navin Chawla, who’s clearly not a fan of Wikipedia’s "no physical presence, no problem" approach, gave the platform a not-so-friendly ultimatum: respond to court orders, or we’ll just suspend you in India. (Imagine that—your entire user-generated encyclopedia platform just *poof*, vanishing from a country of over a billion people. What a blow to humanity’s collective knowledge.) To top it off, he warned Wikipedia that if they didn't play nice, he'd get serious about "contempt proceedings." Talk about a warning that screams “don’t mess with us.”
Wikipedia, for its part, is sticking to its guns. It claims that all its volunteer editors must follow policies that ensure content is verifiable and legally compliant. Yes, verifiable—unless, of course, you’re editing a page on conspiracy theories, which, according to some, is just another form of “truth.” As for legal compliance, well, India’s regulators clearly aren’t impressed with that defense. They’re not interested in Wikipedia’s vague promises of *community oversight* when they're more focused on how many inconvenient facts get deleted at the behest of, let’s say, powerful political interests.
Nikhil Pahwa, editor of MediaNama and known for his expertise on tech policy, is out here wondering about the legal foundation of this whole thing. He suggests that India’s IT law defines platform status based on function, not on how many people are typing random bits of info into Wikipedia’s vast sea of knowledge. Because why should Wikipedia's status be based on the chaotic process of democratic participation? Shouldn’t it just be judged like any *real* media organization, with an editorial board that actually takes responsibility for everything that gets published? Oh wait, it doesn't have that. My bad.
Of course, Wikimedia, the non-profit that runs Wikipedia, has remained *mysteriously silent* on the issue, possibly trying to figure out how to respond to a country that’s trying to force them to either comply with local laws or just stop existing in one of the world’s largest internet markets. But hey, who needs to comment when you can just watch this drama unfold in real time, right?
So buckle up, folks. It looks like Wikipedia’s time as a neutral, untouchable giant might soon come to an end in India. Will it be forced to play by the government’s rules, or will it just pack up and leave? Either way, we're in for a bumpy ride — one that's *surely* not going to involve any objective editorial standards anytime soon.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel