BBC -- "Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India"

[Ramsey Barner]

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2024, 07:27 AM - Edit history (3)

Wikipedia is embroiled in a major legal battle in India that experts say could impact how the online encyclopaedia functions in the country.

The battle stems from a 20m rupee ($237,874; £183,012) lawsuit filed by India’s largest newswire service against Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, for allegedly publishing defamatory content against it.

In the lawsuit in the Delhi high court, Asian News International (ANI) said a paragraph in its description on Wikipedia falsely accuses it of being "a propaganda tool for the incumbent [federal] government” and of "distributing material from fake news websites" and demanded the page be taken down.

[. . . .]

Observers say this is probably the first time that a Wikipedia page in English language has been taken down after a court order.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrdydkypv7o
===============================================================================================================
[The effect of this litigation may reach far beyond India. What would stop the far right, or representatives of any side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, from using defamation suits to try to change Wikipedia content?]

[Simeon Salus]

1. Asian News International IS a propaganda machine for the incumbent federal government

Here's what Wikipedia says about them as a reliable source:
"Asian News International is an Indian news agency. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda."

This is the place where they list such sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Here's the discussion where that determination was made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331#RfC:_Asian_News_International_(ANI)

[Simeon Salus]

2. And Wikipedia is in no legal trouble in India

The Guardian is drumming up subscribers and they need "it bleeds"-type stories for clicks.

[Ramsey Barner]

3. Apologies - it was BBC. But Wikipedia can hardly afford to defend itself against such suits.

[Simeon Salus]

4. You are right, but the article is itself an example of sloppy journalism and reflects badly on BBC Hindi

You've got one reporter asking one person for her opinion, and then just a lot of how the process works (with a Getty picture of Jimmy Wales, co-founder, who has little connection with Wikipedia anymore). Note the BBC chose to pay Getty for the image, although there are hundreds available for use for free under creative commons license.

The article didn't point at either of the links I gave our readers.

[Ramsey Barner]

5. I agree -- the reporting is sloppy and lazy. Sadly, my own OP was pretty sloppy, too!