Why did the Indian government issue a notice to Wikipedia? explained in 5 points

Wikipedia has been facing a lot of uncertainty in India over the last few months. In September, there were reports that the Delhi High Court had criticized Wikipedia and warned of a potential ban in India. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has issued a notice to Wikipedia objecting to the intermediary status granted to technology platforms in India. Here’s everything that’s going on in the Wikipedia case in India, in 5 points.

– The MIB reportedly questioned why Wikipedia should not be classified as a publisher rather than an intermediary. The ministry says it has concerns about centralized editorial control and that there are frequent complaints about bias and inaccuracies on the platform.

– Nikhil Chawla, a leading commentator on technology policy, argues that the Indian government has misunderstood the IT Act’s protections for online platforms. According to Chawla, platforms like Wikipedia qualify as “intermediaries” because they act as conduits for user-generated content, rather than as primary publishers. He explains: “If my blog post allows comments, I am the publisher of my post and the intermediary of your comments.” Chawla also points out that there is no legal requirement in the IT Act mandating a minimum number of editors for brokerage status. He believes that holding platforms responsible for user content could threaten the platforms’ viability, and highlights the difficulties Wikipedia and others face in managing user edits without liability.

–Wikipedia, on the other hand, maintained that it would continue to offer its Indian customers “the right to share and access free and reliable information in an open and secure online environment.”

Wikipedia says content on its platform is created, edited and approved by volunteers using publicly available sources, rather than original research or personal opinions. This stance came as the Delhi High Court warned that Wikipedia could be banned in India if it did not cooperate with the court. The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, expressed surprise at the escalation of the case and said it had informed the petitioners that it would seek guidance from the court before the final hearing. Wikimedia claims that it acted in good faith and that the petitioners prematurely initiated the defamation suit.

–According to Wikipedia, editorial guidelines only allow encyclopedic content from reliable sources such as newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. But the current defamation lawsuit raises concerns about content created by volunteers, especially since it was created from publicly available information.

-The outcome of this case could set an important precedent. Wikipedia has come under scrutiny from governments, celebrities and public figures worldwide for the content on its pages. Because Wikipedia relies on volunteers to compile information from reliable sources, it sometimes faces legal and reputational challenges when content is challenged. This may therefore impact Wikipedia’s operations in India and its approach to content curation.