Govt asks Wikipedia why it shouldn’t be considered a publisher: Read what it means and how OpIndia dossier had highlighted this aspect

Days after OpIndia released its dossier detailing how Wikipedia is not a free, editorial intervention-free encyclopaedia, the Central government has issued a notice to Wikipedia. On Tuesday (5th November), the Modi government wrote to Wikipedia, citing multiple complaints about bias and inaccuracies on their platform. The government pointed out that a select editorial group has control over the platform and also questioned why Wikipedia should not be treated as a publisher, a demand OpIndia raised recently.

“Government of India puts Wikipedia on notice. Government writes to Wikipedia pointing out many complaints of bias and inaccuracies in Wikipedia, points out a small group having editorial control and asks why Wikipedia shouldn’t be treated as a publisher instead of an intermediary,” news agency ANI reported citing sources.

Notably, Wikipedia is embroiled in a legal battle with ANI as the news agency filed a defamation case against Wikipedia for adverse comments made on its Wiki page. The agency objected to the comment saying that ANI “has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events.”

ANI accused Wikipedia of publishing false and defamatory content with malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency’s reputation and discrediting its goodwill. The news agency also sought Rs 2 crore in damages from Wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia an unbiased intermediary or a biased publisher? What OpIndia research found

OpIndia’s research paper revealed that the structure of Wikipedia itself gives unmitigated power to a handful of individuals who are called ‘administrators’. There are only 435 active administrators in the entire world who have the power to ban editors, blacklist sources, ban contributors and decide the edits that should be made or reverted on articles.

Soon after OpIndia released the dossier, Facebook, another Left-leaning platform that has been accused of election interference in the USA and many such instances of furthering the political interest of a certain ideology, banned the dossier to restrict its viewership.

Wikipedia claims to be an intermediary which depends on the wisdom of the crowd without content intervention and editorial line, based on ‘reliable sources’ and maintaining and neutral point of view. This, however, is far from the truth, as evidenced in OpIndia research. Wikipedia meets all the standards of publishers. They collate information on current events and historical events, they pay their editors and administrators and they are easily accessible by the people at large on the internet.

Given that Wikipedia has an editorial stand based on the personal opinions and biases of its editors and administrators, the evidence cited in the OpIndia dossier suggests that they are no longer eligible to be considered an intermediary. OpIndia recommended that once declared a publisher, Wikimedia would have to have their offices in India, set up a grievance redressal system and submit to Indian laws about illegal content which undermines the sovereignty of India or creates disaffection.

Notably, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 applies to Digital Media which includes ‘intermediaries’ and publishers of news or publishers of online curated content. Wikipedia, even as itself claims to be an ‘intermediary’ is qualified to be treated as a publisher given that despite not having any physical presence in India, it not only has a specific editorial line controlled by a small group of administrators and editors but also pays many of them through the Wikimedia Foundation.

It is pertinent to recall that Wikipedia had during the controversy around the BBC propaganda documentary against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, declared that it is a foreign entity and thus, the Indian courts have no jurisdiction over it. The findings of the research paper prepared by OpIndia Editor-in-Chief Nupur J Sharma, reveal that despite not having offices or presence in India, Wikipedia has been funding entities and individuals with anti-India ideology and even links to Islamists and Khalistanis, to further its own business and ideological interests in the country. Wikipedia not only collects funds from India in the form of donations but also spends millions of dollars in India and toes an absolutely biased and rigid editorial line, all while claiming to be an intermediary and not a publisher to escape any accountability before the Indian law.

Besides, declaring Wikipedia as a publisher, OpIndia also recommended that Wikipedia’s financial transactions be scrutinised. The OpIndia dossier titled Wikipedia’s War on India can be read here.