Delhi High Court flags Wikipedia model as "dangerous"

The Delhi High Court on Friday remarked that it is "dangerous" how Wikipedia functions as a platform, especially given how anyone can edit pages on the platform.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the remark after Wikipedia's architecture was explained to the Court during the hearing of Asian News International (ANI)'s defamation suit against the online encyclopaedia.

"Anybody can edit a page on Wikipedia?" What kind of page is this if it is open to anybody (for editing)?" the Court asked with surprise.

However, Wikipedia's counsel Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta submitted that users have to comply with the law while creating the page or updating information.

"Dangerous," Justice Prasad remarked.

Wikipedia maintained that users are required to comply with its policies.

"Let's begin at step zero. It is not like Facebook. It is not social media where you have a page and anybody can do anything. It is an encyclopaedia where any user can add information if its worthy. The page is open to editing by anybody and that is how it gains credibility. Every information is required to be cross-reference to source," Mehta said.

ANI has sued Wikipedia for defamation. According to the news agency, Wikipedia allowed defamatory edits on its page which earlier referred to ANI as a "propaganda tool" for the present government. The page in question currently refers to ANI as mouthpiece of the incumbent Government of India.

Earlier, the High Court had issued summons to Wikipedia and ordered it to disclose information about three people who made the edits on ANI's Wikipedia page.

However, Wikimedia Foundation appealed against the disclosure order and the issue is now pending before a Division Bench.

In the meantime, ANI is pressing its application for takedown of the page, which was heard today by Justice Prasad.

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, argued that its page on Wikipedia had become an index of defamation for it.

"It is an aggregator of defamation," Kumar said, adding that Wikipedia represents the information as a matter of fact.

However, Wikipedia's counsel submitted that the platform is not like social media.

"Wikipedia is not like social media, it is like an encyclopaedia. All information is cross-referenced," Mehta said.

The Court asked Wikipedia whether a person can refuse to have a page about him on the platform.

ANI then said that this point has been raised in its suit. However, Wikipedia contended it has to be treated differently than social media.

ANI also submitted that page is continuously changing and further defamatory edits have been made.

Mehta submitted ANI has a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia's architecture. He added that a note would be submitted on how Wikipedia functions.

"The references in the Wikipedia article have been in public domain for number of years. It is not as simple as my friend put its," the senior counsel said.

After brief submissions, the matter was adjourned to October 28 after the Court found that the reply filed by Wikipedia was not on record before it.

The Court also directed the parties to submit a short note by this evening.