According to reports, Wikipedia has received a warning from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting asking why it shouldn't be regarded as a publisher rather than an intermediary. According to the Ministry, there is a perception that a tiny group controls the editorial direction of its pages, citing multiple complaints of prejudice and errors in the material it provides.
Wikipedia has previously maintained that it has no editorial control over the site's content because it is merely an intermediary. It should be mentioned that the news organisation ANI recently filed a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia's parent organisation, Wikimedia Foundation, in the Delhi High Court, claiming that the organisation was a propaganda weapon for the ruling administration.
Throughout the proceedings, the Court instructed the Foundation to demand that the government shut Wikipedia in India if it failed to identify the person or people who wrote this description.
Wikipedia's assertion that its content is derived from secondary sources does not release it from accountability for user-generated content, the Delhi High Court said on Monday.
Wikipedia's open-editing methodology was recently deemed "dangerous" by the Delhi High Court, which also expressed worries about the unfettered user-editing features that could result in the publication of false or damaging information on public figures and entities.
Despite repeated pleas from the Delhi High Court, Wikipedia has refused to identify the persons who allegedly made the alterations on ANI's page.
Wikipedia's legal team defended its editing model, pointing out that users are subject to rules requiring content that can be verified. Nonetheless, there is still disagreement over the lack of openness surrounding user identities in instances of false information.
_20241224104546_original_image_43.webp)
_20240720151751_original_image_12.webp)
