Why has the Indian government issued a notice to Wikipedia? Explained in 5 points

Wikipedia is facing regulatory issues in India. The government has issued a notice to the company questioning its intermediary status, one that is offered to tech platforms in India.

In Short

• MIB questions Wikipedia's intermediary status in India
• Delhi High Court warns Wikipedia of a potential ban
• Outcome could set a precedent for Wikipedia's global operations

Wikipedia has been facing a lot of uncertainties in India since the last few months. In September, there were reports of Delhi High Court criticising Wikipedia and a warning of a potential ban in India. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has now issued a notice to Wikipedia, challenging its intermediary status, which is provided to tech platforms in India. Here is everything that is happening in the Wikipedia case in India, in 5 points.

–The MIB has reportedly questioned why Wikipedia should not be classified as a publisher instead of an intermediary. The ministry says it has concerns regarding centralised editorial control and frequent complaints about bias and inaccuracies on the platform.

–Nikhil Chawla, a prominent commentator on technology policy, argues that the Indian government may misunderstand the IT Act’s protections for online platforms. According to Chawla, platforms like Wikipedia qualify as "intermediaries" because they serve as conduits for user-generated content, not as primary publishers. He explains, “If my blog post allows comments, I’m a publisher for my post, and an intermediary for your comments.” Chawla also notes that there’s no legal requirement in the IT Act mandating a minimum number of editors for intermediary status. He believes that holding platforms accountable for user content could threaten their viability, highlighting the challenges Wikipedia and others face in managing user edits without being liable for them.

–Wikipedia, on the other hand, has maintained that it will continue to offer the “right to share and access free and reliable knowledge in an open and safe online environment” for its Indian customers.

Wikipedia says that the content on its platform is created, edited, and approved by volunteers using publicly available sources, rather than original research or personal opinions. This stance emerged as the Delhi High Court warned that Wikipedia could face a ban in India if it failed to cooperate with the court. The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, expressed surprise at the case’s escalation, noting that it had informed the petitioners that it would seek guidance from the court before the recent hearing. Wikimedia claims it was acting in good faith and that the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings prematurely.

–According to Wikipedia, its editorial guidelines allow only encyclopaedic content from reliable sources, such as newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. The current defamation case, however, raises concerns about volunteer-generated content, especially as it’s built from publicly accessible information.

–The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent. Globally, Wikipedia has faced scrutiny from governments, celebrities, and public figures over content on its pages. Since Wikipedia relies on volunteers to compile information from trusted sources, it sometimes faces legal and reputational challenges when the content is disputed. This case could thus impact Wikipedia’s operations and its approach to content regulation in India.