As Modi govt issues notice to Wikipedia, here are 6 problematic things OpIndia found about the ‘free encyclopedia’ in our dossier

While Wikipedia claims that everyone is free to edit, the truth is that there are only a handful of people who have the ultimate say in what content is added and what isn’t.

On Tuesday (5th November), the Modi government sent a notice to Wikipedia pointing out the biased and inaccurate information published by the ‘free encyclopedia.’

The notice was issued by the Union Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry. It highlighted the hegemony of a small group of editors and their control over its content.

The Modi government has asked Wikipedia why it shouldn’t be treated as a publisher instead of an intermediary. It is important to mention that OpIndia highlighted the same issue in its 187-page dossier published on 9th September 2024.

“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.

Wikipedia, which is owned by Wikimedia Foundation, is currently in the midst of legal cases in India for its inaccurate and defamatory targeting of various organisations including ANI.

The news agency had accused Wikipedia of tarnishing its reputation and discrediting its goodwill. The news agency also sought ₹2 crore in damages from Wikipedia.

During the course of preparing the dossier, OpIndia discovered 6 disturbing things about the ‘free encyclopedia’

1. Wikipedia is not neutral

Wikipedia in all its communication purports that it is a free-for-all online encyclopaedia which depends on the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to general ‘free knowledge’ for the entire world. They essentially claim that Wikipedia is a free, fair and ‘neutral’ platform.

Wikipedia’s pronounced ideological bias has been carefully and structurally cultivated. There is existing research, including the analysis of Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sengar, which has detailed how Wikipedia is not neutral.

The research cites three prior researches to bolster its case. Research by the Manhattan Institute published in June 2024 by David Rozado concluded that Wikipedia heavily leans towards the Left.

The Critic Research focuses on two internet policies of Wikipedia – Neutral Point of View and Reliability. The research concludes that it is
the editors who decide which sources are reliable to be cited and which are not.

Those considered reliable lean Left and Right-leaning are blacklisted. Therefore, a Neutral Point of View merely means that ‘reliable sources’ are represented thoroughly. Not that all points of view would be represented.

Third is Larry Sengar who has widely criticized Wikipedia for being Left-leaning, unreliable and biased.

2. Wikipedia is tightly controlled

While Wikipedia claims that everyone is free to edit, the truth is that there are only a handful of people who have the ultimate say in what content is added and what isn’t.

It is also a handful of people who have the power to ban edits, ban editors, decide disputes, delete pages, lock pages, override content etc.

There are merely 435 active administrators across the world who have sweeping powers. There are only 10 active members of ArbCom.

It is also true that there are many editors and administrators who are actively paid by the Wikimedia Foundation under the ‘editor retention program’.

Further, the Wikimedia Foundation pays many of them in the name of ‘grants for projects’. Wikipedia indeed has a solid hierarchy just as any other publishing house with strict editorial control and editorial lines that the editors and administrators toe.

3. ‘Anonymised’ funding and its use by Wikimedia Foundation

The Tides Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation give money to each other, but chart it as ‘anonymous’ donations
because they are not obligated to reveal details when it’s a donor-directed fund.

The Wikimedia Foundation has enough money to keep Wikipedia alive and running for decades, even if does not earn another penny either from donations or donations from corporations.

The fact that the Wikimedia Foundation continues to get donations and grants much beyond what it needs to run Wikipedia, in the name of Wikipedia, points to a few things.

Firstly, the Wikimedia Foundation is spending millions in grants to further its own business interests. Second, it is extending grants to Left organisations with the money it collects in the name of keeping Wikipedia alive and claiming that without these donations, Wikipedia would
cease to exist (a lie).

All of this happens behind the garb of keeping ‘knowledge free’ and Wikimedia uses this trope to skirt the law of the land, especially in India, as would be demonstrated further in this paper.

According to the Wikimedia Endowment Fund page current, here are some notable patrons of the Tide Foundation run endowment fund which is noteworthy:

1. Amazon – $5 million+
2. Google.org – $2 million +
3. George Soros – $2 million +
4. Musk Foundation – $2 million+
5. Facebook – $1 million+
6. The Rothschild Foundation – $50,000+

4. Wikipedia supports anti-India, anti-Hindu organisations

The Tides Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation provide donations and grants to several anti-Hindu, anti-India organisations and elements.

They have given grants to Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) which has links to Islamists and Khalistanis and was formed in 2019 by two Islamist advocacy groups, Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI).

The Tides Foundation has disbursed grants to the Association for India’s Development (AID) which has campaigned for Naxal Binayak Sen, funded Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO and also has connection to separatists.

Further, Tides has funded AMAN Public Charitable Trust (AMAN) – The trust lists several prominent organizations as partners, including the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation, Oxfam, European Commission for Humanitarian Organisations, and others.

Aman has received funding from the Tides Foundation, which has been linked to various organizations that promote left-leaning agendas, including anti-Hindu and anti-India narratives. Aman Public Charitable Trust is connected to the NewsClick-China funding scandal, where it is alleged that Chinese entities funded NewsClick to disrupt Indian sovereignty.

NewsClick’s founder, Prabir Purkayastha, was arrested on charges of receiving more than ₹80 crore from Chinese companies. Dilip Simeon,
the Chairman of Aman Public Charitable Trust, was named in the NewsClick FIR by Delhi Police for his involvement in attempts to sabotage India’s 2019 General Elections.

Tides Foundation also has worked with Alliance India, which is chaired by DY Qureshi. Links have also emerged in the research with the OCCRP, George Soros and the Adani Attack.

Wikimedia Foundation funds Arts+Feminism which spread fake news about CAA in India, leading to violence. It also funds Whose Knowledge, which in turn is connected with Equality Labs and Black Lunch Table.

It also funds Black Lunch Table separately. It is pertinent to note that Whose Knowledge, funded by the Wikimedia Foundation partners with Art+Feminism, Equality Labs and CIS – all of which receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation among others.

It also partners with ‘Black Lunch Table’ – which is also funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Foundation also funds Access Now. On the Board of Access Now is Seema Chisti.

Seema Chisti, who is the wife of Communist Sitaram Yechury and editor of TheWire, is also an advisor at National Foundation for India –
which funds AMAN along with Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation and others.

Other advisors include Dhanya Rajendran of The News Minute and P Sainath. Interestingly, Dhanya Rajendran and P Sainath, both have featured prominently in the NewsClick-China funding case.

Apart from funding through CIS-India, we also found that Wikimedia pays individuals like ‘ArtWhoring’ for collaborations in promoting programs like ‘Know The Wiki’.

5. Wikipedia does not submit to Indian laws

Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has no presence in India. It has declared in the BBC documentary controversy that it is a foreign entity and therefore, Indian courts have no jurisdiction over it.

Despite having no presence in India, it has consistently funded entities and individuals to further its own business and ideological interests in India.

Wikimedia Foundation regularly solicits donations from India. That donation, since it comes from individuals, it not against the law. However, Wikimedia not only takes donations from India, it spends millions of dollars in India as well.

All of this, while refusing to submit to Indian laws. While it continues to toe a rigid editorial line on Wikipedia, it insists that it is an intermediary and not a publisher.

6. Wikipedia is not an ‘intermediary’ but a publisher

By definition, an intermediary is not supposed to follow a specific editorial line. It is meant to merely be a platform for the public to air their own views. However, that is not the case with Wikipedia.

Firstly, not everybody can air their views on Wikipedia. Secondly, only a small group of editors and administrators have the final say on the nature of content that is added in any articles, making the articles one-sided, biased, and toeing a specific ideological line.

Thirdly, several of these so-called ‘volunteers’ are paid by the Wikimedia Foundation to further their ideological and business interests.

The sources that are allowed to be quoted in Wikipedia articles also suffer the same bias, often injected by editors and administrators who are directly paid by Wikimedia Foundation.

With all of these realities, Wikipedia does not fall under the intermediary category, but the publisher category – additionally – a publisher that is actively undermine the interest of India without following the law of India – financially or editorially.