Thursday, July 18, 2024

ANI Slams Wikipedia With A Defamation Case!

Must Read

In a significant turn of events, Indian news agency Asian News International or ANI, has filed a Rs 2 crore defamation suit against Wikipedia. The news agency highlights the platform’s biased and selective editing practices.

On 9th July 2024, the Delhi High Court heard ANI’s plea on the issue. Thereafter, it issued a notice to Wikipedia, with the next hearing set for 20th August 2024. As this legal battle ensues, let’s talk about the long-standing issue of Wikipedia’s partiality and its impact on reputations worldwide!

Wikipedia – Biased Moderators Tarnish Public Narratives?

- Advertisement -

Wikipedia is an “encyclopedia” that relies on user-generated content. It’s crowd-sourced and has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias. The moderators hired by the platform hold God-like powers on how the world views issues! Thus, the defamation suit by ANI exposes how Wikipedia’s top editors have abused their exclusive control over certain pages. Thereby, they have allowed defamatory content to remain on the public page dedicated to ANI.

- Advertisement -

The Wikipedia page inaccurately portrays ANI as a propaganda tool for the Central Government. It cites the Alt News, EUDisinforlabs, The Caravan, and The Wire’s content to showcase ANI as a fake news factory that misreports events. However, Alt News is known for Fake Narratives! And the other sources used by Wikipedia are biased to begin with! Additionally, these ‘fact-loving’ news media have their own long history of fake news! Since the platform has restricted the editing access to ANI’s page, ANI is unable to remove, edit, or even add context to the defamatory content. Consequently, this selective editing severely tarnishes ANI’s reputation worldwide and causes public harassment.

Editing Privileges On Wikipedia

Reports prove that Wikipedia’s modus operandi involves a hierarchical system where users gain editing privileges over time.

However, this system is heavily skewed. Left-leaning editors are more likely to ascend to top-level positions. Thus, they exert immense control over the public narrative. Right-leaning editors, despite providing accurate and well-cited information, often find their contributions deleted or reverted. Example: Elon Musk insists that the Wikipedia page on Tesla contains misinformation! Thus, the bias is evident in how Wikipedia handles pages related to non-left news portals, journalists, and public figures; even in India.

The ANI Case: A Fight Against Defamation

Delhi High Court to Hear Defamation Suit Against Wikipedia by ANI – The Legal Affair
PC The Legal Affair

ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia is a landmark case that seeks to challenge entrenched bias against the right-wing.

- Advertisement -

ANI argues that Wikipedia has maliciously published false and misleading content. The restricted editing access to the ANI page seems like a deliberate attempt to malign the reputation of the news agency. The stain on ANI is solely based on a one-sided narrative emboldened by Wikipedia’s policies. However, this move is not an isolated incident. It is a small part of a broader pattern where Leftist ideology controls the narrative through platforms like Wikipedia!

The legal arguments in ANI’s case primarily revolve around provisions under the Information Technology (IT) Act, of 2000. ANI contends that Wikipedia, as an intermediary, is liable for the defamatory content it hosts. The IT Act provides certain protections for intermediaries, but these protections are conditional. Intermediaries must remove harmful content upon being informed. And Wikipedia has failed to do so in ANI’s case. Thereby, it highlights a clear breach of this duty and a well-targeted rhetoric against ANI.

The Bigger Picture Of Wikipedia’s Systemic Bias?

Summons to Wikimedia Foundation against deletion of author & BJP spokesperson Tuhin Sinha's page - NewsBharati
PC NewsBharati

The ANI defamation case is not an isolated incident but part of a larger issue with Wikipedia’s systemic bias. Numerous instances have shown how the platform selectively deletes pages of renowned journalists and authors who express views favorable to the government. For example, Wikipedia deleted the profiles of BJP spokesperson and author Tuhin Sinha and journalist Chaiti Narula after they praised “The Kashmir Files” film. While Sinha’s profile was restored after a legal battle, Narula’s profile remains deleted.

Wikipedia editors accused of deleting profiles of people who praised 'The Kashmir Files'
PC OpIndia

Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger has publicly criticized the platform’s left-leaning bias, warning that it is no longer trustworthy.

In an interview Sanger pointed out that Wikipedia now only reflects the views of the “establishment” and systematically removes content that does not fit the leftist agenda. Tesla and X’s chief, Elon Musk is also repeatedly targeted by Wikipedia and is often called out for its editorial bias.

Therefore, Wikipedia as a platform has a complicated relationship with facts.

Word to the Wiki-Wise

If You Believe Wikipedia Is Not Biased You Should Definitely Read This - ED Times | Youth Media Channel
PC ED Times

Wikipedia is the largest “go-to” portal for information.

Even Google presents Wikipedia links as one of the first sources for any search.

However, when the truth is controlled by a narrative, the information becomes biased and incorrect. Such is the case of Wikipedia’s defamation case by ANI. As the case progresses, it will likely reveal more about Wikipedia’s deep-rooted issues with bias and editorial control.

However, this very public legal battle about censorship could prompt a reevaluation of the platform’s practices. Hopefully, the powers given to its administrators and top-level editors will no longer be abused. Such a change may lead to a more balanced and fair representation of all viewpoints, ensuring that Wikipedia truly serves as a reliable and unbiased source of information.

In conclusion, ANI’s defamation suit against Wikipedia is a crucial step in challenging the biased practices by platforms. It highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in crowd-sourced information. Public access to information should not be controlled by those who want to influence or distort the truth. And information on individuals or organizations should always be unbiased. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how biased content on user-generated platforms is addressed in Bharat. Let’s hope for a more equitable digital information landscape uncontrolled by a one-sided narrative police.

- Advertisement -

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest Article