2 weeks Ago By Sharveya Parasnis
Explainer Briefly Slides Republic TV will be pursuing legal action against Wikipedia, Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami revealed on his channel on November 5. Goswami accused Wikipedia of having “an agenda” against Republic TV and “emphasising the lies and underplaying the truth” about the channel. He stated that they are currently exploring legal options and are planning to send the online encyclopaedia a legal notice.
They may also choose to sue Wikipedia, either separately or by joining issue in existing cases. Goswami also called it a “closely guarded, extremely radical left set up whose editorial control is in the hands of a few hundred so called editors or administrators.” This structure gave an “almost fascist power” to a select group of people who could ban users, black list sources or decide what edits to make.
These people depend on “radical left sources” and end up “peddling fake news.” “It is such a dangerous operation,” he commented. He dismissed any claim towards Wikipedia’s neutrality or accuracy.
“Wikipedia can never be trusted,” he declared. Similar grievance as ANI Republic’s grievances seem similar to those expressed by news wire agency Asian News International (ANI), which sued Wikipedia for defamation in July this year. ANI took issue over its entry in the online encyclopaedia, which accused it of serving as a “propaganda tool of the government” and misreporting events.
ANI complained in a hearing this week that the page was selectively negative and that Wikipedia editors blocked attempts to show the organisation in a more positive light. Wikipedia’s defense involved affirming its status as an intermediary that neither justified nor opposed the content on its website. It also did not claim that the content it hosted was accurate At the same time, it appealed against having to reveal the identity of its editors.
The court questioned this delicate position multiple times: if it is truly an intermediary, and the editors are anonymous and won’t come to court to defend themselves, why is Wikipedia defending them or attempting to avoid identifying them? The court also pointed out that since Wikipedia positioned itself as an encyclopaedia, disclaimers that it did not verify the content were insufficient. This status may soon be under threat, however, as the government has reportedly issued a notice to the platform over alleged instances of bias and inaccuracies. It questioned why Wikipedia should be treated as an “intermediary” and not a “publisher,” if only a small segment of users had editorial control.
Also Read:.
