Disclaimer won’t absolve you of anything: HC to Wikipedia
The Delhi high court said Wikipedia’s disclaimer that its content is based on secondary sources could not absolve it from responsibility for what users write.
The Delhi high court on Monday said Wikipedia’s disclaimer that its content is based on secondary sources could not absolve it from responsibility for what users write on its pages, pulling it up for apparent reluctance in sharing details of users who made edits to a page at the centre of a defamation fight.
Also Read: Why Delhi high court called Wikipedia editing function ‘dangerous’
The single-judge bench of justice Subramonium Prasad made the remark while hearing the defamation suit filed by news agency ANI over its description in the Wikipedia page about it, which has snowballed into a larger judicial tussle over the liability and duties of intermediaries -- online providers of a service -- when the content posted by their users is caught in a legal tangle.
Also Read: Wikipedia ready to give details of who edited page
The disclaimer could not act as a “Kavach of Karna”, said Justice Prasad, referring to the mythical shield in the epic Mahabharata, and added that it was “troubling” that the platform represented itself as an encyclopaedia while claiming not to endorse what was written on it.
Also Read: Delhi HC directs Wikipedia to take down page on ANI suit against the platform
“What is troubling me is that your representation to the people that I am an encyclopaedia... If you claim yourself to be an encyclopaedia, [and] you have brought out the policy, then you will also have to take the responsibility... (if someone flouts the policy). Disclaimer will not absolve you of anything or everything that is written,” the judge said to senior advocate Jayant Mehta, who was representing Wikipedia.
The court made this remark after Mehta submitted that Wikipedia’s content was not factually accurate and came with a disclaimer that the information was based on secondary sources. The lawyer representing Wikipedia said his clients have not claimed the content was factually correct and verified, but state that it was added through open, editable collaboration.
The defamation hearing also evolved into a separate hearing when Wikipedia moved a division bench to challenge the single-bench order to turn over the details of the users who made the edits on the Wikipedia page. On October 28, the company volunteered before the division bench to hand over in a sealed cover the details it had on the users who made the edits. The next hearing in this parallel case will be on November 8 when the court examines a request for a consent order to accept the sealed cover submission.
During Monday’s hearing, the court questioned Wikipedia for defending the subscribers who edited ANI’s page.
“As an intermediary, why are you bothered? If someone else has edited and that addition is without bias, then it comes down. Because for some reason defendant 2, defendant 3, defendant 4 are not before the court. They are editors. If you (Wikipedia) are a mere wall, why should I even hear you? Why should you be here to defend defendant 2, defendant 3 and defendant 4?” Justice Prasad asked Mehta.
He added, “If it is in your page and if the makers do not want to come before (the court) to defend their statements, why are you here to defend their statements? You do not know who has made this comment. If you do not know, how can you permit these comments to come on your page? Where is the locus of the defendant number 1 (Wikipedia) even to argue that the plaintiff (ANI) has made out a case or not?”
The court posted the matter for November 6 and asked Wikipedia to answer why editors of an encyclopaedia should not make their names public.
