October 23rd, 2024

In a first, Wikipedia takes down article globally after Delhi HC order

Wikipedia removed an article following a Delhi High Court order, marking a global first. The court ruled it interfered with ongoing proceedings in a defamation case against Wikimedia by ANI.

Read original articleLink Icon
In a first, Wikipedia takes down article globally after Delhi HC order

Wikipedia has removed the article titled "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation" following a directive from the Delhi High Court, marking the first instance of such a global takedown in the platform's history. The court ruled that the article's content, which included criticism of the defamation lawsuit filed by ANI against Wikimedia, constituted interference with ongoing court proceedings, violating the subjudice principle. The judges expressed concern that the article's characterization of the case could prejudice the legal process. ANI is suing Wikimedia for damages and for allegedly portraying the agency as a pro-government entity involved in spreading disinformation. The court has previously threatened to block Wikipedia in India due to its non-compliance with orders and the foundation's reluctance to disclose user information related to the article's edits. While the specific article has been removed, information about the case remains accessible through the ANI Wikipedia page.

- Wikipedia has taken down an article for the first time globally due to a court order.

- The Delhi High Court ruled the article interfered with ongoing legal proceedings.

- ANI is suing Wikimedia for defamation and seeking damages.

- The court has previously threatened to block Wikipedia in India for non-compliance.

- The case highlights tensions between legal proceedings and media reporting.

Link Icon 7 comments
By @aspenmayer - 6 months
https://archive.is/POAuW

The page in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W...

> The Wikimedia Foundation has suspended access to this page due to an order by the Delhi High Court, without prejudice to the Foundation's rights. We are pursuing all available legal options.

> We remain committed to access to knowledge as a human right. We are working to ensure that everyone can access and share free knowledge on Wikipedia.

> This regards active litigation, and this page will be updated when we are able to share more information.

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:October_16_2024_A...

The prior page has been scrubbed from the history of the page, which I have never seen before.

Most recent archive of page I could find:

https://archive.is/dNTEl

Court case info says "pending" with next court date being listed as October 25, 2024:

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new...

https://archive.is/yPgzv

By @gruez - 6 months
It's weird that wikipedia took down the page for all users, rather than only for Indian users. AFAIK most tech companies only comply with "political" takedown requests (I'm using this broadly to include anything between blasphemy/lese majeste laws and defamation/right to be forgotten laws, as opposed to something like DMCA requests) in the country where the takedown was issued, leaving it up for other countries. Does the wikimedia foundation not have the infrastructure to do geo-targeted takedowns? Or was this the intended outcome?
By @potamic - 6 months
This is going to be quite the controversial case, whether a platform is responsible for surfacing information published by other sources. In this ongoing suit, ANI is going after editors of Wikipedia for defamation instead of the original authors. What today applies to Wikipedia, may tomorrow apply to social media platforms where users can be charged for simply sharing links.
By @rchard2scout - 6 months
According to Jimbo Wales, they complied in order to not "lose the possibility to appeal". Apparently, "the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step." WMF lawyers are doing "everything [they] can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c...

By @elashri - 6 months
I actually had some hopes that this particular court would make the first win for Sci-hub against publishers. But it seems this is very optimistic (not to mention dragging for years now).
By @theanonymousone - 6 months
I remember Facebook obeying a similar order last year or so (From India, for global users). Is that the new normal?
By @adastra22 - 6 months
This is headline bait. The article in question is about a lawsuit in which Wikipedia is the defendant. The court said that they needed to take down the article just until the lawsuit is resolved, to prevent jury tampering.

This is a nothing burger.