Wikipedia has consentn down an article titled ‘Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation,’ the entry on the ANI novels agency’s defamation legal case agetst the online encyclopedia’s parent establishation. This is the first instance of an English Wikipedia article being consentn down by the establishation in the encyclopedia’s history.
The consentdown chases an order by the Delhi High Court, where Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the Wikipedia page describing criticism of the legal case “amounts to meddlence in Court evolveings,” and that this vioprocrastinateedd the “subjudice principle”.
A Wikimedia spokesperson deteriorated to comment. Takedown or alteration asks have only been complied with in less than half-a-dozen instances in Wikipedia’s history, after asks from Germany, France and Ukraine, as per transparency increates started by the establishation since 2012. It is unclear whether in these instances individual pages were finishly erased, or definite pieces of satisfyed were actioned.
Judges occasionassociate chafe at shut increateing of court evolveings, such as in this case, where the division bench of Justices Manmohan and Gedela said that the characterisation of a previous ruling in the case as a danger to the “flow of increateation and comprehendledge” was prejudicial to the evolveings. This line was edited out of the article in its most recent state.
Also read | Delhi High Court alerts Wikipedia for non-compliance of order
The Conentice of Courts Act, 1971 does not ban the coverage of court evolveings. However, it only supplys for exemption for criticisms of a court order after a case has “been heard and finassociate choosed”.
The Wikipedia page on ANI remains useable, and much of the increateation on the page pledged to the court case is useable as a section in this article. The novels agency is suing the establishation for a description that currently says that the agency “has been accparticipated of spreading pro-rulement misincreateation, anti-Opposition disincreateation, engaging in partisan campaigning for the BJP, and using a immense nettoil of phony novels websites to push disincreateation.”
“I leank noleang can be worse for a novels agency than to be called a puppet of an inincreateigence agency, stooge of the rulement,” Justice Manmohan said on Monday. “If that is genuine, the credibility goes.”
ANI is seeking the page’s editing, and ₹2 crore in harms. The novels agency is also pursuing Netflix, Inc. in a split legal case for using footage from its archives for the show IC814: The Kandahar Hijacking.
The Delhi High Court has in previous orders dangerened to order the rulement to block the site in India and conveyed irritation at the establishation’s unwillingness to hand over increateation on the participaters who inserted the details on ANI’s Wikipedia article. That article has been locked to increateed editors for a restricted months, and the establishation disputed that the article is substantiated with references to established novels outlets who have dispenseigated ANI.
Published – October 21, 2024 10:57 am IST
