/Wikipedia's Fight for Free Speech

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. I spend at least an hour each day browsing articles, falling down rabbit holes, and, most importantly, learning something new. With such a vast collection of information, boredom is rare. But that’s also the catch: with an abundance of knowledge comes controversy. Some entities are bound to take issue with what the Wikimedia Foundation hosts. The Censorship of Wikipedia article highlights that thirteen countries have either tried to censor information on Wikipedia or have blocked the site entirely.

For those unfamiliar, the Wikimedia Foundation governs Wikipedia and champions free access to information. Their mission is to empower people worldwide to collect, develop, and freely share knowledge, advocating for digital freedom, privacy, and an open internet. Yet, their mission has faced stiff opposition: in China, all versions of Wikipedia have been blocked since April 23, 2019. The Chinese government has a longstanding, tumultuous relationship with the Foundation, dating back to article blocks as early as 2004. This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with China’s Great Firewall, which censors content that might question government authority, criticize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or present narratives that counter state-approved information.

Another striking example of censorship is Turkey, which blocked Wikipedia entirely on April 29, 2017, after the platform labeled Erdoğan as a dictator and linked his government to terrorist activities. Turkey requested alterations to articles implying Turkish collaboration with terror groups, which Wikimedia refused. In response, the Turkish government implemented a blanket block that lasted nearly two years while Wikimedia appealed to Turkey's highest court. The Foundation launched an international campaign, gaining support from Turkish academics, journalists, and digital rights advocates who argued that blocking Wikipedia restricted academic freedom and access to information. Ultimately, the case was resolved on December 26, 2019, with Turkey’s Constitutional Court ruling that the block violated citizens' rights to freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Turkish Constitution.

"been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions" - Wikipedia Article on Asian News International

Now, another conflict is unfolding - this time with India. On July 9, 2024, Asian News International (ANI), India’s largest television news agency, filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation, alleging that the Wikipedia article describing ANI as a propaganda tool for the Indian government was defamatory. The Delhi High Court warned Wikimedia that its refusal to remove or alter this content could lead to Wikipedia being blocked in India, asserting that Wikipedia was "making, publishing, or circulating allegedly false, misleading, and defamatory content against ANI." The Foundation ultimately removed the article on ANI, complying with a court order, though not under direct governmental force. Since Wikipedia lacks a regional blocking mechanism, the article was removed globally. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s co-founder, explained, "if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here." An archived version of the article remains accessible here.

Justice Navin Chawla’s ruling went further, ordering Wikimedia to disclose personally identifying information of the editors who added the so-called defamatory edits. While Wikipedia doesn’t require real names, it does log email addresses and IPs, which are traceable under Indian law, where ISPs maintain subscriber information linked to government-issued IDs like Aadhaar. This means that Wikimedia's disclosure could allow the government to personally identify editors in India. Setting an unprecedented and dangerous example, the Foundation agreed to share this data, positioning itself as compliant with a court order that may lead to punitive actions against Wikipedia contributors.

The reality that individuals could face legal repercussions, or worse, for contributing in good faith to Wikipedia - using reputable sources to inform the public - is deeply unsettling. Nobody should fear a lawsuit for adding verified information, nor should the Wikimedia Foundation facilitate any country’s retreat from free speech protections. While the U.S. is imperfect in many ways, it supports robust freedom of speech protections that are unparalleled by many other countries. Wikipedia includes articles on scandals involving U.S. presidents, corporations, and high-profile figures without reprisal. If ANI’s case were heard in a U.S. court, it would likely be dismissed outright as an affront to free speech. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many other nations.

Looking ahead, this situation raises troubling questions: Could your browsing or editing activity become subject to a court order simply for engaging with information on government corruption, scandals, or censorship?

To clarify, Wikimedia is only temporarily complying with this order to retain its ability to appeal. They intend to fight this case to the highest court, and if they ultimately lose, they’ll restore the article, even if it means risking a block in India. For now, they must "play fair" to navigate the legal process. However, I personally believe that it would be better to allow the site to be blocked in India than to hand over private user information without consent. This order by the Indian court sets a dangerous precedent, signaling alarming implications for internet censorship, privacy, and the free flow of information.