Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-11-06/Special report
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
Wikipedia editors face defamation accusation, breach of privacy, and censorship
On 21 October 2024 the Wikimedia Foundation removed access to the Wikipedia article titled, Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation in response to a demand by the Delhi High Court. This followed Asian News International, a news agency in India, suing Wikipedia for defamation and seeking the identity of three Wikipedia editors who had contributed to the article. Here follows a community perspective of what happened.
First, the defamation claim
Briefly: Wikipedia editors avoid original research, and instead they summarize reliable sources while citing those sources. From a Wikipedia editor's perspective, the complaint in this case is directed at Wikipedia and particular editors for summarizing what reputable news sources have said. This does not make sense to Wikipedians, because summarizing reliable sources is how the site ensures high quality content.
Asian News International, a news agency in India, complained about the Wikipedia article about itself. The Wikipedia article contained information which the organization felt was defamatory. It was unable to negotiate removal of that information from the article, and in response, filed a court case asking for content removal related to defamation. Asian News International speaks for itself; please seek comment from them and other journalists who have focused on their perspective for a more complete view.
From a Wikipedia editor perspective, the complaint was that Wikipedia summarized what was already contained in reliable sources. As is well known, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or source of original research. Consequently, Wikipedia is not the originator of information, but rather relies on knowledge creators such as journalists and researchers to publish information. Wikipedia editors then summarize this information into Wikipedia articles and cite the source of information so that anyone else can fact-check it. When a critic accuses Wikipedia of being wrong or incorrect, then Wikipedia editors and fact-checkers react in ways that include checking that the information in Wikipedia matches the information which is in the original sources, and also evaluating the reliability and respectability of the original sources.
The controversial assertion is that Asian News International spreads propaganda. Sources which have asserted this include BBC, The Caravan, The Ken, Newslaundry, and The Diplomat. Wikipedia editors summarized those sources while citing them. Wikipedia editors are not journalists; as encyclopedia editors, they do not need to be, because the role of a Wikipedia editor is simply to summarize what reputable journalists and academics say, cite their sources, and to be mindful to cite high quality, reliable sources. Anyone who wishes to examine the original articles which Wikipedia editors have cited and the way that they represented the original journalism in the Wikipedia article can check the relevant article revisions, such as the present version. Wikipedia editors are proud of the content and it meets Wikipedia's typical quality control standards.
Wikipedians often take for granted that there is shared global notion of what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia editors have summarized the views of external commentators in the Wikipedia article, "Reliability of Wikipedia", but the Wikipedia community itself has defined its concept of reliability in guidelines including Wikipedia:Reliable sources and in forums including the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. More specifically, Wikipedia editors conduct and log evaluations of particular sources for their reliability for fact-checking other topics, as for example the community review of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Asian_News_International Asian News International on its reliability. When Wikipedia editors evaluate the reliability of a source, they are not passing a moral judgement on whether a source is good or bad, well or ill-intentioned, biased or neutral. Instead, they seek to review evidence that a source conforms to journalism ethics and standards in its social context. Both a major media house and a modest student newspaper can be considered reliable sources for their scope of journalism, and reliable sources for one cultural community may conflict and give contrary information to reliable sources from another demographic perspective. It can even happen that sources find different absolute facts, and both be reliable and worth reporting in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the mediator or judge of absolute truth; instead it seeks to report what journalism as an institution in the humanities has reported. Sources like BBC may be biased or incorrect, but Wikipedia editors confirm that such as it is, it is journalism and a perspective worth summarizing to present in the encyclopedia.
The cultural collision between Wikipedia editorial culture and Asian News International is that ASI seems more interested in challenging Wikipedia's way of summarizing and citing information from other sources, than it is in challenging the original journalists and news agencies. A question that immediately arises to Wikipedia editors is why the organization would challenge Wikipedia rather than filing a lawsuit against BBC as a major international news source, or against the news agencies in India which published the original claims which Wikipedia is citing. In this case, Wikipedia editors have found multiple reliable sources making similar assertions, and so far Wikipedia editors have not identified other sources of similar standing which report any different perspective. Wikipedia editors expect that if someone wants a claim modified in Wikipedia, then they should use options such as challenging the reliability of the cited sources, correct Wikipedia editors in summarizing those sources in Wikipedia, or present sources with differing perspectives. It might be the case that ASI feels that journalism is ephemeral and not worth challenging, while Wikipedia is persistent, higher traffic, and more influential. Also, perhaps Wikipedia is more attractive as a target than the other media houses. The available information does not clarify exactly what the problem is. The contested and defamatory claims are not clearly identified.
Wikipedia editors find such complaints and behavior puzzling. Instead, Wikipedia editors wish that critics would do things like complain about the journalists and publications who made the original claims, or challenge Wikipedia's evaluation of a source's reliability, or critique Wikipedia's accuracy in summarizing sources in encyclopedia articles.
Second, the privacy of Wikipedia editors
Briefly: From a Wikipedia community perspective, Asian News International and the court are inappropriately seeking to harm some of the editors who took content from those news sources, and repeated those claims in Wikipedia with citations to the original sources. Wikipedia editors are in solidarity that these users have a right to privacy for editing Wikipedia articles, especially in routine editing like this which complies with Wikipedia's process for fact-checking and quality control.
Asian News International complained about defamation. As part of that, the court demanded that the Wikimedia Foundation reveal the identity of the editors who brought those claims into the Wikipedia articles.
Going back to 2001 at the founding of Wikipedia, the community of editors have had some shared understanding and rules. All of these values have been endlessly repeated, but for anyone who wants to hear how Wikipedia works again, here is the explanation again. Also consider checking any of the thousands of previously published explanations of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia does not produce original thought or research like a newspaper or university, but instead, it summarizes and cites what reliable sources publish. The reason why anyone can edit Wikipedia is that authorship should not matter, as all editors bring in claims from other publications. Since Wikipedia editors cite their sources, anyone else can fact check that the Wikipedia editors correctly summarized the original assertion, and that they cited a reliable source. Wikipedia editors become confused when anyone criticizes the content which Wikipedia reports in the absence of criticism of the original journalism.
Because there is rarely any reason to connect a person's offline identity to their Wikipedia user account, most Wikipedia editors do their editing through a Wikipedia username. The concept of an Internet handle or username is a basic idea in understanding the Internet. Major social media platforms allow this, and there are standards for privacy in that generally when someone makes an account, they have an expectation that the platform host will have a standard for privacy protection. People who edit Wikipedia, especially when they edit by the rules, have a right to privacy.
To request the identity of Wikipedia editors who cite journalists seems like an action intended to have a chilling effect on Wikipedia editing. Undoubtedly, an organization like the BBC is prepared to defend its journalists. Wikipedia editors include volunteers around the world, and these volunteers are never as close to legal protection as, for example, credentialed journalism staff at the BBC would be. It is highly worrisome to Wikipedia editors that anyone would skip criticizing the original journalism, skip criticizing Wikipedia's practice of mirroring and citing journalism, and focus on actions which bring global attention and the associated danger of that to Wikipedia's global community of volunteer editors. Random Internet people have the right to post content to the Internet, and those rights are even greater when their activity is Wikipedia editing to share fact-checked general reference information from reputable media sources.
Third, censorship of the Wikipedia article discussing the first two
Briefly: In response to the court case, conventional news journalists outside of Wikipedia published stories covering the court case. This is how everyone got information about the defamation case and the threat to editor privacy. As Wikipedia editors do, they made an article about the court case, citing those journalists. The court demanded censorship of that article. Wikipedia editors object to this removal.
The defamation case went to court, and that included the issue of revealing the identity of Wikipedia editors. There were journalists observing the court case, and they published stories. When those journalists published stories, then Wikipedia editors created an article titled, Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. As usual, that Wikipedia article was a summary of what journalists had written about the topic, and content in that article included a citation to the original source which anyone could use for fact checking.
The court objected to Wikipedia editors producing an article about an ongoing court case because of India's laws around subjudice. The court ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to delete the Wikipedia article about the court case or be held in contempt. On 21 October 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation suppressed it and its talk page.
We tell our own story
Wikipedia articles which provide background information on why these conflicts matter include freedom of speech, journalism ethics and standards, Internet privacy, censorship, and freedom of the press. Wikipedia editors collaborate to uphold good and ethical editorial standards. Wikipedia's editorial processes and fact-checking worked well in this case. Wikipedia editors demand the right to share knowledge, protect the privacy of its editors especially when they are compliant with our rules, and to not endure unfair censorship.
Other more specific Wikipedia articles which give context to relevant ethics and rights include Censorship of Wikipedia, Wikipedia in India, Censorship of Wikipedia, Contempt of court in India, Deletion of articles on Wikipedia, Disputes on Wikipedia, Wikipedia and fact-checking, and Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation.
Protect freedom of speech. Wikipedia editors encourage everyone in the world to examine our content and criticize it fairly. It is challenging to make sense of the court's perspective in this case. Please edit and develop any Wikipedia articles mentioned here.
In particular, support Wikipedia's community of editors in India. Particular help which could be useful includes asking Wikipedia editors in India what support they want, supporting them in accessing global resources of the Wikimedia Movement, and encouraging Wikimedia movement affiliates to include collaboration with Indian community organizations in their global Wikimedia content development plans. Everyone needs everyone else to sustain Wikipedia as a global information resource. Right now, it is very helpful to ensure that Wikipedia editors in India have what they need to develop Wikipedia independently, in the way that is best for them.
Discuss this story
So much for being on American servers. Turns out that didn't mean anything. --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journalism is "the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the 'news of the day'". Although we do not carry out original research, we do qualify as journalists under that definition. And I have official accreditation from international sporting bodies to support that claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: please link subjudice; this is not a common term (and the article links more mundane topics). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did exactly that, before reading your comment, for exactly the same reason 😅 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really helpful summary of an issue I hadn't made the time to get my head round. Thank you. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]