this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
2 points (66.7% liked)
India
628 readers
11 users here now
About
India-oriented community for lemmy.ml. This is a place to discuss about politics, culture, news, social issues, heritage and rants.
Rules
- Site-wide rule for lemmy.ml applies here by default
- Post must be related to India
- Share the archival link for articles behind a paywall
- Do not post content from sites that force user to create account
- Use of privacy-friendly front-end is encouraged
- Spam and advertisement will be removed immediately
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the sources were reliable, why didn't Wikipedia fight the case to its logical end?
It is a complex case.
Wikipedia aims to be viewed as an intermediary, not as a publishing company. This distinction reduces some of their responsibilities, but it also means they must allow ANI to sue the original authors. For Wikipedia, it is strategically better not to defend the accuracy of articles in court, as doing so could classify them as a publishing company, jeopardizing their operations in India. Instead they gave the data of the authors (who seem to be largely anonymous).
While Wikipedia is largely fact-based, it is not without errors and some articles may show bias. Unfortunately, negative aspects of India often get highlighted, overshadowing the country's magnificence.
Wikipedia aims to be seen as an encyclopedia, but not as an arbiter of truth. This means, like any encylopedia, its articles reflect the status of presently published knowledge. Whether the published knowledge are factual or not comes only into play when someone formally contests what is published, as in the present case.
However, unlike Wikipedia, courts do position themselves as arbiters of truth and allow both parties to make claims and counters as well as allowing parties to cross examine one another. The court invovled here has to rule if ANI is hurt rightfully, or not. Looks like no one will be contesting against ANI, as Wikipedia has bowed out.
Wikipedia positioning itself as a mere intermediary has a consequence on how people will view Wikipedia henceforth, including the percieved quality of its articles - Wikipedia itself did not take any position on whether the article is factual or not.