Wikipedia has been facing a lot of uncertainties in India for the last few months. In September, there were reports of the Delhi High Court criticizing Wikipedia and warning of a possible ban in India. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has now issued a notice to Wikipedia, challenging its intermediary status, which is provided to tech platforms in India. Here’s everything that’s happening with Wikipedia in India, in 5 points.

-MIB has reportedly raised questions as to why Wikipedia should not be classified as a publisher rather than an arbiter. The ministry says it is concerned about centralized editorial control and frequent complaints about bias and inaccuracies on the platform.

-Nikhil Chawla, a leading commentator on technology policy, argues that the Indian government may be misunderstanding the IT Act’s protections for online platforms. According to Chawla, platforms like Wikipedia qualify as “intermediaries” because they act as mediums for user-generated content, not as primary publishers. He explains, “If my blog post allows comments, I am a publisher for my post, and a moderator for your comments.” Chawla also said that there is no legal requirement in the IT Act to mandate a minimum number of editors for intermediary status. They believe that holding platforms responsible for user content could threaten their viability, highlighting the challenges Wikipedia and others face in managing user edits without being held accountable for them.

-Wikipedia, on the other hand, has said that it will continue to provide “the right to share and use free and trusted knowledge in an open and secure online environment” to its Indian customers.

Wikipedia says that content on its platform is created, edited, and approved by volunteers using publicly available sources rather than original research or personal opinion. The stance came after the Delhi High Court warned that Wikipedia could face a ban in India if it failed to cooperate with the court. The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, expressed surprise at the escalation of the case and said it had informed the petitioners that it would seek guidance from the court before the recent hearing. Wikimedia claims that it was acting in good faith and that the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings prematurely.

-According to Wikipedia, its editorial guidelines allow only encyclopedic content from reliable sources such as newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. However, the current defamation case raises concerns about volunteer-generated content, especially when it is created from publicly accessible information.

-The outcome of this case could set an important precedent. Globally, Wikipedia has faced scrutiny from governments, celebrities, and public figures over the content of its pages. Because Wikipedia relies on volunteers to compile information from reliable sources, it sometimes faces legal and reputational challenges when content is disputed. This case may thus impact Wikipedia’s operations and its approach to content regulation in India.