'You are not telling us who author is, this structure needs to go,' Delhi HC tells Wikipedia

Srinagar, Oct 15: The Delhi High Court Monday warned the open-source information platform- Wikipedia-that its working while maintaining anonymity of users and administrators responsible for making edits to pages would have to be discontinued.

The division bench of the HC took a strong objection to a page on the platform- 'Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation'- while the matter is sub-judice, the court orally remarked that ''it will have to be taken down by your client in case he wants to be heard.''

The court said the Wikimedia may be the world's powerful entity, but they cannot threaten a judge, Indian Express reported.

The court of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing an appeal moved by WMF against a single-judge order of August 20 where it had directed the Foundation to disclose the details of four administrators in a defamation suit filed by media house ANI against WMF pertaining to edits made in its page on the news agency.

The WMF's challenge against the order of single judge Justice Navin Chawla's was objected to by the division bench. The WMF had challenged the order on the grounds that parties cannot be directed to disclose details without an injunction or takedown order, that is, without a preliminary finding of “legal wrong”, as argued by senior advocate Akhil Sibal, representing WMF.

CJ Manmohan orally remarked, “Suppose someone has made slanderous allegations, you will not disclose?”

WMF's advocate pointed out that it functions on a design of self-regulation through a community of registered and unregistered users who can make edits, while administrators and bureaucrats in the community ensure 'checks and balances.' They are all anonymous.

Sibal additionally submitted that such direct disclosure orders can become a precedent and added that they are challenging the same “on principle”.

Unimpressed by WMF’s argument, CJ Manmohan remarked, “The system cannot be a cloak… The architecture has been devised by you… You’re more than an intermediary… Your system will have to go, you’re a non-transparent system… You’re not even telling us who is the author of this. You can’t get away by saying someone is an agent… You’re protecting the identity of the person who has done this… We are warning you…”