NEW LESSONS FROM WIKIPEDIA

FINALLY, the Wikimedia Foundation has buckled to the demands of the Indian legal system.

- PRATIK KANJILAL

To secure a hearing, it has withdrawn global access to a page commenting on legal proceedings in a defamation suit filed by news agency ANI. It's a terrible precedent, but big brands do crumble when they are threatened with withdrawal of access to the huge Indian market.

Even Blackberry buckled after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which were coordinated using its secure messaging system. End-to-end encryption was the brand's USP, which it surrendered under pressure from the Manmohan Singh government. The self-inflicted wound helped destroy its business. On the contrary, Apple refused to help the US break into a terrorist's workplace iPhone in 2015-16.

However, those precedents concerned serious incidents of terrorism. The ANI case in the Delhi High Court concerns the standing of a news agency, which Wikipedia suggested could have been biased. The perception is not unique: the opinion has been widely shared for years on social media and the press. Besides, the issue is not of comparable scale, unless ANI is deemed to be an institution of national importance. Even PTI, as old as independent India, has never enjoyed that honour.

A lower court ordered Wikimedia to reveal the identities of editors who handled the apparently defamatory material. In high dudgeon, the high court made it clear that Wikimedia would not be heard unless it complied. And the defendant objected, quite rightly, that it would be a bad precedent.