Is the Wikimedia Foundation about to sell out its editors—and its principles?
At a time of rising authoritarianism, the Wikimedia Foundation faces a choice it may celebrate—or regret—forever
The 2024 U.S. presidential election has been settled, but America—and the global order it has led for close to a century—is anything but. Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House is a sign that the authoritarian tide, which seemed to ebb with the rejection of Bolsonaro in Brazil, Le Pen in France, and Trump himself in 2020, is instead rising once more.
Institutions in media, business, law, and international NGOs have repeatedly bowed to pressure from hostile governments and populist figures, at times even enthusiastically embracing it. Jeff Bezos’ unconvincing defense of the Washington Post’s no-endorsement decision, followed by his obsequious congratulations to a victorious Trump, is just the most embarrassingly transparent recent example.
As a global NGO, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has an admirable track record of doing the opposite. Wikipedia has been blocked and unblocked in Turkey, restricted in mainland China for nearly a decade, and has been fined by Russia time and time again.* Each time, the Foundation has stood firm.
Now, the WMF faces a new test. It is one with immediate consequences for a few specific editors, and potentially lasting implications for all contributors—not to mention for Wikipedia’s unique role as a defender of free knowledge. Wikipedia has been here before, but this challenge comes at a precarious moment. More troubling, this time the Foundation has signaled it may buckle under pressure.
BJP vs. WMF
In the decade since he first ascended to power, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been widely criticized for restricting free speech, polarizing the nation along religious lines, and undermining the country’s democratic institutions. Wikipedia editors have documented this across a great many articles. The BJP recognizes Wikipedia’s influence and has responded in kind, first by aligning with right-wing critics of Wikipedia, and now pursuing legal action against it.
Section 79 of India’s Information Technology Act, similar to Section 230 in the U.S., protects “intermediaries” (platforms) from liability for user-generated content. The BJP is seeking to redefine Wikipedia as a “publisher” not protected by safe harbor statutes, both through an official inquiry by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and unofficially via lawsuit by BJP-aligned news agency Asian News International (ANI), which is suing three anonymous Wikipedia editors for defamation.
The WMF initially resisted ANI’s demands on the moral grounds of Wikipedia’s commitment to protecting user privacy and on the legal grounds of its intermediary status under Section 79. ANI has pressed its advantage, seeking contempt charges as the WMF first slow-walked its cooperation. And when Wikipedians created a new article about the case itself, “Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation”, the Delhi High Court declared it to be “interference” and ordered its removal within 36 hours.
With Jimmy Wales’ assent, the WMF removed and locked the page. As unhappy as Wikipedians were about it, blocking content can be temporary. If the Foundation reveals these editors’ identities, this is a decision it can never reverse.
In a recent court proceeding, WMF’s legal team offered a supposed middle path, proposing it take the unusual step of serving summons to the editors itself, thereby revealing their identities only to the court, not the wider public. Wikipedians, however, do not see this as a compromise—it’s capitulation. Last week, Wikipedia editors published an open letter to the Foundation, urging it to protect its volunteers’ privacy regardless of the outcome. It reads in part:
[W]e call upon the Foundation to prioritize the safety and well being of volunteers, even if it comes with a risk of legal action against the Foundation, or other costs. Any other action risks having a chilling effect on the work of volunteers … and only makes it more likely that such pressure will be exerted in future. In short, it jeopardizes the future of our shared project.
As of publication time, the petition has more than 800 signatories, including some of Wikipedia’s most active editors. The Foundation has yet to respond.
The Cost of Compliance vs. the Cost of Defiance
The WMF is undeniably in a difficult position. If it complies with the court order and reveals these editors’ identities, even privately to Indian authorities, it risks shattering the trust it has built with its volunteer base over more than 20 years. The right to edit Wikipedia anonymously is a core community value, one explicitly supported by WMF policy, and for precisely the reasons that matter here. Wikipedia maintains a “List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia”; if WMF itself plays a role in adding to it, the trust of its editor community under current leadership would be badly damaged, perhaps even lost for good.
And the consequences would not end with this case. Compliance may discourage contributions from editors worldwide, not just those under authoritarian rule. WMF submission could encourage other governments to make similar demands, putting Wikipedia in an untenable position and reducing its influence where free knowledge is needed most. In the wake of the U.S. election, many American editors are likely wondering whether they are at risk, too.
It’s worth acknowledging that the Foundation occasionally cooperates with subpoenas for serious matters involving threats of violence or child safety issues. Twice annually, it publishes a Transparency Report explaining such actions. However, acquiescence in this case would set a new precedent. Here there are no immediate threats—only political interests.
On the other hand, refusing to comply could lead to fines, sanctions, or even a total ban on Wikipedia in India. The repercussions could extend to other U.S.-based and international websites operating in the country. Given India’s status as the world’s most populous country and one of Wikipedia’s largest traffic sources, this would be a bitter pill to swallow. But there is reason to doubt India would go that far. The BJP has long complained on Twitter about “anti-Hindu bias” on Wikipedia, to little effect. Wikipedia is a widely-used resource, and blocking it would likely cause domestic public backlash and further harm India’s reputation internationally. That Indians primarily edit and read the English Wikipedia would make such a move more relevant to Wikipedia’s primarily Western audience.
How is This Even Close?
For now, the Wikimedia Foundation’s limited public response surely owes to legal and PR constraints. Consider, openly defying the High Court could provoke further sanctions and perhaps even punitive new laws. But its silence has done little to reassure Wikipedians.
The WMF faces an unenviable choice between complying with a repressive regime and losing the support of its community on one hand, and standing firm on its beliefs and losing an enormous readership on the other. Yet Wikipedia’s core values point to an obvious answer. Wikipedia has far more to lose by yielding to authoritarian demands than by defending its principles.
Wikipedia has plenty of experience being blocked in the world’s largest country, which was the case until India’s population surpassed China’s in April 2023. If India takes the most drastic step, the Foundation can stand proud in its resolve. But if Wikipedia surrenders now, this decision may go down as the latest example of the submission of truth and justice to illegitimate power in an era of emboldened tyrants—one from which its reputation may never recover.
*An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified WMF as the entity fined by Russia for “more money than actually exists in the entire world”. In fact, this was Google. The Wikipedian regrets the error.
Russia fined Google, not Wikipedia.