…

The Anti-Defamation League report concludes by offering specific advice that Wikimedia reconsider its approach to sensitive topics. The recommendations include creating a pool of experts on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The experts should be verified by the foundation and should moderate disputes that arise.

The ADL appeals to the precedent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back then, page edits on controversial topics were scrutinized by a team of medical experts. Instead of voting by simple majority, a narrow circle of specialists made the decision.

Wikipedia editors are skeptical of these proposals. The ADL is asking too much of Wikimedia, editor Andrei believes:

“I find this solution rather odd. The Foundation’s interference in the administration of language sections is very rare and hardly ever concerns the content of the articles. It just provides servers, domains, and infrastructure.”

Indeed, Wikimedia does not usually take responsibility for resolving conflicts. Despite having the power to completely replace the pool of administrators of an entire language section — which indeed happened in the cases of the Croatian, Chechen, and Chinese Wikis — the Foundation positions itself as a community of authors. It rarely issues statements to the press and regularly responds to defamation suits by citing sources. In the U.S., such lawsuits against Wikipedia almost always fall apart.

However, a lawsuit that is unfolding in India could set a precedent regarding Wikimedia’s legal liability. The foundation is being sued by the local news agency Asian News International (ANI) over an article claiming ANI spreads state propaganda and fake news.

Wikimedia first responded that the foundation “does not add or correct content” and that editorial decisions are made by a “global community of users.” However, the court found Wikimedia itself to be the proper defendant.

The case is being heard in Delhi, and Wikipedians have created a page about the trial. This is a common practice on the platform, but the Delhi High Court considered it an attempt to influence the proceedings and ordered the page to be removed. Wikimedia is now challenging this decision in India’s Supreme Court.

What matters in this process is not the history of a particular news outlet, but the fact that Wikimedia has been compelled to respond to the claims before a judge, says Dr. Aharoni Lir. She notes another crucial point: at the request of the court, the Foundation disclosed the details of the users who had corrected the article. …

I can search it, but do you have a description of what type of finance transaction are being processed this way still?