Wikipedia aims to be viewed as an intermediary, not as a publishing company. This distinction reduces some of their responsibilities, but it also means they must allow ANI to sue the original authors. For Wikipedia, it is strategically better not to defend the accuracy of articles in court, as doing so could classify them as a publishing company, jeopardizing their operations in India. Instead they gave the data of the authors (who seem to be largely anonymous).
While Wikipedia is largely fact-based, it is not without errors and some articles may show bias. Unfortunately, negative aspects of India often get highlighted, overshadowing the country’s magnificence.
If the sources were reliable, why didn’t Wikipedia fight the case to its logical end?
It is a complex case.
Wikipedia aims to be viewed as an intermediary, not as a publishing company. This distinction reduces some of their responsibilities, but it also means they must allow ANI to sue the original authors. For Wikipedia, it is strategically better not to defend the accuracy of articles in court, as doing so could classify them as a publishing company, jeopardizing their operations in India. Instead they gave the data of the authors (who seem to be largely anonymous).
While Wikipedia is largely fact-based, it is not without errors and some articles may show bias. Unfortunately, negative aspects of India often get highlighted, overshadowing the country’s magnificence.