0

Wikipedia Bias
DOSSIER BY OPINDIA

Nupur J Sharma
OPINDIA
 1

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 5
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE DOSSIER – WHY ANALYSING WIKIPEDIA BIAS IS IMPORTANT ..................................... 5
SOME RESEARCH ON THE IDEOLOGICAL BIAS OF WIKIPEDIA .......................................................................... 7
RESEARCH BY MANHATTAN INSTITUTE .........................................................................................................................8
THE CRITIC RESEARCH ..............................................................................................................................................9
A MAP OF SCIENCE IN WIKIPEDIA ............................................................................................................................13
LARRY SANGER – CO-FOUNDER OF WIKIPEDIA............................................................................................................13
WHAT IS WIKIPEDIA STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................. 14
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA AND BIG TECH – ESPECIALLY GOOGLE ................................................. 16
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOOGLE AND WIKIPEDIA .......................................................................................................17
BIG-TECH RELIANCE – FROM GOOGLE TO YOUTUBE, AI AND MORE ................................................................................21
FOLLOWING THE MONEY: GOOGLE-WIKIMEDIA PARTNERSHIP – MORE TO IT THAN MEETS THE EYE ............ 23
GOOGLE FOUNDATION AND TIDES FOUNDATION .........................................................................................................24
WIKIMEDIA ENDOWMENT FUND ..............................................................................................................................26
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION .......................................................................................................................................30
WHERE DOES THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION MONEY COME FROM ..................................................................................30
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND TIDES FOUNDATION .................................................................................... 32
THE FUNDING BETWEEN WIKIMEDIA, TIDES FOUNDATION AND TIDES ADVOCACY ..............................................................32
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND TIDES FOUNDATION .......................................................36
TIDES FOUNDATION – FUNDING ANTI-INDIA, ANTI-HINDU ORGANISATIONS AND NARRATIVES ................... 37
WHO FUNDS THE TIDES NEXUS ................................................................................................................................37
WHO AND WHAT DOES TIDES NEXUS FUND ................................................................................................................39
Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) .................................................................................................................40
Associa8on for India’s Development (AID) ..................................................................................................46
Aman Public Charitable Trust – The NewsClick and Rajiv Gandhi Founda8on China funding connec8on...47
Alliance India – Chaired by Dr SY Qureshi....................................................................................................50
The Adani aRacks – Links to Tides, Soros, Congress, Delhi Riots and NewsClick-China funding case..........50
OTHER NOTORIOUS ORGANISATIONS THAT WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATIONS RUNS – ANTI-INDIA, ANTI-HINDU
AND BEYOND............................................................................................................................................... 54
ART+FEMINISM INC ..............................................................................................................................................54
WHOSE KNOWLEDGE? ...........................................................................................................................................60
Equality Labs ...............................................................................................................................................65
Black Lunch Table-Whose Knowledge partnership: Afro-Dalit project? ......................................................68
ACCESS NOW .......................................................................................................................................................71
WIKIPEDIA AND ITS ANTI-INDIA, ANTI-HINDU NARRATIVE ........................................................................... 80
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA ............................................................................................................................................81
DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING BY COUNTRY ....................................................................................................................87
2020 DELHI RIOTS ................................................................................................................................................90
HINDU TERRORISM ................................................................................................................................................96
The bias of the ar8cle – opinions passed off as fact, crimes of omission ....................................................96
The ‘talk’ page, a senior Wikipedia editor booked in India for crea8ng strife and bias.............................100
GODHRA TRAIN BURNING.....................................................................................................................................103
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN INDIA ...........................................................................................................................111
NARENDRA MODI ...............................................................................................................................................114
JAI SHRI RAM .....................................................................................................................................................118
 2

BIAS SOURCES – HOW SOURCES ARE BLACKLISTED, MAKING CONTENT BIAS ..............................................133
WIKIPEDIA IN INDIA ...................................................................................................................................141
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION IN INDIA – HISTORY OF ITS OFFICIAL CHAPTER .........................................................................141
HOW WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION CONTINUES TO FUND PROJECTS WITHOUT BEING PRESENT IN INDIA .....................................144
Wikimedia paying editors, admins and ‘volunteers’ through grants.........................................................144
Wikimedia Founda8on – CIS India .............................................................................................................147
‘Know With Wiki’ campaign and paid partnerships with ‘ArtWhoring’ and others...................................149
Wikipedia Kannada and Tulu – Funded by Wikimedia and CIS-India ........................................................155
Millions in ‘Grantmaking in South Asia’ – Dominated by India .................................................................155
Regional commi,ee – almost all members from India ...........................................................................................155
How Wikimedia funds editors through grant making .............................................................................................158
Wikimedia Founda@on Financials – How much money comes into “South Asia”? ................................................162
EXAMPLE OF HOW WIKIMEDIA IS PAYING TO KEEP WIKIPEDIA BIASED – FUNDING ‘NEWSLINGER’ ........................................163
DOES WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION SUBMIT TO INDIAN LAWS? .......................................................................167
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION’S REPLY TO IT GUIDELINES – HOW THEY LIED .........................................................................168
WHY WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PUBLISHER, NOT AN INTERMEDIARY ..............................................................173
COLONISING THE INTERNET, ONE WIKIFUNCTION AT A TIME: FUTURE PLANS OF WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION –
ABSTRACT WIKIPEDIA .................................................................................................................................174
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................177
DECLARE WIKIPEDIA AS A PUBLISHER ......................................................................................................................177
SCRUTINISE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ....................................................................................................................178
ESTABLISH BROWSER EXTENSION THAT MARKS BIAS ON WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ....................................................................178
EVALUATE WIKIPEDIA UNDER THE COMPETITION ACT 2002 ........................................................................................178
 3

Execu've Summary
This dossier has been prepared with the purpose of detailing how Wikipedia is not a free,
editorial interven<on free encyclopaedia which relies on the voluntary work of thousands of
unpaid, passionate volunteers across the globe, as claimed by the Wikimedia Founda<on.
This dossier is made with a special focus on India, Indian laws and India related content for
the purpose of formula<ng recommenda<ons about trea<ng Wikipedia as a publisher, which
is directly liable for the content published on its plaCorm.

The dossier delves briefly into various aspects of Wikipedia and its parent company – the
Wikimedia Founda<on in order to understand the various claims made by the Wikimedia
Founda<on about Wikipedia being a free-for-all-to-edit encyclopaedia, using reliable
sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, surviving on dona<ons etc. It also delves into
the grants that Wikimedia Founda<on gets, the en<<es it gets the grants from and the
en<<es and NGOs it gives grants to. Further, it aims to understand how Wikimedia
Founda<on, without maintaining its presence in India, is func<oning in India and funding
various en<<es for its business goals.
 4

The dossier first delves into the exis<ng research on the pronounced LeN bias of Wikipedia
and the elements that contribute to that bias. In all 3 research papers quoted, the
unambiguous conclusion is that Wikipedia has an inherent LeN bias. Wikipedia’s “NPOV”
(Neutral Point of View) guidelines does not mean that the en<re spectrum of views would
find equal representa<on in the ar<cle. The result of NPOV is merely that whatever details
are men<oned in the “reliable source” would be men<oned. The pool of “Reliable source”
itself is tainted since the editors and administrators, who have dispropor<onate power in
Wikipedia, ensure that “right wing” (non-LeN) sources are deprecated or blacklist – which
bars those sources from being cited as reference material in any of the Wikipedia ar<cles.

Larry Sengar, the co-founder of Wikipedia has categorically stated as well that Wikipedia has
a pronounced LeN bias. In several interviews and talks, he has spoken extensively about how
Wikipedia skews the scale of balance, leading to the informa<on being an inaccurate
representa<on of reality, ridden with LeN bias.

This research paper finds that the structure of Wikipedia itself gives unmi<gated power to a
handful of individuals who are called ‘administrators’. There are only 435 ac<ve
administrators in the en<re world who have power to ban editors, blacklist sources, ban
contributors and decide the edits that should be made or reverted on ar<cles. These few
administrators hold unbridled power in Wikipedia as far as the content is concerned. This
research also finds that many of these editors and administrators are paid by Wikimedia
Founda<on in forms of grants for Wikimedia related projects and therefore, it is conclusively
proven that Wikipedia is not the free-for-all-to-edit model that it claims it is. Jimmy Wales
himself admi]ed as well that he is the final arbitrator of content on Wikipedia.

The research then delves into where Wikimedia Founda<on gets its money from and where
it spends it money. This analysis is done with a specific focus on India. It is found that
Wikimedia Founda<on gets millions of dollars from highly mo<vated donor-directed-funds
including from Founda<ons like Open Society Founda<on, Rockefeller Founda<on, Tides
Founda<on and others. Google too donates millions to Wikimedia Founda<on and promotes
Wikipedia content, including funding projects like Abstract Wikipedia which essen<ally aims
to colonise the internet.

Wikimedia Founda<on has in<mate financial connec<ons with the clandes<ne Tides
Founda<on, which is accused of funding the pro-Hamas protests in US Universi<es along
with George Soros.

Wikimedia and Tides Founda<on also funds several organisa<ons which specifically work
against the interest of India and undermine its sovereignty on various levels.

Connec<ons of Wikimedia Founda<on and Tides Founda<on have been found with dubious
organisa<ons like Hindus For Human Rights, Equality Labs, Art+Feminism, Access Now, the
Hindenburg hitjobs against Indian industrialists and others.

In India, Wikimedia Founda<on has no presence. The presence they had in the form of a
registered society was closed in 2019. Despite folding in India, Wikimedia Founda<on not
only collects lakhs from India in the form of dona<ons but also funds NGOs in India which
 5

further the business interest of Wikimedia Founda<on. All of these organisa<ons funded by
Wikimedia Founda<on and Tides Founda<on are LeN organisa<ons.

As far as the content on Wikipedia is concerned, it is found in this research that a small
group of editors and administrators skew the content in India, including one editor who has
been booked in the state of Manipur for spreading disaffec<on and crea<ng strife. The
editors oNen stonewall a]empts to add inconvenient facts and a different perspec<ve to the
Wikipedia ar<cles. Further, there is a specific an<-Hindu and an<-India bias which is
perpetrated by the editors, reflec<ng in the content which defines the subjects due to the
partnership between Google and Wikimedia Founda<on.

In conclusion, there is a list of recommenda<ons that the researcher makes to deal with
Wikimedia Founda<on, which perpetrates an editorial line without submihng to Indian
laws. While Wikimedia Founda<on claims that Wikipedia is merely an intermediary, it is
found that Wikipedia meets all the standards set for ‘publishers’ under the IT Guidelines.
This would mean that Wikimedia Founda<on should be held liable for all the content on
Wikipedia and should be required to have presence in India to submit to Indian laws,
including laws governing FCRA, NGOs, IT Guidelines, Financial disclosure standards and
more.

Methodology
This research relies almost exclusively on open source informa<on provided by Wikimedia
Founda<on and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia archives all of the discussion between its editors,
all the edits made to various ar<cles on Wikipedia and also, all the discussions that led to
those edits including the details of the users who made those edits. The dossier also relies
on financial informa<on revealed by Wikimedia Founda<on on its various official pages
along with its Form 990 submi]ed to the IRS.

The dossier relies on media reports to the extent of supplemen<ng the arguments made by
the researcher based on the informa<on provided by the Wikimedia Founda<on and/or
Wikipedia.

The objec've of the Dossier – Why analysing Wikipedia bias is

important
Wikipedia is a free content online encyclopaedia wri]en and maintained by a community of
volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collabora<on and the wiki soNware
MediaWiki. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history, and is
consistently ranked among the ten most visited websites; as of May 2024, it was ranked fiNh
by Semrush, and sixth by Similarweb. Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January
15, 2001, Wikipedia has been hosted since 2003 by the Wikimedia Founda<on, an American
nonprofit organiza<on funded mainly by dona<ons from readers.

Wikipedia is available in 300 languages and the English Wikipedia has over 6.9 million
ar<cles. In all languages combined, Wikipedia has over 63 million ar<cles and a]ract more
 6

than 1.5 billion unique device visits and 13 million edits per month (about 5 edits per second
on average) as of April 20241.

Jun 2024, Wikipedia got a total 23 Billion pageviews worldwide. In June 2024, India ranked
5th with 796 million page views over all Wikis. India ranks 3rd in the number of Wikipedia
Editors ac<ve from any country, making edits on Wikipedia English. While USA has 18,000
ac<ve editors, United Kingdom has 6,000 editors, India comes third with 5,000 ac<ve editors
on Wikipedia English.

India comes 4th with 280 editors who have more than 100 edits on Wikipedia English.

With these sta:s:cs, it is evident that Indians are among the most ac:ve on Wikipedia overall and
especially Wikipedia English.

While India is among the top most ac:ve countries on Wikipedia, data shows how user interest in
India is also among the highest from across the world2.

In June 2024, the 6th most viewed page on Wikipedia was the 2024 General Elec:on page with
4,337,658 views. The 2019 General Elec:on page in June 2024 got 2,214,580 page views. The
page of NDA (Na:onal Democra:c Alliance) got 1,989,205 page views, the page on Lok Sabha got
1,353,515 pageviews, Narendra Modi page got 1,094,315 pageviews and India got 896,516 page
views. This traffic is among the top traffic that Wikipedia English received worldwide3.

According to Wikimedia Founda:on, in 2023, the Wikipedia English page on ‘India’ was the 21st
most read Wikipedia page worldwide with 15,200,006 page views4.

Let us consider the ‘India’ Wikipedia English ar:cle. The total edits on the ‘India’ ar:cle on
Wikipedia English is 27,966 and 7,389 editors worldwide have made edits to it with an average
of 4.3 per day. The 2024 General Election page on Wikipedia English has a total of 6,722 edits,
with an average of 3.1 edits per day and 881 editors who have made edits on the page so far.

These sta:s:cs therefore established that India is one of the leading countries of Interest as far as
Wikipedia is concerned when it comes to crea:on of content as well as a subject explored on
Wikipedia by users worldwide.

A recent study found that Wikipedia external links generate $7-13 million worth of monthly traffic
to other websites. In a different study, MOZ reported that 73% of Google’s first page results and
82% of top 3 results were organiza:ons with standalone Wikipedia pages5.

Wikipedia has a domain authority of 98, which means that Wikipedia is going to feature high up
the search index on Google for almost any subject and that Google itself considers the ar:cles an
authority on any subject.

1
hIps://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects/reading/page-views-by-country/normal|map|last-
month|(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly
2
hIps://stats.wikimedia.org/#/all-projects
3
hIps://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/reading/top-viewed-argcles/normal|table|last-
month|(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly
4
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2023/12/05/announcing-wikipedias-most-popular-argcles-of-2023/
5
hIps://themathergroupllc.com/how-google-uses-wikipedia-to-improve-search-results/
 7

In February 2010, Google gave US$2,000,000 as its first grant to the Wikimedia Founda:on.
Google founder Sergey Brin commented that "Wikipedia is one of the greatest triumphs of the
internet".

In May 2012, Google launched a project known as the Google Knowledge Graph, which produced
knowledge panels alongside tradi:onal search engine results. Later, results from querying the
knowledge graph complemented string-based search in producing the ranked list of search results
as well. A large amount of the informa:on presented in the knowledge panel info boxes is
retrieved from Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook.

In January 2019, Google donated $3 million to the Wikimedia Founda:on6.

In June 2022, Google and the Internet Archive were announced as Wikimedia Enterprise's first
customers, though only Google will be paying for the service.

Interes:ngly, Google also relied heavily on Wikipedia for ‘bahling misinforma:on’. In March 2018,
YouTube announced that they would be using informa:on from Wikipedia to address the problem
of misinforma:on on the website. There are several topics where an informa:on panel is displayed
below the video. That informa:on draws heavily from Wikipedia considering it an authorita:ve
source of informa:on.

Given these sta:s:cs and the reliance of Google on Wikipedia not just as an authorita:ve source
for informa:on but also for supposedly combajng misinforma:on, it becomes essen:al to
evaluate the bias in Wikipedia ar:cles especially with respect to India and subjects that effect the
na:onal security and integrity of India. Wikipedia mahers and gets wide traffic from across the
world. While most serious researchers reject Wikipedia as an authorita:ve source of informa:on,
it is widely accepted that Wikipedia has increasingly become the informa:on gateway through
which the world and important subjects are understood by people. It is therefore impera:ve that
the bias of the plakorm is understood threadbare and the ramifica:ons of such biased informa:on
on the na:onal security and integrity of India is analysed.

Some Research on the Ideological Bias of Wikipedia

6
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relagonship_between_Google_and_Wikipedia
 8

Given the important of Wikipedia in how the world understands important issues today, it is
impera<ve to delve into the exis<ng research on the reliability of Wikipedia and the inherent
bias that ails the online Encyclopaedia.

Research by Manha-an Ins/tute

On its website, The Manha]an Ins<tute says “it is a community of scholars, journalists,
ac<vists, and civic leaders commi]ed to advancing economic opportunity, individual liberty,
and the rule of law in America and its great ci<es”.

In June 2024, David Rozado published a research paper exploring the bias of Wikipedia
<tled, “Is Wikipedia Poli<cally Biased?”. The research focussed on exploring if there is a
poli<cal bias in the Wikipedia English ar<cles. The research came to the conclusion that
there exists a leN-leaning bias in the English-language Wikipedia ar<cles7.

Following are the conclusions that the research drew:

1. Mild to moderate tendency in Wikipedia ar<cles to associate public figures

ideologically aligned right-of-centre with more nega<ve sen<ment than public figures
ideologically aligned leN-of-centre.
2. Prevailing associa<ons of nega<ve emo<ons (e.g., anger and disgust) with right-
leaning public figures; and posi<ve emo<ons (e.g., joy) with leN-leaning public
figures.
3. Some of the aforemen<oned poli<cal associa<ons embedded in Wikipedia ar<cles
popping up in OpenAI’s language models. This is sugges<ve of the poten<al for biases
in Wikipedia content percola<ng into widely used AI systems.
4. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy aims for ar<cles in Wikipedia to be
wri]en in an impar<al and unbiased tone. Our results suggest that Wikipedia’s NPOV
policy is not achieving its stated goal of poli<cal-viewpoint neutrality in Wikipedia
ar<cles.

This research aimed to analyse the content of Wikipedia with computa<onal content
analysis using modern LLMs for content annota<on—to assess quan<ta<vely whether there
is poli<cal bias in Wikipedia’s content. Specifically, we computa<onally assess the sen<ment
and emo<onal tone associated with poli<cally charged terms— those referring to poli<cally
aligned public figures and ins<tu<ons—within Wikipedia ar<cles.

Interes<ngly, this research not only found a pronounced LeN-leaning bias on Wikipedia when
it spoke about poli<cal ideologies and poli<cal figures, including Prime Ministers, Ministers
and public persons, it also has a dis<nct bias when it comes to media sources that it allows
to be cited on its plaCorm. In this research, only American news sources were analysed. The
research concludes that “The asymmetry in sen<ment associa<ons on Wikipedia entries
between right and leN public figures can also be seen for influen<al news media
organiza<ons. Figure 6 shows that Wikipedia ar<cles tend to refer to leN-leaning news media

7
hIps://manhaIan.insgtute/argcle/is-wikipedia-poligcally-
biased?utm_source=press_release&utm_medium=email
 9

ins<tu<ons with more posi<ve sen<ment than right-leaning news media organiza<ons.
However, there is no difference in sen<ment in Wikipedia’s descrip<ons of right-leaning vs.
leN-leaning U.S.-based think tanks. This may be because think tanks do not elicit polarizing
emo<onal responses as strongly as do media organiza<ons or poli<cally”.

The research by Manha]an Ins<tute therefore clearly points out that there is a pronounced
poli<cal bias with no room for different point of views, since sources that present an
alternate point of view also get blacklisted by Wikipedia.

The Cri/c Research

In 2020, The Cri<c published a paper about Wikipedia’s bias. The Cri<c is a monthly Bri<sh
poli<cal and cultural magazine. Wri]en by two American academicians, the paper was <tled,
“The leN-wing bias of Wikipedia”8.

The research paper focussed on two important internal policies of Wikipedia – Verifiability
and Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia has several internal policies which aim to ensure that
the edits made to a page and the informa<on added to a page are accurate and not biased,
however, the research paper shows that the internal policies are failing to meet their stated
objec<ve because of the pronounced LeN bias of Wikipedia and its editors.

“One policy, named “Verifiability,” requires that all content on Wikipedia be based on
“reliable, independent, published sources with a reputa<on for fact-checking and accuracy.”

8
hIps://thecrigc.co.uk/the-lel-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
 10

Another policy, “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV), requires that Wikipedia ar<cles include all
viewpoints in propor<on to their prominence in the source material. This does not
necessarily mean giving equal validity to all views: for example, most reliable sources that
discuss crea<onism describe it as an unscien<fic viewpoint, so NPOV policy requires that
Wikipedia present it the same way”, the research paper says.

The research paper says that the consequence of these internal policies of Wikipedia is that
ar<cles leaning towards one side are considered reliable while those presen<ng an opposing
view are considered unreliable. The sources which are considered reliable and those
considered not reliable are decided by the ‘editors’ of Wikipedia – these are people who edit
and write ar<cles on Wikipedia. These discussions about ‘sources’ which can or cannot be
cited in Wikipedia ar<cles are held at reliable sources no<ceboard. The researchers then
looked into the sources that had been “deprecated,” which means a source that has been
formally prohibited from being used in all but a handful of cases. When the research was
conducted, it found that there were 16 conserva<ve sources which were considered
‘deprecated’ and only one LeNist website in the list.

It is worthy to be kept in mind here that the research perhaps focussed mostly on news
sources from the West which were deprecated. This paper would analyse the current list of
deprecated sources at a later stage.

The research also found that LeN-wing sources were used to discuss and reach the
conclusion that “Right Wing” or conserva<ve sources should be banned from being cited on
the basis of them being deemed ‘biased’ by the LeN-wing sources. The research then also
pointed out that any a]empt to deprecate a LeN Wing source would not find support by the
editors and was stonewalled successfully.

Talking about the discussion to deprecate a LeN Wing source, the researchers say, “A
proposal to deprecate AlterNet was made in April 2019, but the proposal received very li=le
support. One user argued that AlterNet should be deprecated due to the site’s distribuBon of
false medical informaBon—that anthrax can be treated using homeopathy, for instance—
meant that following its instrucBons can cause bodily harm. On the other hand, one of the
users opposed to deprecaBon argued that AlterNet is “valuable for providing progressive
viewpoints and reporBng or interviews of progressive organizaBons.” The majority of the
Wikipedia arBcles ciBng AlterNet are not medical arBcles, but in light of Wikipedia’s status as
the most widely used source of medical informaBon for doctors and paBents, allowing
citaBons to AlterNet poses a risk that does not exist for most of the deprecated right-leaning
tabloid newspapers and poliBcal websites”.

The research paper also addresses the bias in arbitra<on enforcement in Wikipedia where it
finds that while Wikipedia calls itself the free encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, it is only
so as far as non-controversial ar<cles are concerned.

The research says, “More relevant to content or sourcing decisions is another type of
restricBon applied to some topics known as discreBonary sancBons. These are a special set of
powers given to administrators (admins) in some topic areas that allow them to place blocks
or sancBons on any person ediBng the topic whom they believe to be acBng disrupBvely.
 11

DiscreBonary sancBons can only be authorized by the ArbitraBon Commi=ee (a.k.a.

ArbCom), which is English Wikipedia’s highest ruling body, and usually are authorized at the
conclusion of an arbitraBon case covering a topic.

DiscreBonary sancBons are authorized in most of Wikipedia’s controversial topics, and

cannot be liSed or modified unless there is a consensus among admins to do so. Because it is
quite difficult for them to be liSed or modified, and because it is up to admins’ individual
judgment what behaviour should be punished under this system, it would be quite easy for
any administrator to use this system to suppress one side of a dispute. This could be done by
blocking or topic banning most of the editors on one side (a topic ban prohibits a person
from contribuBng to any arBcles or discussions related to a topic), or by making editors on
one side feel unwelcome unBl they choose to leave. If this were to occur it would affect the
balance of parBcipants in discussions about sources or arBcle content, and ulBmately affect
the outcome of those discussions”.

The research picked 4 conten<ous topics to analyse from the Arbitra<on Enforcement
no<ceboard – the topics were those which are likely to have two ends of the poli<cal
spectrum on either side of the debate – abor<on – for example. The research based on
aggregate data found that in poli'cally loaded topics, editors who support right-leaning
views are over six 'mes more likely to be sanc'oned at Arbitra'on Enforcement than
those who support le>-leaning views.

One argument which is oNen furthered to explain such bias is that LeN leaning views are far
more widely represented in the mainstream media and therefore, find more representa<on,
with contrary views being clamped down by the ArbCom for lack of sources. However, the
research finds that it is not just the views being represented in the mainstream media but
also the ahtude of the editors and administrators.

The research points out that “it is a widely expressed view among Wikipedia administrators,
as well as by Wikipedia’s parent organiza<on, that Wikipedia should show li]le tolerance for
editors perceived as having right-wing points of view” (therefore, if there is a stated view to
‘tolerate’ right wing points of view, the editors and administrators are not ‘neutral’).

Ci<ng an example, the research says “In December 2018, when several administrators were
applying for posi<ons on English Wikipedia’s Arbitra<on Commi]ee, all of the applicants
were asked the following ques<on:

With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing
such beliefs may try (or are already a]emp<ng) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for
propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in
counterac<ng their influence on Wikipedia?

The majority of the candidates, including four of the six candidates who went on to win
posi<ons on ArbCom, answered that far-right editors were a par<cularly severe problem at
Wikipedia and that ArbCom must take an ac<ve role in stopping them”.
The research goes on to show how individual editors are also poli<cally mo<vated with a
LeN wing bias.
 12

Interes<ngly, the research cites the own views of the Wikimedia Founda<on itself which
proves that Wikipedia most defini<vely has a bias.

“In June 2020, the organizaBon published a statement endorsing the goals of Black Lives
Ma=er, which reads in part: “On these issues, there is no neutral stance. To stay silent is to
endorse the violence of history and power; yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is well past
Bme for racial jusBce in America and beyond.”

The statement “there is no neutral stance” is probably a reference to Wikipedia’s “Neutral

Point of View” policy, which is sBll an official Wikipedia policy. This apparent rejecBon of a
core Wikipedia policy by the site’s parent organizaBon did not go unnoBced by members of
the Wikipedia community, who subsequently debated the statement’s implicaBons.

The views expressed by various Wikipedians about the WMF’s statement reveal an
informaBve contrast. Non-admins commenBng on the statement expressed a variety of
opinions, but more disapproved of the statement than approved, with a few being highly
criBcal. However, no Wikipedia administrators openly criBcized the statement. Of the seven
administrators commenBng in the discussion about it, two (Nosebagbear and DGG)
expressed mild concerns or disagreements, one (Llywrch) commented without expressing an
opinion, while the other four (Pharos, Sj, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and
Amorymeltzer) all defended the WMF’s statement. Ironically, one of the more prominent
Wikipedians to directly criBcize the WMF’s statement was an ex-administrator, who was
stripped of her admin powers in January of this year”.

The research goes on to demonstrate defini<vely how this LeN bias affects ar<cles on
Wikipedia.

The research says:

1. Members of Wikipedia are far less likely to remove hoax material if it supports a
viewpoint they agree with
2. Wikipedia’s policy regarding biographies of living people, also known as BLP policy,
requires that all statements about living people be supported by a reliable source,
and for unsourced and poorly-sourced material to be immediately removed. But like
all Wikipedia policies, this policy can only be applied if there is someone willing to
uphold it. The researchers analysed the page of Linda Gouredson, a psychologist.
During the 21 months that the Gouredson ar<cle contained a fabricated quote, the
ar<cle was being sporadically edited by several people, who quickly undid a]empts
at removing nega<ve material from the ar<cle. But the people maintaining the ar<cle
during this <me were almost en<rely people who had unfavourable opinions of
Gouredson, and their diligence did not extend to making sure all of the nega<ve
material was cited to sources that actually existed. The phycologist is regularly
disparaged by LeN leaning commentators.
3. The principle illustrated by this series of events is that members of Wikipedia are far
less likely to no<ce and remove vandalism or hoax material if it is in support of a
viewpoint that they agree with. (This is true of all viewpoints, both leN-leaning and
 13

right-leaning.) While this par<cular example was more severe than most, the same
principle also applies to more subtle viola<ons of Wikipedia’s content policies, such
as ar<cle text not adequately supported by the sources it cites. When Wikipedia’s
administrators suppress one side of a dispute in a controversial topic, one of the
long-term results is that policy viola<ons favourable to the opposite side may be
overlooked for months or years.

A Map of Science in Wikipedia

This 2023 research essen<ally spoke about how the sources used in Wikipedia have a LeN-
liberal bias and that, the sources being from the ‘liberal media’ did not make the sources
more reliable than others.

The 2022 study analysed quota<ons from journalis<c and other media sources found in
Wikipedia entries on the English edi<on. The aim was to determine if there was a
predominance of liberal or conserva<ve sources. The study found a moderate yet systema<c
predominance of liberal journalis<c sources. Addi<onally, the analysis showed no significant
correla<on between the poli<cal orienta<on of a news source and its reliability, sugges<ng
that the moderate predominance of liberal news sources may not be solely due to the
pursuit of source reliability.

Larry Sanger – Co-Founder of Wikipedia

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia and its former avatar, Nupedia, has cri<cised the
ideological bias of Wikipedia comprehensively. He has also stated on numerous occasions
that Wikipedia’s LeN bias has killed its neutrality a long <me ago.

In an ar<cle wri]en in 20209, Larry Sanger cri<cizes the plaCorm for abandoning its
neutrality policy, arguing that it has become biased towards liberal viewpoints. He cites
examples such as the differing treatment of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, where
scandals involving Obama are omi]ed while Trump’s controversies are extensively covered.
Sanger also points out bias in ar<cles on poli<cal issues, religion, and science, claiming
Wikipedia endorses establishment views without presen<ng opposing perspec<ves.

In a 2021 ar<cle, Larry Sanger details how Wikipedia abandoned its neutrality objec<ve
(NPOV) with respect to conten<ous and poli<cally divided subjects such as the impeachment
of Donald Trump, the Hunter Biden story and more – with a stark bias towards the Democrat
POV as compared to the Republicans.

Larry Sanger writes, “Democrats and (most) Republicans were sharply divided on the
quesBon of whether Trump’s impeachments had any merit. The DemocraBc view was that
Trump abused his office by encouraging the president of Ukraine to invesBgate his opponent,
Biden. Later, he egged on the January 6 invasion of the Capitol building. The Republican view
was that Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president was wholly innocent, that he had

9
hIps://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
 14

commi=ed no “high crime or misdemeanour,” and that Biden was in fact guilty of dirty
shenanigans in Ukraine. As to the January 6 invasion, his remarks did not cause it. Of course,
there is much, much more to be said on all sides. Now, a neutral Wikipedia would not come
down clearly on either side, and would fully lay out the DemocraBc and the Republican cases
fairly and fully. Is that what we see on Wikipedia? No…”.

ANer analysing the pages as they appeared at that <me, Larry Sanger writes, “Wikipedia
took the Democrats’ side against Trump, period. The ar9cles are so biased, in fact, that it is
fair to call them “propaganda.”

There were two follow up ar<cles where Larry Sanger discussed the bias of Wikipedia
towards the LeN. One was in 202110 and the other was in 202311.

In all three ar<cles, Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, claims that “NPOV is dead” in
Wikipedia and the LeN bias is rampant. He says that a Neutral Point of View would mean
that both sides of the issue are presented – the nega<ves and the posi<ves – the LeN and
the Right – even if one side is objec<vely wrong in the issue. However, Wikipedia does not
adhere to these standards.

In an interview, Larry Sanger detailed how Wikipedia has no inten<on to fix its dangerous
bias and also, that Jimmy Wales had no inten<on to fix the dangerous bias12.

What is Wikipedia structure

To understand how Wikipedia func<ons, we must get into the organisa<onal structure of
Wikimedia Founda<on, who owns and funds it, and how Wikipedia is structured.

Wikipedia is one of the projects of Wikimedia, an organiza<on owned and operated by the
Wikimedia Founda<on. The overall control is by the ten-member Wikimedia Board of
Trustees of whom Jimmy Wales is Chairman Emeritus and a member13.

It is important to note that while Wikipedia oNen claims that its content is not necessarily
‘controlled’ by anyone, in a 2002 le]er, Jimmy Wales had categorically men<oned that “Final
policy decisions are up to me, as always”14.

According to Wikipedia itself, “The contributors or editors of Wikipedia parBcipate subject to

a number of policies and guidelines governing behaviour and content. These rules are
supervised by various authoriBes: Jimmy Wales, nominally in a posiBon of ulBmate authority,
although he has deferred in most instances to the leadership of Wikipedia, the ~34 present
Bureaucrats or Crats, the ~700 acBve Administrators or Admins, and another group called
the ArbitraBon Commi=ee or ArbCom with 15-18 members or Arbs, depending upon the

10
hIps://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/
11
hIps://larrysanger.org/2023/06/how-wikipedia-smears-conservagves/
12
hIps://youtu.be/bwcPEACzUfQ?si=e2CKMrZ8rN1qfSb
13
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Formal_organizagon
14
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Governance_(2002_essay)
 15

rules adopted each year. In July 2012 there were 14 acBve arbitrators idenBfied, all of whom
were administrators, although this is not a set rule. The Wikimedia FoundaBon or its
designated agents also have authority to impose bans against IP addresses for pages, topics,
or the enBre site. The ArbitraBon Commi=ee "has no jurisdicBon over official acBons of the
Wikimedia FoundaBon or its staff".

Editors

Editors are usual contributors to Wikipedia who can submit edits to various pages. They
could be registered users or func<oning through their IP address. Editors are lowest in the
hierarchy of power as far as Wikipedia content is concerned. They can be easily banned or
vetoed by others with higher authority/power.

Bureaucrats

Bureaucrats or Crats are a category introduced in 2004, and have only a few limited
ac<vi<es. Among these, they may remove Administrators if so instructed by the Arbitra<on
Commi]ee, and appoint Administrators and Bureaucrats following a selec<on procedure.
Currently, according to Wikipedia, there are only 15 Bureaucrats and they all appear
anonymous15.

Administrators

There are 855 administrator accounts (ac<ve and otherwise), 435 of them ac<ve (as of 2024-
07-23). Ac<vity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. The 435 ac<ve
administrators are from across the world. They are mostly all anonymous and their real
iden<ty is not known. Wikipedia administrators have power to alter content and decide
almost everything about the ar<cles present on Wikipedia. Not just the ar<cles, they have
the power to even decide who can or cannot edit the ar<cles on Wikipedia.

Administrators have the right to ban editors/users, curtail their ac<vity, protect pages so
editors cannot edit the content, delete pages aNer discussion, delete users, decide on
disputes etc16.

Arbitra'on CommiEee

Members of the Arbitra<on Commi]ee (referred to as ArbCom), or Arbs, act in concert or in

sub-groups to impose binding solu<ons to conduct disputes the community has been unable
to resolve, mainly by defining what cons<tutes a viola<on in such disputes and imposing
sanc<ons, such as bans and blocks upon users.

The Arbitra<on Commi]ee is essen<ally Wikipedia’s Supreme Court. ArbCom was created by
Jimmy Wales as an extension of the decision-making power he formerly held as CEO of site-
owner Bomis Inc., to take over his role in resolving complex disputes between users.

15
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats
16
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_guide
 16

The members of the ArbCom are extremely limited. It is a small group of individuals who are
considered highly “trusted”.

Currently, there are only 10 ac<ve members of the ArbCom:

The following list is accurate as of 16 July 202417:

1. Aoidh
2. Cabayi
3. Guerillero
4. HJ Mitchell
5. Maxim
6. Moneytrees
7. Primefac
8. Sdrqaz
9. ToBeFree
10. Z1720

These ArbCom members are important because they even have access to personal data of
users, if the situa<on demands. Further, they have overarching rights on what truly goes on
in the Wikipedia community. These users are mostly anonymous to the public at large and
therefore, it is difficult to determine their iden<ty. Only a handful of them voluntarily
disclose their real iden<ty in their Wikipedia personal pages.

Rela'onship between Wikipedia and Big Tech – especially Google

The Wikimedia Founda<on is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit organiza<on headquartered in
San Francisco, California, and registered there as a charitable founda<on. Wikipedia is a
‘project’ of Wikimedia Founda<on. Wikimedia Founda<on was established in 2003 – 2 years
aNer Wikipedia was started – by Jimmy Wales. As of December 31, 2023, it has employed
over 700 staff and contractors, with annual revenues of $180.2 million, annual expenses of
$169 million, net assets of $255 million and a growing endowment, which surpassed $100
million in June 202118.

This chart from Wikimedia shows how their assets and revenue have grown exponen<ally
over the years – including an interes<ng Endowment fund.

17
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragon_CommiIee
18

hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundagon#:~:text=The%20Foundagon%20finances%20itself%20ma
inly,Wikipedia%20and%20its%20sister%20projects.
 17

Wikimedia has some major donors listed on their website which reveal the deep <es
Wikipedia has to Big Tech and some financiers who have oNen displayed nefarious designs
with regards to India.

Rela/onship between Google and Wikipedia

When Wikipedia started, the rela<onship between Google and Wikipedia was collabora<ve
and func<onal. Ini<ally, Google had helped Wikipedia by downgrading several copy-cat
websites which were clones of Wikipedia. In 2007, Google introduced Knol, a direct
compe<tor of Wikipedia. At the <me, Knol was compared to Wikipedia, however, it was
branded as a “Wikipedia with modera<on”19.

Reports at the <me said, Like Wikipedia, Knol (unlike many other Google products, officially
it’s just "Knol," not "Google Knol") allows anyone to create a page about any topic. By
default, new pages are set to use "moderated collabora<on," which means anyone can
contribute to them but addi<ons only go live aNer the page’s main author or authors allow
the contribu<ons to be added”.

It was widely then considered a failure and shut shop in 2012.

ThereaNer, the rela<onship between Google and Wikipedia became far more intertwined
and big-stake.

19
hIps://searchengineland.com/googles-knol-launches-like-wikipedia-with-moderagon-14434
 18

By 2008, it was being reported that most of Wikipedia’s traffic was being generated from
Google. SoNpedia had reported, “Beside the 61 percent of visitors at home being redirected
from to Google, Wikipedia also receives visits from Yahoo's search engine. The 19 percent of
visitors at home places Yahoo second to Google's search engine. MicrosoN and AOL's search
engines total less of 10 percent of the traffic Wikipedia registers in the US”20.

In 2010, while Knol was inching towards its demise, Google extended its first financial grant
to Wikipedia. In February 2010, Google extended US$2,000,000 (2 million) to Wikipedia,
calling it the “greatest triumph of the internet”21.

Wikipedia founder and Wikimedia Founda<on board member, Jimmy Wales, also
commented on the Google giN. "We are very pleased and grateful. This is a wonderful giN,
and we celebrate it as recogni<on of the long-term alignment and friendship between
Google and Wikimedia. Both organiza<ons are commi]ed to bringing high quality
informa<on to hundreds of millions of individuals every day, and to making the Internet
be]er for everyone."

By 2010, a working rela<onship between Google and Wikipedia had already been
established. Wikimedia’s press release from 2010 said, “The two organiza<ons have a long-
standing working rela<onship. Most recently, Google and the Wikimedia Founda<on have
partnered to support transla<on of Wikipedia content into key languages with rela<vely
small Wikipedia edi<ons. Google's Transla<on Toolkit supports direct online transla<on of
Wikipedia ar<cles, and has been used by Google in Wikipedia transla<on pilot projects with
speakers of Arabic, Hindi, and Swahili”.

In May 2012, Google launched a project known as the Google Knowledge Graph, which
produced knowledge panels alongside tradi<onal search engine results. Later, results from
querying the knowledge graph complemented string-based search in producing the ranked
list of search results as well. A large amount of the informa<on presented in the knowledge
panel info boxes is retrieved from Wikipedia and the CIA World Factbook.

If one Google’s a public personality even today, the knowledge panel of that public person
displayed prominently draws from Wikipedia and the CIA Work Factbook.

20
hIps://news.solpedia.com/news/Wikipedia-Traffic-Mostly-from-Google-85703.shtml
21

hIps://web.archive.org/web/20180529235914/hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikime
dia_Foundagon_announces_$2_million_grant_from_Google
 19

In January 2019, Google donated $3 million to the Wikimedia Founda<on.

In June 2022, Google and the Internet Archive were announced as Wikimedia Enterprise's
first customers, though only Google will be paying for the service.
 20

Wikipedia’s hold on the informa<on that users consume is far greater than one imagines.
Apart from the collabora<on between Google and Wikipedia, where even vandalised pages
slandering a public person would be displayed in the Google Knowledge Panel, Google is also
using Wikipedia, which is widely considered biased and unreliable, as a means to ‘fact-check’
informa<on.

In 2018, YouTube announced that they would be using informa<on from Wikipedia to
address the problem of misinforma<on on the website. In several videos, there is a panel
that is displayed below the video for the purpose of ‘fact-checking’. This informa<on is
sourced directly from Wikipedia.

According to Wikimedia Founda<on, it was in 2018 that Google and Wikimedia formalised
their associa<on and ‘created a framework for partnership’.

The guiding principles in this partnership, as enumerated by Wikimedia are:

1. Transparency: Projects will be implemented in a publicly visible and accountable way.

There will also be regular Wikimedia Founda<on updates on this page regarding this
partnership and its projects.
2. Conflict Free: No conflicts of interest and/or percep<ons of corporate influence
3. Community Supported: Projects are supported by the greater Wikimedia movement
4. Mission Aligned: Alignment to key levers that drive a]ainment of the Wikimedia
Founda<on’s mission

It is important that we keep in mind that one of the principles of the Wikimedia-Google
partnership was to avoid “percep<ons of corporate influence”. This principle failed
spectacularly – something which we will evidence later.

Google and Wikimedia decided on 3 focus areas where they would focus22.

1. Empowering editor communi<es to create content and grow mul<-language Wikis

through training, tools, and the development of new projects. This included Growing
Local Language content on Wikipedia (GLOW) and Translate API where added Google
Translate to the list of machine transla<on (MT) systems available for users of
Content Transla<on.
2. Ensuring access to Wikipedia knowledge on and off-plaCorm while powering
volunteers’ valida<on of Wikipedia content via manual review and scaled tools. Some
of the projects under this focus area were, Google becoming a client of Wikimedia in
2022 under the Enterprise API license agreement, WikiLoop program - Originated
from Google, WikiLoop is an umbrella program for a series of technical projects
intended to contribute datasets and tools from the technical industry back to the
open knowledge world and Vision API.
3. Wikimania & Regional Conference Sponsorships where Google supports the
Wikimedia Founda<on’s Thriving Movement priority area by offering scholarships to
Wikimedia contributors from underrepresented Wikis to par<cipate at Wikimania

22
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Foundagon_and_Google_Partnership
 21

and regional Wiki conferences, Google’s Matching GiNs Program - The Wikimedia
Founda<on is among the top recipients of Google’s employee matching giNs
program, with contribu<ons totaling more than $2.5M to the Founda<on since 2006
and Corporate Dona<ons - Google.org has also contributed directly to the Wikimedia
Founda<on and to the Wikimedia Endowment, suppor<ng the Founda<on’s long-
term sustainability.

Big-Tech reliance – From Google to YouTube, AI and more

By 2021, there were several reports in the media calling Wikipedia a “refuge” from Big Tech’s
disinforma<on. Essen<ally, it served the interest of Wikimedia to portray as if they were a
not for profit rag-tag project, working on a shoe-string budget and against the Big Tech
hegemony, relying on the people for their good inten<oned voluntary work. This narra<ve
helps then ask for endless dona<ons from people across the world, who mostly pay because
they feel sorry for the ‘underdog’ so to speak.

Sample this 2021 ar<cle from CNET, for example. CNET wrote, “At 20, Wikipedia has become
a refuge from Big Tech's misinforma<on - The online encyclopaedia is an unlikely beacon of
reliability”23.

This image served Wikimedia well, however, it was far from the truth.

Big-Tech and Wikimedia are intricately linked and are inseparable. As we would see in the
next sec<on, a large chunk of the money that Wikimedia Founda<on makes is from big-tech
companies and founda<ons with a pronounced LeN agenda. Further, as evidenced from the
previous sec<on – Google and Wikipedia are inextricably linked to each other.

In 2022 that Wikimedia started charging Big Tech to use their informa<on and integrate it on
their plaCorms. This was not because Wikimedia was inherently against Big Tech and wanted
to reform the misinforma<on. But because Wikimedia admi]ed that they needed a way to
ensure that Big Tech could give money to Wikimedia without being uncomfortable with their
associa<on with a not-for-profit.

In an arBcle24 Btled “Wikipedia’s Deep Ties to Big Tech”, InsBtute for New Economic Thinking
wrote “As a non-profit, Wikimedia does not have direct access to the wealth their for-profit
Big Tech cousins enjoy. Instead, the firm relies on donaBons which, as illustrated below, are
more than adequate to meet its needs. Its latest fundraising report lists about six million
acBve donors large and small.

However, it is not lost on the firm that Wikipedia content powers extraordinarily wealthy
businesses. “There has long been a feeling among community members that these
companies should do more to reinvest in the Wikimedia communiBes for the benefits they
gain from the content and resources they use,” wrote members of the team implemenBng a

23
hIps://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/20-years-on-wikipedia-has-become-a-refuge-from-big-techs-sea-
of-misinformagon/
24
hIps://www.ineteconomics.org/perspecgves/blog/wikipedias-deep-ges-to-big-tech
 22

new service, Wikimedia Enterprise, a for-profit Delaware-based company to charge Big Tech
for easier electronic access to Wikipedia content.

Lest there be any ambiguity about who “these companies” are, they explain high-volume
commercial reusers include “the ‘info boxes’ .. shown in search engine results,” “voice-
operated virtual assistants such as Siri and Alexa,” and “augmented informaBon .. such as in-
flight entertainment systems or smartphones.” For those who sBll don’t get it, the term info
boxes links to a Wikipedia arBcle about Google’s knowledge panel.

Wikimedia argues for-profit high-volume informaBon “reusers” (its term) have repeatedly
asked for a dedicated service to efficiently funnel informaBon away from the site and money
towards it. Big Tech wants a contractual arrangement along with a service level agreement
(SLA). Wikimedia argues it is unable to offer a contract or provide an SLA under its current
legal scheme.

When asked, Wikimedia representaBves responded that the Big Tech businesses are
uncomfortable supporBng the non-profit through donaBons and that they’d prefer a more
explicit fee-for-service arrangement. Furthermore, the ongoing pracBce of embedding
Wikimedia content into the websites and informaBon outlets of others deprives Wikimedia of
an ability to adverBse for donaBons which, over the long-run, may impact its ability to
fundraise. Of course, many non-profit organizaBons charge for services. For example non-
profit hospitals, universiBes, daycare’s, gyms (YMCAs), subscripBons (Consumer Reports),
and museums all charge for services without for-profit subsidiaries.

Wikimedia argues it currently subsidizes Big Tech by providing the labour required for the
coordinaBon of informaBon disseminaBon. The implicaBon is that there are resources at
Wikimedia with an incremental cost to feed data to Big Tech. A quesBon asking for a
guessBmate about how many people spend how much Bme on this acBvity went
unanswered, along with all other wri=en quesBons.

There are two aspects with respect to the Big Tech and Wikipedia partnership, which
essen<ally makes Wikipedia a part of the Big Tech, not just a collaborator of Big Tech.

First is the funding it receives from companies like Google, Facebook and other big tech
companies.

It is per<nent to note that the same report from the Ins<tute of New Economic Thinking
points out that even if Wikipedia stops making any money today, in terms of dona<ons and
contribu<ons, Wikipedia can sustain itself for decades.

The report says, “According to its latest financial disclosures, the Wikimedia Founda'on
has net assets adequate to run its servers for 75 years if it receives no further funds nor
interest on its savings. Beyond that, the servers can hum along an addi'onal 63 years from
funds in a Wikimedia Endowment held by a partner charity, the Tides Founda'on. Put into
perspec've, Wikimedia servers can func'on just under nine years from a one-'me
dona'on Wikimedia sent to Tides Advocacy in their last financial statement. They have
 23

about $1 million in reserves for every employee. Wikipedia is in no danger of going dark in
our life'me25”.

The other is how intricately integrated Wikipedia informa<on is with all big tech plaCorms.
Any AI plaCorm relied on the informa<on of Wikipedia. Alexa and Siri too rely on Wikipedia.
YouTube, Google knowledge panels and other plaCorms reply on Wikipedia as well.
Essen<ally, Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is far up the food chain as far as Big Tech is concerned
and while it portrays itself as a rag tag ‘for the people by the people’ plaCorm dependent on
nominal dona<ons from users across the world, it is a behemoth which is driving how the
world consumes informa<on and wri<ng the world’s history from a specific lens in real <me.

Following the money: Google-Wikimedia partnership – more to it than

meets the eye
Most sources which reported the $2 million Google grant to Wikimedia in 2010, reported it
as such – that Google extended this generous grant to Wikimedia Founda<on.

In fact, the post26 on Twi]er (Now X) by Jimmy Wales at the <me also simply said that
Google had donated $2 million to Wikimedia Founda<on.

However, when one peruses the Wikimedia Press Release from 201027, a different angle
emerges.

25
hIps://www.ineteconomics.org/perspecgves/blog/wikipedias-deep-ges-to-big-tech
26
hIps://x.com/jimmy_wales/status/9215187878
27
hIps://diff.wikimedia.org/2010/02/17/googles-grant-is-good-news-for-wikimedia/
 24

The 2010 Press Release specifically says, “Earlier today we announced a generous $2 million
(USD) grant to the Wikimedia FoundaBon from the Google Inc. Charity Fund at the Tides
FoundaBon. This is the first giS to the Wikimedia FoundaBon from Google, and as an
unrestricted giS we’ll be able to support operaBons for Wikipedia and our other free
knowledge projects across mulBple prioriBes”.

The $2 million “gi>” to Wikimedia Founda'on not just one by Google, but the Google Inc.
Charity Fund at the Tides Founda9on.

To understand the intricate network and how these LeN organisa<ons func<on, we first need
to understand how Google func<ons and the founda<ons it is connected to.

Google Founda/on and Tides Founda/on

The Google Founda<on (also known by its internet address, Google.org) is the corporate
charitable arm of Alphabet, Inc., and its subsidiary, Google. Created in 2005, the Google
Founda<on makes grants in four areas: educa<on, economic opportunity, inclusion, and
crisis response. Since 2004, it has received one percent of Alphabet/Google’s net profits28.

The Google Founda<on is considered one of the main financiers of several LeN Wing
projects. Interes<ngly, one of the main not-for-profit concerns they fund is the Tides
Founda<on. The Tides Founda<on received $59 million in 2016. Tides Founda<on is a donor-
advised fund for several LeN NGOs and ac<vi<es29.

According to InfluencerWatch, “Google FoundaBon contributed at least $70 million in the

decade between 2007-2016 to organizaBons such as the Tides FoundaBon, a provider of
ideologically leS-wing donor-advised funds; Netroots, an annual conference of leSist
bloggers; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leS-wing environmentalist
organizaBon”

While Google Founda<on was financing LeN Wing organisa<ons, it was dissolved in 2018. A
perusal of the IRS Form 990 PF revealed that in 2018, Google Founda<on dissolved and
transferred all its assets to Tide Founda<on. In the 2018 IRS form, it is evident that Google
Founda<on had a li]le over $50 million and all of it was transferred to Tide Founda<on.

28
hIps://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/winter-2017-interview-with-jacquelline-fuller/
29
hIps://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/google-foundagon/
 25

Essen<ally, all of the assets and money of Google Founda<on was dissolved and transferred
to Tides Founda<on with Google calling the shots as to how that money is donated through
Tide Founda<on.

It would appear that Google might not have wanted to be directly involved in the grants,
however, Tide would do the bidding on Google’s behalf moving forward.
 26

Google had explained in their Form 990 that it had decided that ‘The foundaBon’s charitable
purposes would be best furthered by dissolving the foundaBon and transferring its remaining
assets to Tide FoundaBon, a public charity that can be=er facilitate charitable grant making
acBviBes with those assets. Although the foundaBon will no longer exist, the charitable
grant making mission of the founda9on will carry on through Google, which will have a
role in advising on the grants awarded from these assets…”.

What Google essen<ally meant was that they will not be directly named in the grants they
provide to NGOs, however, they will ‘advise’ Tide Founda<ons where to donate the money.

So far, it appears that it was the Google-Tide fund which started giving dona<ons to
Wikimedia Founda<ons in 2010. Google con<nued to be a massive benefactor of Wikimedia
Founda<on since on their website, even in the grants list aNer the year 2022, Google.org and
Google Matching GiNs Founda<on appear as ‘Major Benefactors’.

Google giving dona'ons and grants to Wikimedia Founda'on is coupled with the fact that
the integra'on of Wikipedia and Wikimedia content across all Google plaZorms is near
100% and complete.

Wikimedia Endowment Fund

The Wikimedia Endowment Fund was formed in January 2016. Wikimedia wrote30, “As
part of this milestone, the Wikimedia Founda9on is pleased to announce the Wikimedia
Endowment, a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia thrives for genera9ons to

30
hIps://diff.wikimedia.org/2016/01/14/wikipedia-15-foundagon-endowment/
 27

come. The Wikimedia Endowment will empower people around the world to create and
contribute free knowledge, and share that knowledge with every single human being. Our
goal is to raise $100 million over the next 10 years. The Endowment has been established,
with an ini9al contribu9on by the Wikimedia Founda9on, as a Collec9ve Ac9on Fund at
the Tides Founda9on”.

It further wrote, “The purpose of the Wikimedia Endowment is to serve as a perpetual

source of support for the opera9on and ac9vi9es of Wikipedia and its sister projects. It will
empower people around the world to create and contribute free knowledge, and share
that knowledge with every single human being. The Endowment has been established,
with an ini9al contribu9on by Wikimedia Founda9on, as a Collec9ve Ac9on Fund at Tides
Founda9on. Tides is a public charity with a 40-year track record of holding and managing
charitable funds for nonprofit organiza9ons. An Advisory Board, nominated by the
Wikimedia Founda9on and appointed by Tides, will make recommenda9ons to Tides
related to the Endowment. Tides or the Wikimedia Founda9on may choose to transfer the
Endowment from Tides to the Wikimedia Founda9on, or other chari9es iden9fied by the
Wikimedia Founda9on. At that point, the Endowment would con9nue to be a permanent,
income-genera9ng fund to support the Wikimedia projects”.

From the Wikimedia statement, certain things become apparent:

1. The Wikimedia Endowment Fund was meant to be a fund which could ensure the
func<oning of Wikipedia.
2. The aim was to collect $100 million by 2026.
3. It was a Tides Founda<on Collec<on Ac<on Fund
4. The advisory board of this Endowment Fund was appointed by Tides aNer being
nominated by Wikimedia Founda<on.
5. The funds would be transferred from Tides to Wikimedia Founda<on at the choosing
of either par<es.
6. OTHER chari<es iden<fied could also benefit from the Wikimedia Endowment Fund.

It was, however, interes<ng to note how the forma<on of the Endowment Fund was
packaged by the media and Wikimedia itself.

Wikimedia Founda<on in its announcement category men<oned that the Endowment Fund
was specifically to keep Wikipedia running. The Guardian in its report31 a]empted to make it
sound like a frugal exercise to keep the rag-tag not-for-profit free encyclopaedia running.

The Guardian wrote in its report, “The Wikimedia Endowment has been set up as a
“permanent safekeeping fund” managed by the charity Tides Founda<on, and could reduce
Wikipedia’s reliance on annual dona<on drives to keep its service running”.

This was, of course, the same line of argument that Wikimedia and Jimmy Wales were
taking.

31
hIps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/15/wikipedia-fund-future
 28

The Guardian report went on, “A Google search for “death of Wikipedia” yields more than
72k results, with ar<cles from 2006 onwards predic<ng that the online encyclopaedia was
on its way out for various reasons”. Quo<ng Jimmy Wales, it said, “It’s more fun looking back
at those stories than seeing them at the <me,” said Wales. “As a charity, we’ve always been
focused on our community and our mission. We’re not subject to a lot of the external
metrics – we don’t have debt, we don’t have investors – that high-flying dotcoms are.”

In the same ar<cle, The Wikimedia Founda<on’s chief advancement officer Lisa Gruwell said,
“We have a great fundraising model right now, but things on the Internet change so it’s not
something we can count on forever”.

Ronan Gruenbaum, dean, undergraduate London at Hult Interna<onal Business School said,
“Its ability to remain independent and ad-free is impressive and one can only hope it
manages this in the long term, but short of finding a billionaire benefactor it seems
somewhat precarious to rely on dona<ons for its survival”.

It was further reported by Guardian that the endowment will start with less than $1m
donated by the estate of soNware engineer Jim Pacha, which hints at poten<al to raise its
$100m from similar bequests. The annual dona<on drive from users will con<nue alongside
the endowment.

From what Jimmy Wales said to what Ronan Gruenbaum and Lisa Gruwell said, one would
be under the impression that $100 million was an ambi<ous goat to set for Wikimedia and
also, that it was a frugal company merely surviving on small dona<ons. It would also give the
impression that Wikipedia was incredibly independent, free from ads and donor/corporate
considera<ons.

That, however, is far from the truth.

In September 2021, the Founda<on announced that the Wikimedia Endowment had
reached its ini<al $100 million fundraising goal in June 2021, five years ahead of its ini<al
target32. In January 2024, the endowment was reported to have a value of $140 million.

Peter Baldwin and his wife, Lisbet Rausing, donated $5 million to it in 2017. In 2018, major
dona<ons to the endowment were received from Amazon and Facebook and George Soros.
In 2019, dona<ons included $2 million from Google, $3.5 million more from Baldwin and
Rausing, $2.5 million more from Newmark, and another $1 million from Amazon in October
2019 and again in September 2020.

According to the Wikimedia Endowment Fund page current, here are some notable patrons
of the Tide Founda<on run endowment fund which is noteworthy33:

1. Amazon - $5 million +
2. Google.org - $2 million +

32
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2021/09/22/wikimedia-foundagon-reaches-100-million-endowment-
goal/
33
hIps://wikimediaendowment.org/#board-of-directors
 29

3. George Soros - $2 million +

4. Musk Founda<on - $2 million +
5. Facebook - $1 million +
6. The Rothschild Founda<on - $50,000 +

The Wikimedia Endowment Fund moved to an independent 501c3 charity in July 2023,
however, up un<l July 2023, it was under the Tides Founda<on34.

In September 2023, aNer the Wikimedia Endowment became independent and long
achieved its stated goal of collec<ng $100 million by 2025, Wikimedia Founda<on
announced that it would be extended its dona<on drive and collec<ng more funds to secure
Wikipedia’s future further.

“With the Wikimedia Endowment now entering a new phase of its maturity, the Wikimedia
Endowment Board has authorized a new mul<-year fundraising campaign that will allow the
endowment to return even greater support for Wikimedia projects for years to come”, the
press release said.

It would be worthy to remember here that research had proved in 2021 itself that it
Wikimedia Founda<on and its Endowment had stopped making any revenue at all, the
Wikipedia servers would s<ll run for maybe a century. ANer crossing $140 million in just the
endowment, Wikimedia Founda<on announced further fund raising. In 2023, the Wikimedia
Founda<on’s revenue was over $180 million. It was recently in 2022 and 2023 that
Wikipedia had aggressively solicited dona<ons from Indian users.

Here are some of the messages that Indian users would get.

34
hIps://wikimediaendowment.org/financials/
 30

Wikimedia Founda/on

Wikimedia Founda<on campaigns aggressively for dona<ons from individuals and tech
companies/philanthropists. As a 501(c)(3) charity, the Founda<on is exempt from federal
and state income tax. The Founda<on's net assets grew from an ini<al $57,000 at the end of
its first fiscal year, ending June 30, 2004, to $53.5 million in mid-2014and $231 million (plus
a $100 million endowment) by the end of June 2021. The Wikimedia Founda<on assets and
the endowment has only grown since then.

The Wikimedia Founda<on’s net asset at the end of 2022-2023 stood at a whopping
$254,971,33635.

Where does the Wikimedia Founda/on money come from

A substan<al part of Wikimedia Founda<on’s revenue comes from individual donors.

According to the 2022-2023 fundraising report issued by Wikimedia Founda<on, their
fundraising program has over 7.5 million donors giving an average dona<on of $11.38 in the
2022-2023 fiscal year (FY 22-23).

35
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wikimedia_Foundagon_FS_FY2022-
2023_Audit_Report.pdf#page=6
 31

According to the summary of grants to Wikimedia Founda<ons on the Wikipedia page, The
Wikimedia Founda<on has received a steady stream of grants from other founda<ons
throughout its history. In 2008, the Founda<on received a $40,000 grant from the Open
Society Ins<tute to create a printable version of Wikipedia It also received a $262,000 grant
from the Stanton Founda<on to purchase hardware $500,000 unrestricted grant from Vinod
and Neeru Khosla, who later that year joined the Founda<on advisory board, and $177,376
from the historians Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin (Arcadia Fund), among others. In
March 2008, the Founda<on announced what was then its largest dona<on yet: a three-
year, $3 million grant from the Sloan Founda<on.

In 2009, the Founda<on received four grants. The first was a $890,000 Stanton Founda<on
grant to help study and simplify the user interface for first-<me authors of Wikipedia. The
second was a $300,000 Ford Founda<on grant in July 2009 for Wikimedia Commons, to
improve the interface for uploading mul<media files. In August 2009, the Founda<on
received a $500,000 grant from The William and Flora Hewle] Founda<on. Also in August
2009, the Omidyar Network commi]ed up to $2 million over two years to Wikimedia. In
2010, Google donated $2 million and the Stanton Founda<on granted $1.2 million to fund
the Public Policy Ini<a<ve, a pilot program for what later became the Wikipedia Educa<on
Program (and the spin-off Wiki Educa<on Founda<on).

In March 2011, the Sloan Founda<on authorized another $3 million grant, to be funded over
three years, with the first $1 million to come in July 2011 and the remaining $2 million to be
funded in August 2012 and 2013. As a donor, Doron Weber from the Sloan Founda<on
gained Board Visitor status at the Wikimedia Founda<on Board of Trustees. In August 2011,
the Stanton Founda<on pledged to fund a $3.6 million grant of which $1.8 million was
funded and the remainder was to come in September 2012. As of 2011, this was the largest
grant the Wikimedia Founda<on had ever received. In November 2011, the Founda<on
received a $500,000 dona<on from the Brin Wojcicki Founda<on.

In 2012, the Founda<on was awarded a grant of $1.25 million from Lisbet Rausing and Peter
Baldwin through the Chari<es Aid Founda<on, scheduled to be funded in five equal
instalments from 2012 through 2015. In 2014, the Founda<on received the largest single giN
in its history, a $5 million unrestricted dona<on from an anonymous donor suppor<ng $1
million worth of expenses annually for the next five years. In March 2012, The Gordon and
Be]y Moore Founda<on, established by the Intel co-founder and his wife, awarded the
Wikimedia Founda<on a $449,636 grant to develop Wikidata. This was part of a larger grant,
much of which went to Wikimedia Germany, which took on ownership of the development
effort.

Between 2014 and 2015, the Founda<on received $500,000 from the Monarch Fund,
$100,000 from the Arcadia Fund and an undisclosed amount from the Stavros Niarchos
Founda<on to support the Wikipedia Zero ini<a<ve. In 2015, a grant agreement was reached
with the John S. and James L. Knight Founda<on to build a search engine called the
"Knowledge Engine", a project that proved controversial. In 2017, the Sloan Founda<on
awarded another $3 million grant for a three-year period, and Google donated another $1.1
million to the Founda<on in 2019.
 32

The grants to Wikimedia Founda<on as listed above is independent of the grants they
receive in their endowment - which has already been discussed. There are several other
donors to Wikipedia Founda<on like Apple, Amazon, MicrosoN, NeClix Matching GiNs,
Adobe etc. Rockefeller Founda<on is also one of the major patrons and donors of Wikimedia
Founda<on as listed in their annual reports.

Wikimedia Founda'on and Tides Founda'on

The Wikimedia Founda<on itself disperses several grants to other organisa<ons. Essen<ally,
a part of the money that Wikimedia Founda<on collects via dona<ons goes to several NGOs
and Founda<ons that run agendas and campaigns which have nothing to do with Wikipedia.
In fact, as we would see later, most of the substan<al grants that Wikimedia Founda<on gets
and the grants that it disburses are too severely LeN leaning (some even radical LeN in
nature) – which could also explain the radical LeN bias of Wikipedia itself.

The funding between Wikimedia, Tides Founda/on and Tides Advocacy

It is an established truancy that Wikimedia Founda<on introduced an Endowment which was

hosted by Tides Founda<on, however, the financial transac<ons between Wikimedia and
Tides Founda<on/Advocacy has been shrouded in mystery.

In the financial of Wikimedia Founda<on, Tides Founda<on made its first appearance in
2017.
 33

The stated purpose of the grant extended to Tides Founda<on was ‘To support work to
further mission”.

In 2018, there was again a ‘grant’ of $5 million to Tides Founda<on in the financials of
Wikimedia Founda<on.

In both these cases, the purpose was to support mission and further ac<vity.

The Wikipedia page on the Endowment Fund says, “The FoundaBon itself has provided
annual grants of $5 million to its Endowment since 2016.[112] These amounts have been
recorded as part of the FoundaBon's "awards and grants" expenses.[113]”.

The Wikimedia Founda<on fundraising report men<ons that “six annual payments of $5
million the Wikimedia Founda<on made to the Wikimedia Endowment, from the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2016, to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021”.

Therefore, it is expected that every year, started from the 2017 Financial report, one could
expect a $5 million transfer to Tides Founda<on – which was made for the Wikimedia
Endowment Fund.

However, there were fund transfers to Tide Founda<on which exceeded the $5 million,
which was to be deposited in the Wikimedia Endowment Fund, managed by Tides
Founda<on.

In the year 2019, for example, two grants were extended by Wikimedia Founda<on to Tides
Founda<on. 1 was the usual $5 million transfer to the Endowment Fund.
 34

Wikimedia Founda<on also sent an addi<onal $8.72 million to Tides Advocacy, a different
but related organiza<on, in the year ending 2020.

Around the same <me that Wikimedia Founda<on gave a ‘grant’ of $8.72 million to Tides
Advocacy, it appointed Amanda Keton is General Counsel for the Wikimedia Founda<on.

According to the press note issued by Wikimedia Founda<on36, “prior to joining Wikimedia,
Amanda was General Counsel of Tides Network, a naBonal public foundaBon deploying
donor-advised grants and investments to build a world of shared prosperity and social
jusBce. While in that role, she worked with the Wikimedia FoundaBon to establish the
Wikimedia Endowment, a source of funding to support the Wikimedia projects and mission
in perpetuity. She also served as Head of Tides FoundaBon and People OperaBons as well as
CEO of Tides Advocacy, the policy affiliate in the Tides family of organizaBons”.

In the same press note, Wikimedia Founda<on also said that they believed in advocacy and
emphasised on the important of it.

What is interes<ng to note here is that in none of the documents of Wikimedia Founda<on,
annual reports etc, is this grant of $8.72 million explained.

In 2020, $5,529,704 million was transferred from Wikimedia Founda<on to Tides

Founda<on.

In 2020, the Wikimedia Founda<on had announced that it was extending a $4.5 million to
Tides Founda<on for a “Knowledge Equity Fund”37 men<oning that the fund was to provide
grants to organiza<ons whose work would not otherwise be covered by Wikimedia grants
but addresses racial inequi<es in accessing and contribu<ng to free knowledge resources38.

So far, there is no indica<on of how much Wikimedia Founda<on is paying Tides as fees for
managing their funds and endowments. In fact, in one of the discussion boards, it was made
clear by the Wikimedia Founda<on that the amount which Wikimedia Founda<on pays Tides
Founda<on to run its Endowment Fund will not be disclosed39. Therefore, there is no way to
confirm if the excess amount was transferred towards fees or other advocacy.

36
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2019/10/03/wikimedia-foundagon-welcomes-amanda-keton-as-
general-counsel/
37
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Equity_Fund
38

hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundagon#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20Foundagon%20dona
ted,contribugng%20to%20free%20knowledge%20resources.
39

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?gtle=Talk%3AWikimedia_Endowment&diff=22261671&oldid=22212
461#Tides_Foundagon_relagonship
 35

In 2021, the IRS documents of Wikimedia Founda<on ended up proving that the informa<on
on Wikipedia is not accurate.

In the 2021 IRS file of Wikimedia Founda<on, they reveal that they gave a $516,650 grant to
Tides Founda<on and a $300,000 grant to Tides Advocacy.

There is no explana<on as to what these grants were given for. Even if we assume that in this
specific year, the grant extended by Wikimedia Founda<on to their Endowment Fund (run by
Tides Founda<on) was not $5 million but a li]le over $500,000, the $300,000 to Tides
Advocacy remains unexplained.

In 2022, Wikimedia Founda<on transferred $1,487,648 to Tides Founda<on.

 36

Lack of transparency between Wikimedia Founda/on and Tides Founda/on

According to an ar<cle by Ins<tute for New Economic Thinking, there is an inherent lack of
transparency in the transac<ons between Wikimedia Founda<on and Tides Founda<on.

The report reads40:

Tides runs a series of chari<es that enable donors to anonymously pledge money which
Tides then uses for grants to progressive organiza<ons. There are several related but legally
separate Tides chari<es, the largest being the Tides Founda<on with 2019 net assets of $558
million. Tides are Donor Advised Funds: anonymous donors may direct Tides what to do with
their dona<ons though they may also choose to leave funding decisions to Tides. Tides
discloses its largest benefactors by the amount donated without lis<ng the iden<<es of the
individuals or organiza<ons. Disbursements are reported but whose money went to which
cause is en<rely opaque.

Wikimedia both donates to the Tides Founda<on and simultaneously receives money from
the organiza<on. Despite repeated dona<ons of $5 million, and a badge lis<ng Wikimedia on
their homepage along with other major donors, Tides does not list the $5 million dona<ons
from Wikimedia except for one year.

In 2014 and 2015, Tides Founda<on listed the top nine benefactors; the Wikimedia grant is
presumably one of two $5 million entries. However, beginning in the year ending 2016, Tides
lists fewer benefactors (four entries for 2016 and 2018 and five for 2017 and 2019). None of
the benefactors are for exactly $5,000,000 and the figures seem to cut off just over the $5
million mark.

Google’s former charity, Google.org, shu]ered the year ending 2018.[9] Google made two
large dona<ons to Tides Founda<on, a total of $50,264,173 listed in their 2018 disclosure
(consis<ng of three dona<ons: $43,844,348, $844,448, and $560,055) and $76,385,901 in
2017. Neither matches a line-item amount Tides Founda<on reported for the corresponding
years.[10] Google also contributes money directly to both Wikimedia and the Wikimedia
Endowment, announcing a $7.5 million dona<on at the 2019 Word Economic Forum.[11]

While Wikimedia donates money to Tides – to support its endowment and Knowledge
Equity Fund (via Tides Advocacy) – Tides also donates money to Wikimedia. However, the
Tides dona<ons do not appear in Wikimedia annual reports, which list major benefactors
who donate amounts above $50,000 except for a pass-through dona<on from Google (“The
Google Founda<on of Tides Founda<on[12].”). Other dona<ons from Tides to Wikimedia are
presumably lumped into the group of anonymous donors.

On October 7, 2019, Amanda Keton joined Wikimedia as General Counsel. She came to
Wikimedia from Tides where her work included sehng up the Wikimedia Endowment and
serving as CEO of Tides Advocacy, the Tides charity that Wikimedia donated $8.7 million to
in 2019, the year Keton switched. That dona<on is in addi<on to Wikimedia’s ordinary

40
hIps://www.ineteconomics.org/perspecgves/blog/wikipedias-deep-ges-to-big-tech
 37

annual $5,000,000 contribu<on to the endowment. As with other funds held at Tides,
dona<ons are separate from expenditures making it impossible to defini<vely trace what the
donated funds were used for.

The extensive <es to Tides – an organiza<on which oNen hides funding sources – is an odd
choice of partners for the purportedly transparent Wikimedia.

Tides Founda'on – Funding an'-India, an'-Hindu organisa'ons and

narra'ves
As detailed, Wikimedia Founda<on and Tides Founda<on are intricately interwoven. Along
with Wikimedia, Google and Tides Founda<on are also intricately woven. It is per<nent to
know that all three seem to have financial rela<onship with each other – with Google
funding its ac<vism through Tides Founda<on, Google funding Wikimedia Founda<on and
Wikimedia Founda<on and Tides Founda<on/Tides Advocacy funding each other. Most
importantly, Wikimedia Founda<on is on record saying that it funds certain ac<vi<es and
causes through Tides which it cannot fund itself.

It therefore becomes important to understand the nature of Tides Founda<on, Tides

Advocacy and its nexus, along with what are the causes that Tides is espousing.

According to ‘Influencer Watch’, “The Tides Founda<on is a major centre-leN grant making
organiza<on and a major pass-through funder to numerous leN-leaning nonprofits. The San
Francisco, California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit was founded in 1976 by Drummond Pike, a
professional poli<cal ac<vist who has since re<red from the organiza<on, to funnel grants
from liberal donors to centre-leN nonprofits using donor-advised funds, encouraging
individuals to donate to Tides since they would hold an advisory role in its grant making.
Donor-advised funds are a kind of charitable “savings account” in which donors giN funds to
grow in Tides’ investment accounts before advising Tides to pay out the funds in grants to
other (typically leN-leaning) nonprofits. Since 2007, the Tides Founda<on has reported
revenues totaling $2.6 billion. In 2020, the Tides Founda<on paid out $607 million in grants”.

Essen<ally, Tides Founda<on/Tides Advocacy/Tides Network and other Tides organisa<ons

in the nexus serve as a medium to funnel funds to LeN leaning organisa<ons – some<mes in
plain sight and some<mes, to avoid detec<on. As illustrated earlier, the fund exchange
between Tides Founda<on/Tides Advocacy and the Wikimedia Founda<on has been
clandes<ne and the lack of transparency has been widely cri<cised. In fact, there are details
of how Wikimedia and Tides are funding each other by being ‘anonymous’ in several
situa<ons.

Who funds the Tides Nexus

The Tides Nexus, especially the Tides Founda<on, is an NGO which prides itself in keeping its
donors anonymous. According to Influencer Watch, “Since its crea<on, donor-advised funds
(DAFs) have formed the basis of the Tides Founda<on’s grant making services. DAFs act as a
 38

kind of “charitable savings account,” enabling donors to giN tax-deduc<ble funds to the Tides
Founda<on for the organiza<on to invest and grow in individual accounts. Donors may then
designate recipients for the Tides Founda<on to make grants to from their accounts. This has
the added effect of effec<vely masking (or “washing”) the original donors, since grants from
Tides do not reveal which donor directed the funds and the IRS does not require 501(c)(3)
nonprofits such as Tides to disclose its donors.

The Tides Founda<on has been described as an organiza<on that “washes” away the paper
trail between its grants and the original donor. Tides Founder Drummond Pike stated,
“Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.””

Essen<ally, Tides Founda<on is a ‘pass through’ organisa<on where several donors set up
donor advised funds and while staying anonymous, fund LeN causes and organisa<ons.

While the funds received by Tides Founda<on and the recipient of those funds are difficult
to trace precisely, there is some amount of informa<on available through ‘founda<on
search’. Influencer Watch did a study and zeroed in on certain notable grants to the Tides
Founda<on from 1998 to 2018.

Annie E. Casey Founda<on: $946,500

Arca Founda<on: $542,000
Bauman Family Founda<on: $2,773,787
California Endowment: $4,265,828
Carnegie Corpora<on of New York: $823,486
David and Lucile Packard Founda<on: $492,000
Ford Founda<on: $26,410,759
George Soros’ Founda<on to Promote Open Society: $10,259,289
George Soros’ Open Society Founda<ons: $12,130,241
Gill Founda<on: $3,292,700
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Founda<on: $340,986
Nick and Leslie Hanauer Founda<on: $640,384
Oak Founda<on USA: $392,754
Omidyar Network Fund: $818,000
Robert Wood Johnson Founda<on: $2,236,350
Rockefeller Brothers Fund: $5,373,108
Rockefeller Family Fund: $460,914
Rockefeller Founda<on: $1,661,055
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors: $3,525,000
W.K. Kellogg Founda<on: $3,131,201
Wallace Global Fund II: $8,621,001
William and Flora Hewle] Founda<on: $8,317,690

While we have already seen how Wikimedia Founda<on gives grants to Tides Founda<on
and Tides Advocacy and how, Tides funds Wikimedia as well, however, in a clandes<ne
manner, Influencer Watch was able to trace 3 dona<ons to Tides Founda<on which were
directly meant for Wikimedia Founda<on. This is presumably the <p of the iceberg and only
a frac<on of the grants that has been traced.
 39

The Tides Founda<on and Tides Centre also receive grants from the U.S. federal government.
Between 1997 and 2001, these grants included the following: $395,219 from the
Department of Interior; $3,350,431 from the Environmental Protec<on Agency; $3,487,040
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development; $208,878 from the Department
of Agriculture; $39,550 from the Department of Energy; $93,500 from the Small Business
Administra<on; $10,986 from the Department of Health and Human Services; and $84,520
from the Centres for Disease Control U.S. Agency for Interna<onal Development41.

Who and what does Tides Nexus fund

Most recently, Tides Founda<on and Tides Centre were in the news for funding the violent
an<-Isael and pro-Hamas protests in USA college campus’.

In May 2024, a report by Poli<co suggested that these protes<ng groups are being funded by
organisa<ons that are pushing for Biden’s re-elec<on as the President of the United States.
The list of donors includes Rockefeller and Pritzker along with Soros.

Two of the organisa<ons that have heavily funded the protests at Columbia University and
other campuses are Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. Tides Founda<on has backed
these two organisa<ons which are also funded by George Soros. David Rockefeller Jr, one of
the top donors pushing Biden’s re-elec<on, is on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Tides Founda<on received millions from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. In the past five years,
the Tides Founda<on has given around USD 500,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace. Notably, the
organisa<on describes itself as an<-Zionist.

Tides Founda<on also provide financial support to Adalah Jus<ce Project which was involved
in the protests at Columbia University. It also supports Pales<ne Legal which is a legal
defence fund to provide legal assistance to “student protesters” who mobilise “against

41
hIps://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizagons/gdes-foundagon-and-gdes-center/
 40

genocide”. Tides has been funding Pales<ne Legal since 2013 and Adalah Jus<ce Project
since 201642.
In 2013 as well, there were reports that George Soros via Tides Centre had funded pro-
Hamas groups.

As per a report by The New York Post, the Hungarian-American billionaire has funnelled over
$15 million to pro-Hamas groups since 2016 through his Open Society Founda<ons (OSF).

About $13.7 million has been disbursed to a leNist advocacy group by the name of ‘Tides’,
which funds non-profit organisa<ons that jus<fied Hamas’ a]acks on Israel and the
subsequent killing of 1400 civilians.

According to The New York Post, members of the ‘Adalah Jus<ce Project’ organised a rally in
Byrant Park on 20th October this year and raised an<-Semi<c slogans. One of them was seen
waving a sign that read, “I do not condemn Hamas.”

The pro-Hamas ‘Byrant Park demonstra<on’ was reportedly sponsored by ‘Desis Rising Up
and Moving’, which received $30k in 2020 from the ‘Tides Centre’ (funded by George Soros’
OSF)43.

Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR)

In 2020, Tides Founda<on gave a heNy dona<on for Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR).

According to the Form 990 of the IRS, Tides Founda<on donated a heNy $266,000 which is
upwards of Rs 2 crores.

HfHR is notorious for its an<-India and an<-Hindu ac<vity44.

Inves<ga<ng Info-warfare and Psy-war OSINT Disinfo Lab had conducted an inves<ga<on
revealing that the ‘Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR)’ had been promo<ng the misleading
narra<ve of ‘Hindu Vs Hindutva’. The same organisa<on was also seen endorsing the
‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event.

As per Disinfo Lab, HfHR was formed in the year 2019 by two Islamist advocacy groups
named Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and the Organiza<on for Minori<es of India

42
hIps://www.poligco.com/news/2024/05/05/pro-palesgnian-protests-columbia-university-funding-donors-
00156135
43
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/10/george-soros-open-society-foundagons-funding-pro-hamas-groups-
united-states/
44
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/06/rahul-gandhi-think-tanks-hudson-university-sunita-vishwanath-iamc-
george-soros-usa-tour/
 41

(OFMI). Interes<ngly, the three organisa<ons had formed another ouCit called the Alliance
for Jus<ce and Accountability (AJA).

As per an ar<cle in The Hindu, the Alliance for Jus<ce and Accountability had been at the
forefront of leading demonstra<ons against the visit of PM Modi to Houston on September
22, 2019.

“The AJA comprises of Hindu, Muslim, Dalit, Sikh and Chris<an groups, among others. They
include the Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), a progressive Hindu group that opposes
Hindutva; the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC); and the Organiza<on for Minori<es
of India (OFMI),” the ar<cle read.

According to Disinfo Lab, the co-founder of Hindus for Human Rights, Sunita Vishwanath,
also runs an organisa<on named ‘Women for Afghan Women’, which is funded by the Soros
Open Society Founda<on.

Interes<ngly, Sunita Vishwanath had tried to create hysteria and panic among Indian
Muslims about the Na<onal Register of Ci<zens (NRC). “We are especially appalled by the
most recent nightmare of the Kashmiri people, and the situa<on of 1.9 million people in
India who are rendered stateless due to the imposi<on of the travesty called the Na<onal
Register of Ci<zens”, she had said. It is per<nent to note that even during this USA trip, Rahul
Gandhi endorsed dangerous lies and propaganda against CAA and NRC, which led to an<-
Hindu riots in 2020 in India.

HfHR’s founding member Raju also heads EKTA. It is an associate organiza<on of IAMC. The
sole purpose was to have Hindus on the panel to project that the Hindus, in general, were
against Hindutva. Interes<ngly, HfHR ran Facebook ads to promote previous USCIRF reports.

As per Disinfo Lab, HfHR was formed in the year 2019 by two Islamist advocacy groups
named Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and the Organiza<on for Minori<es of India
(OFMI). Interes<ngly, the three organisa<ons had formed another ouCit called the Alliance
for Jus<ce and Accountability (AJA). IAMC is of par<cular interest in this equa<on since the
Islamist organisa<on is linked to terrorists and has also spread canards in India.

Rasheed Ahmed is the execu<ve director of the Indian American Muslim Council, Indian
American Muslim Council (IAMC), a radical Islamist group that has alleged links with banned
terror organiza<ons such as the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and has a long
history of lobbying against India.

The IAMC is a Jamat-e-Islami-backed lobbyist organisa<on claiming to be a rights advocacy

group. In the past, it had reportedly collaborated with and even paid money to various
groups in the USA to get India blacklisted by the USCIRF (United States Commission on
Interna<onal Religious Freedom). A detailed report by Disinfo Lab has exposed its links with
the terror ouCit Jamat-e-Islami.

IAMC founder Shaik Ubaid and member Abdul Malik Mujahid have headed the Islamic Circle
of North America (ICNA), the US front for Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan. According to DisInfo Lab,
 42

ICNA has established links with Pakistan-based terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Rasheed Ahmed, who heads the IAMC currently, was the former execu<ve director of the
Islamic Medical Associa<on of North America (IMANA). IMANA’s Director of Opera<ons is
Zahid Mahmood, an ex-Pak Navy official.

IAMC had been caught spreading fake news and misinforma<on to further the Islamist cause
in India. It had also been slapped with the UAPA in 2021.

IAMC had recently extended support to the wrestlers’ protest and under that garb, had also
whitewashed terrorist Yasin Malik, who could not poten<ally get the death penalty and has
been convicted in a court of law for terrorism and Aysha Renna, who is a rabid Islamist and
had par<cipated in the an<-CAA violence of 2019 and 2020.

Recently, IAMC had issued a statement condemning the disqualifica<on of Congress leader
Rahul Gandhi from Lok Sabha. In the statement, IAMC claimed that the defama<on case
against Gandhi was designed to harass and in<midate him. The organisa<on called his
disqualifica<on a “grave injus<ce and clear manifesta<on of the ruling party’s despera<on to
maintain its hold on power, decimate the opposi<on, and silence dissen<ng voices.” They
then proceeded to demonise India using this lie, which we have seen Rahul Gandhi also do
repeatedly, including in his current trip to the USA.

In fact, only 2 weeks ago on the 15th of May, the US State Department released a
conten<ous report, decrying the supposed lack of religious freedom in India based on
falsified and misleading data sourced from Chris<an evangelist groups and radical Islamist
ouCits. The 2022 Report on Interna<onal Religious Freedom has been published by the
Office of Interna<onal Religious Freedom under the State dept. It was then revealed that the
report placed reliance on organisa<ons such as the Federa<on of Indian Chris<an
Organiza<on in North America (FIACONA), United Chris<an Forum, Open Doors USA,
Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI), Interna<onal Chris<an Concern and Indian American
Muslim Council (IAMC) to allege atroci<es on religious minori<es in the country.

Rahul Gandhi and Sunita Vishwanath have also worked in close quarters.

In 2023, Rahul Gandhi was on a 10-day US tour. In one of his engagements, he spoke at the
Hudson University. An image of that talk emerged where Sunita Vishwanath was sihng next
to him.

As men<oned in the brief above, the co-founder of Hindus for Human Rights, Sunita
Vishwanath, who has now been pictured with Rahul Gandhi, also runs an organisa<on
named ‘Women for Afghan Women’, which is funded by the Soros Open Society Founda<on.

In January 2020, the American billionaire commi]ed $1 billion to start a global university to
“fight na<onalists” and climate change, calling them twin challenges that threaten the
survival of our civiliza<on.
 43

While speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Soros pledged to fund a university
project to ba]le the erosion of civil society in a world increasingly ruled by “would-be and
actual dictators” and climate change.

Soros also claimed that the “biggest and most frightening setback” was in India, as he
accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of “crea<ng a Hindu na<onalist state.”

He had claimed, “The biggest and most frightening setback occurred in India where a
democra<cally elected Narendra Modi is crea<ng a Hindu na<onalist state, imposing
puni<ve measures on Kashmir, a semi-autonomous Muslim region, and threatening to
deprive millions of Muslims of their ci<zenship”.

George Soros, through his Open Society Founda<on, which started its opera<ons in India
first in 1999 by offering scholarships and fellowships to pursue studies and research at Indian
ins<tu<ons, Soros has made great strides in crea<ng disorder within India. In the name of
running philanthropic ac<vi<es, the leN-wing interna<onal organisa<on led by Soros has
begun to spread its tentacles across the country by his ac<ve support to an<-India elements
opera<ng inside India.

In the last few decades, George Soros has <me and again has shown his despera<on to wage
war against the na<onalist government in India through various networks funded by him
comprising of NGOs, media, intelligentsia, etc.

Regarding his philanthropy work, Soros’s OSF grasped a stronghold in India during the
Obama regime. Ever since its entry into India, OSF has tried to interlope in the internal
affairs of the na<on through the vast and interconnected network of organisa<ons funded
by George Soros. These organisa<ons play a vital role in manipula<ng the original narra<ve
and take the help of the judiciary and media to hinder the na<onal interest.

In 2008, the Soros Economic Development Fund (SEDF) joined hands with Omidyar Network,
the Indian School of Business (ISB) and Google.org to launch their 17 million SONG fund to
boost investment. Together with other networks, Soros has provided extensive grants to
media running into millions to manipulate poli<cal narra<ves.

The Hungarian-American billionaire has also tried to use interna<onal ins<tu<ons, which are
funded by him, including Freedom House and V-Dem (Varie<es of Democracy) Ins<tute to
tarnish the image of India at a global level.

Recently, George Soros had also commented on the Adani row post the Hindenburg report,
which Rahul Gandhi had taken up vociferously to target the Modi government and even PM
Modi personally, essen<ally revealing that the campaign against Adani could have been
fuelled by George Soros himself, in an a]empt to bring PM Modi down.

However, it does not end here, the <es between Congress and Soros go deeper, who is
widely known for his an<-India views. On 31 October 2022, a person named Salil She]y
joined Rahul Gandhi in his Bharat Jodo Yatra in Harthikote in Karnataka. Salil She]y is the
global vice president of Open Society Founda<ons founded by George Soros. In its regular
 44

update on the Yatra on its website, Congress wrote, “Yatris commenced their journey from
Harthikote this morning. Walking alongside Shri Gandhi, among others, were two social and
human rights ac<vists. Salil She]y, previous Secretary General of Amnesty Interna<onal.
Also, Nikhil Dey of the Mazdoor Kisan Shak< Sangathan, an organisa<on known for its work
in helping bring about the ‘Right to Informa<on Act’.”

Before becoming VP of Open Society Founda<on, She]y was secretary general of Amnesty
Interna<onal, another leN-wing organisa<on known for its an<-India ac<vi<es. She]y’s
involvement in India does not end with Bharat Jodo Yatra, earlier he was seen in several
events against the Modi government.

From an<-CAA protests, which led to an<-Hindu Delhi riots (and the false propaganda used
was again endorsed by Rahul Gandhi in his trip to USA this <me) to farmers protest, which
was hijacked by Khalistanis and also led to rampant violence, rapes and murders, She]y was
involved everywhere – the Soros man who walked with Rahul Gandhi.

If one no<ces, every trope that has been furthered by Sunita Vishwanath, who now sits with
Rahul Gandhi and Salil She]y, who walked with Rahul Gandhi, has been furthered and
endorsed by Rahul Gandhi himself and the Congress party. From differen<a<ng between
Hinduism and Hindutva and using that trope to demonise Hindus to the Adani fiasco, an<-
CAA propaganda, farmers protest, Indian democracy and more.

If the links between Congress and George Soros were being speculated about before, with
this picture from the USA trip emerging, the specula<ons that Congress party is working in
tandem with George Soros’ agenda have only deepened.

It is now per<nent to note that there is clear evidence of <es between Wikipedia, Tides
Founda<on and the an<-India, an<-Hindu narra<ve being fuelled by HfHR and other related
en<<es.

Every year, Tides Founda<on sends hundreds and millions of dollars to India. It is per<nent
to note that in the Form 990 that Tides files with the IRS, they are required to disclose
specifics only of the US organisa<ons that they donate to – which is why it was easier to
locate HfHR in their list of dona<ons.

They do not disclose specifically which organisa<ons they donate to in India, however, their
990 does disclose that funds were indeed sent to India.

Here are examples of the funds sent to “South Asia” – including India – by Tides Founda<on
in 2020.
45
 46

Associa5on for India’s Development (AID)

There are some organisa<ons that Tides Founda<on has donated to as well. For example, in
201, it donated to ‘Associa<on for India’s Development’ (AID)

A lot of the informa<on about the human rights ac<vi<es of AID seems to have been wiped
clean.

However, some of the informa<on remains. For example, a 2011, Times of India gave AID the
“global impact award”. In the ar<cle detaining the award, Times of India men<oned that AID
had funded Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO Parivartan and also campaigned extensively for the
release of Binayak Sen45.

Binayak Sen was convicted in 2010 on charges of sedi<on for his links to Naxals and
sentenced to life imprisonment under sec<ons 124A and 120(B) of the IPC. He was also
found guilty under sec<on 8(1) of the Chhahsgarh Special Public Security Act. He was given
bail by the Supreme Court in 2011. He is associated with the PUCL, an organiza<on we have
reported on extensively, that is closely linked with the arrested ‘Urban Naxals’.

Convicted for sedi<on and helping Naxalites to set up a network to fight the state of India,
Binayak Sen was a Vice President of the PUCL even aNer his convic<on by Raipur Sessions
Court. The West Bengal unit of PUCL also published a book exonera<ng Sen of all his crimes
and branded him a “vic<m of state atrocity”.

45
hIps://web.archive.org/web/20111006001009/hIp://argcles.gmesofindia.indiagmes.com/2011-09-
20/india/30179711_1_aid-binayak-sen-funds
 47

As it turns out, he was in the Commi]ee for Police Reforms of the Aam Aadmi Party
announced in 2014. Sen was in the commi]ee for resolving the Naxalite ques<on as well.
Binayak Sen has links with the Congress party as well. Sen was named a member of the
government’s Planning Commission on health in 2011. Chief Minister of Chhahsgarh,
Raman Singh, had slammed the decision to include Sen in the panel and wrote to the then
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deeming it “shocking and against all norms and propriety”.

Despite his convic<on for sedi<on and associa<ons with the PUCL, which has extensive links
to separa<sts across the country from Kashmir to Manipur through the coordina<ng
organiza<on CDRO, Binayak Sen con<nues to enjoy the support of the intellectual fraternity.
He has even been invited to TISS to deliver a keynote address at an event46.

Aman Public Charitable Trust – The NewsClick and Rajiv Gandhi Founda5on China funding
connec5on

Aman Public Charitable Trust on its website says, “AMAN envisages a pro-ac<ve role for civil
society in the reduc<on of conflict and the mi<ga<on of its effects. Its philosophy is based on
the concepts of ahimsa and samrastha (non – violence and harmony). In the area of non –
governmental civic ini<a<ves, the ra<onale for AMAN arises from a recogni<on that man –
made disasters must be added to those caused by natural calamity. While relief is impera<ve
in the aNermath of a disaster, a purely reac<ve approach is insufficient, even in the context
of natural disasters. All of Aman’s networking, sensi<sa<on, research and legal aid
programmes aim at strengthening social ins<tu<ons and resources for the an<cipa<on and
preven<on of conflict, and at non-violent conflict resolu<on”.

The “Partners” of AMAN as listed on their website is as follows47:

1. American Indian Founda<on (AIF)

2. Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on
3. Associa<on for India’s Development (Funded by TIDES Founda<on – as detailed in the
previous sec<on)
4. European Commission for Humanitarian Organisa<ons
5. Ford Founda<on
6. HIVOS
7. OXFAM
8. Public Affairs Centre
9. The Hunger Project
10. TIDES Founda<on
11. TATA Relief Commi]ee
12. Chari<es Aid Founda<on
13. Habitat For Humanity
14. Give2Asia
15. NASSCOM Founda<on
16. Na<onal Founda<on For India
46
hIps://www.opindia.com/2019/07/convicted-naxalite-binayak-sen-signs-rising-intolerance-leIer-to-pm-
modi-calls-self-peace-loving-proud-indian/
47
hIps://www.amanpanchayat.org/about/donors-partners/
 48

17. Interna<onal Media Support (IMS)

18. Na<onal Founda<on for India (NFI)

The Chairman of AMAN is Dilip Simeon. According to AMAN, “Dilip Simeon is the
chairperson of the AMAN and also a senior fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and
Library in Delhi. Earlier he taught history at the University of Delhi. He has been ac<ve in
democra<c and an<-communal mobilisa<on for past many years and was a founding
member of the Sampradayikta Virodhi Andolan (Struggle Against Communalism). He has
published extensively in leading journals and newspaper and had also authored a book
<tled The Poli<cs of Labour Under Late Colonialism: Workers, Trade Unions and the State in
Chota Nagpur, 1928-1939, Manohar Publica<ons”48.

Dilip Simeon was one of the people named in the Delhi Police FIR against NewsClick, accused
of a]emp<ng to sabotage the 2019 General Elec<ons in India.

Prabir Purkayastha, one of the main accused in the NewsClick-China funding case, had
started an organisa<on called People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS). The
organisa<on went defunct, but before it did, it a]empted to interfere in 2019 elec<ons. In
the FIR filed in the case by the police, Dilip Simeon was also named as an accused.

The Special Cell’s FIR against Prabir Purkayastha included a detailed list of asser<ons,
including a]empts to portray Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir as “not parts of India,” a]acks
on the Indian government’s efforts to combat Covid, financial support for the farmers’
agita<on, and “puhng up a spirited defence of legal cases” against Chinese telecom
companies like Vivo and Xiaomi.

Funds to disseminate propaganda favouring China are reportedly received by NewsClick. The
UAPA and the an<-terror law have been invoked against the news company. NewsClick is
charged with obtaining more than Rs 80 crore from Chinese companies.

According to the FIR, the news outlet accepted funding from Chinese organiza<ons with the
inten<on of “disrup<ng the sovereignty of India” and inci<ng animosity toward the na<on.
Earlier, a Delhi court gave police a further 10 days to finish their probe into NewsClick
founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha. Amit Chakravarty, the chief of NewsClick’s HR
department and former accuser turned approver, has extended his judicial custody for an
addi<onal ten days.

According to police, raids were carried out in October 2023 at 88 sites in Delhi and seven
other states against the suspects listed in the FIR and those whose names came up during
data analysis. In addi<on, Purkayastha is accused of working with the People’s Alliance for
Democracy and Secularism (PADS) to undermine the 2019 Lok Sabha elec<ons.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested aNer a full day of searches at more than fiNy
loca<ons associated with the news portal, its staff and its contributors. The police reported
that 46 “suspects” had had their “digital devices” confiscated and were being ques<oned

48
hIps://www.amanpanchayat.org/about/trustees-partners/
 49

following the searches, which took place around Mumbai and the Na<onal Capital Region.
The Delhi office of the news outlet was also sealed by the police.

“Foreign funds in crores have been infused illegally in India by Indian and foreign en<<es
inimical to India in pursuance of a conspiracy to disrupt sovereignty and territorial integrity
of India, to cause disaffec<on against India and to threaten the unity, integrity, security of
India,” the Special Cell established in its remand applica<on, ci<ng “secret inputs.”

Arunachal Pradesh was depicted as a disputed area on a new map of India, and the accused
were “in direct touch with each other” and “discussing how to create a new map of India
without Kashmir,” according to the remand applica<on. They had also received “more than
Rs 115 crore” in the “guise of foreign funds” for this purpose. Chakraborty has become an
approver in the case, aNer Purkayastha and he, both have been in judicial confinement since
November.

The People’s Dispatch Portal, owned and maintained by M/S PPK Newsclick Studio Private
Limited has been used for purposefully peddling false narra<ves through paid news in lieu of
crores of rupees of illegally routed foreign funds as part of a conspiracy, based on Delhi
Police’s Special Cell’s FIR against NewsClick’s founder and Editor-in-Chief, Prabir
Purkayastha49.

Interes<ngly, while Dilip Simeon is also connected to the Newsclick-China funding case – the
chairman of AMAN – funded by Tides, Ford Founda<on etc – another donor of AMAN – Rajiv
Gandhi Founda<on also took money from China.

The Chinese government had donated Rs 10 lakh to the ‘Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on’ in 2006 to
give ‘financial assistance’ to its chari<es. In addi<on, according to a document available on
Chinese Embassy in India website, the then Chinese Ambassador to India to India Sun Yuxi
had donated Rs 10 lakhs to the Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on, which has links to the Congress
party and is run by Congress leaders.

A perusal of the Annual Statements of Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on revealed that the Chinese
government had not only donated to the Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on in the year 2006 but
subsequent years as well. It is per<nent to note that Sonia Gandhi is the Chairperson of the
Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on and since the year 2005, of which documents have been reviewed,
Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra were the trustees.

One sinister aspect that emerged is that even in 2005-2006, it was not just the Embassy of
China that had donated to Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on, but also the Chinese government itself.

In the Annual Report of the Founda<on for the year 2006-2007 as well, the People’s Republic
of China is listed as a donor. Further, in the year 2007-2008, the Chinese Government was

49
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/05/newsclick-chargesheet-2016-email-prabir-purkayastha-china-neville-roy-
singham-end-democracy/
 50

listed as a donor as well. ANer well over Rs 1 crore received by Rajiv Gandhi Founda<on, the
founda<on launched a study focussed on the interests of China50.

It is also per<nent to note that several other organisa<ons that donate to AMAN have links
to TIDES Founda<on including Ford Founda<on.

Alliance India – Chaired by Dr SY Qureshi

Alliance India, according to its website, is a “not-for-profit Indian organisa<on established in

1999, India HIV/AIDS Alliance is overseen by a six-member board that defines our direc<on
and ensures our policies and strategies reflect our mission and values. Board members come
from all over India and are chosen for their relevant experience and exper<se in a range of
disciplines including HIV, sexual & reproduc<ve health, human rights, governance,
management, finance, resource mobilisa<on, research, advocacy and communica<ons. Our
board meets three <mes each year”.

The Board Chair of Alliance India is Dr SY Quraishi – the former Elec<on Commissioner of
India.

Dr SY Quraishi has, in the past, expressed several opinions which go against the interest of
India and perpetuate Islamism. He has earlier stated that only a Maulana has the right to
pass judgement on the ques<on of whether Hijab should be worn by Muslim women. He has
also wished that PM Modi would get COVID51 and downplayed the genocide and ethnic
cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits by Muslims in Kashmir52.

Alliance India has in the past worked with TIDES Founda<on. On the Alliance India website,
their associa<on with Tides Founda<on is clearly indicated53.

The Adani aLacks – Links to Tides, Soros, Congress, Delhi Riots and NewsClick-China funding
case

The saga starts in 2010 with Adani’s Carmichael coal mine in Australia. Seven years later, Bob
Brown, eventually the founder of Adani Watch, launched a coali<on of 13 environmental
groups, called Stop Adani Alliance, opposed to Indian billionaire’s Carmichael coal mine, the
Guardian reported. According to the Bri<sh daily, Brown had teamed up with Australian
Conserva<on Founda<on, 350.org.

Adani Watch has spread misinforma<on on numerous occasions not just against Adani but
also India54.

50
hIps://www.opindia.com/2020/06/rajiv-gandhi-foundagon-sonia-gandhi-rahul-gandhi-took-over-rs-one-
crore-from-govt-of-china-full-details/
51
hIps://www.opindia.com/2020/03/quraishi-retweet-modi-coronavirus-infecgon-islamist/
52
hIps://www.opindia.com/2022/03/former-chief-elecgon-commissioner-sy-quraishi-love-jihad-hijab-yogi-
adityanath-kashmiri-pandits/
53
hIps://allianceindia.org/women-sex-work-community-heart-alliance-indias-covid-19-response/
54
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/04/adani-watch-australian-ngo-backed-portal-acgvely-engaging-in-
propaganda-meddling-in-indian-poligcs/
 51

For example, ‘Adani Watch’ falsely claimed that a Chinese company, supposedly associated
with Indian industrialist Gautam Adani, is building cri<cal infrastructure projects in the
country. The portal mistook a Taiwanese person named Chang Chien-Ting for a Chinese
na<onal and went on to claim that his alleged company (PMC Projects (India) Pvt Ltd) was
construc<ng ports, electricity lines and railway tracks in India.

The disinforma<on was then further amplified by Congress scion Rahul Gandhi to a]ack
Adani and cast aspersions on the integrity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Adani Watch’s
vicious ar<cles are not just limited to the Indian industrialist but oNen extend into the
poli<cal arena.

Interes<ngly, Bob Brown Founda<on endorses even the propaganda-laden documentary by

Bri<sh Broadcas<ng Corpora<on (BBC) on Prime Minister Narendra. This is despite the fact
that it has nothing to do with Gautam Adani or the environment. It had also made a hue and
cry about LeN YouTuber Ravish Kumar quihng NDTV aNer Adani took over the channel.

In March 2022, the Bob Brown Founda<on was also seen bahng for Trinamool Congress
(TMC) MP Mahua Moitra aNer she had submi]ed a formal complaint to SEBI against the
Adani Group.

Most of the misleading pieces on the propaganda portal are wri]en by leNist ‘journalist’
Ravi Nair, who also happened to write a malicious ar<cle about a Chinese company building
India’s key infrastructure projects.

In its 2017 annual report, the ‘Stop Adani’ group thanked former Australian Greens poli<cian
Bob Brown for conduc<ng key mee<ngs and speaking at events such as the ‘Stop Adani
summit’ in Sydney and a ‘Stop Adani rally’ in Hobart.

Through his Founda<on, he also manufactured and distributed 5,000 Stop Adani bumper
s<ckers across Australia free of charge.

The Stop Adani group had shared poli<cally mo<vated tweets by the likes of ‘ac<vist’
Prashant Bhushan, The Wire, Hindenburg Research, dubious fact-checker Mohammed Zubair
and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.

In September 2020, an academic named Dr Jennifer Sanger published a flawed scien<fic

paper on Australian bushfires, which she eventually had to retract. It later came to light that
she was a campaigner for Bob Brown Founda<on.

In April 2021, Tasmanian Resources Minister Guy Barne] wrote to the Assistant Treasurer of
Australia, Michael Sukkar, urging him to de-recognise Bob Brown Founda<on as a ‘charity.’

The Founda<on had reportedly violated the Australian Chari<es Act of 2013 by asking
people to ‘vote the Greens’, a poli<cal party which Bob Brown represented between 1989
and 2012. In November last year, he was arrested for protes<ng against logging in Tasmania.
 52

“In this age of rapid destruc<on of the biosphere, a]ended by cynicism and pessimism, our
founda<on will use ecological reality and op<mism to promote real environmental wins,”
reads the mission statement.

The targe<ng of the Adani group, alongside the BJP government at the Centre, clearly shows
that the Australia-based Founda<on is working towards objec<ves that are a far cry from its
mission statement.

Interes<ngly, the nexus has a connec<on with the Tides Founda<on and several other
dubious founda<ons that are known to be not only associated with Wikimedia Founda<on
but also the larger an<-India narra<ve.

Ford Founda<on, Open Society, Tides Founda<on, Oak Founda<on and other founda<ons
regularly feature in 350.org’s list of donors and patrons55.

350.org’s website lists its allies, which include Amnesty Interna<onal; the College Democrats
of America; Greenpeace; Oxfam; Sierra Club; the Unitarian Universalist Ministry for the
Earth; an<-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Waterkeeper Alliance; and the World
Carfree Network, which opposes the use and sale of private motor vehicles.

Per<nently, George Soros, who funds 350.org along with the Tides Founda<on had also used
the discredited Hindenburg report to a]ack the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi.
Further, a second a]ack against Adani aNer the Hindenburg fiasco was planted by OCCRP –
which also had George Soros’ tentacles.

Organised Crime and Corrup<on Repor<ng Project (OCCRP) had also a]acked Adani and the
antecedents of the group were revealed to be ques<onable.

Founded in 2006, OCCRP claims to have a network of journalists across 6 con<nents who
specialise in repor<ng on organised crime and corrup<on.

While it might seem like an independent, non-par<san organisa<on, OCCRP is funded by the
likes of George Soros’ Open Society Founda<ons (OSF), the Ford Founda<on and the
Rockefeller Brothers Founda<on.

It came to light that the OSF gave a grant of $8,00,000 (~ ₹6.61 crores) to the Organised
Crime and Corrup<on Repor<ng Project for ‘strengthening’ the organisa<on’s cross-border
repor<ng and increasing the wider impact.

found the 2019 annual report [pdf] of OCCRP, which made it clear that the funds provided by
George Soros’ Open Society Founda<ons were being used for establishing <es of the Global
An<-Corrup<on Consor<um (GACC) to civil society across various countries.

Page 24 of the report stated, “In the next year, the GACC will go farther to advance legal
ac<on and build <es with civil society partners at the global and local levels, growing its

55
hIps://350.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FY2022_AnnualReport-compressed.pdf
 53

reach and impact. We are grateful to our partners who have supported this unique
partnership: the governments of Argen<na, Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the United
States and the Open Society Founda<ons“

Besides the Open Society Founda<ons, the Organised Crime and Corrup<on Repor<ng
Project also receives funding from the Ford Founda<on.

In 2015, the Government of Gujarat, while inves<ga<ng Teesta Setalvad’s embezzlement

case, came across funding by the Ford Founda<on to her en<<es. It was found that her trust
had violated FCRA norms.

Sabrang Communica<on and Publishing Pvt Limited, with which Teesta is associated,
received $ 2.9 lakh from the Ford Founda<on as a grant to “address communalism, caste-
based discrimina<on in India, including media strategies”.

Later, a le]er was issued by the Gujarat Police, following which the Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA) expressed its inten<on to probe the ac<vi<es of the Ford Founda<on. This probably
set off a chain of events, most of which happened in the background and were later revealed
by Wikileaks.

Ford Founda<on claimed that it was embroiled in a controversy over its funding to Sabrang
Trusts managed by Teesta Setalvad. The le]er <tled Ford Founda<on in India: Notes to John
Podesta dated May 26, 2015, also men<oned their funding to Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO before
he got into poli<cs as a possible reason for the Government’s ac<on.

This was confirmed by none other than one of the leading luminaries of the Indian leN-wing
firmament, Ms Arundha< Roy. In an interview with Sagarika Ghose, Roy talked about one of
the ar<cles that she wrote for The Hindu in which she alleged that the NGOs of Kejriwal and
Sisodia had received over $400,000 from the Ford Founda<on in three years.

Roy claimed that the group of ten people who were the top ‘management’ of the movement
had well-funded NGOs. She said that three core members of the team had won the
Magsaysay Award which is also funded by the Ford Founda<on.

As interes<ng as it might sound, NDTV news anchor Ravish Kumar also coincidentally
received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2019. Last year, whistle-blower emails quoted by
Christopher Brunet on his Substack ‘KarlStack’ revealed that The Ford Founda<on is a
cesspool of intolerant and bigoted leN-wing extremists.

Interes'ngly, OCCRP also has a NewsClick-China funding connec'on.

During research, it was found that South Asian (Regional) Editor of OCCRP, Anand Mangnale,
was a partnerships and strategy consultant at the conten<ous leN-propaganda outlet
NewsClick

As per the informa<on posted on the website of OCCRP, he has been working with the
organisa<on since 2021. “Anand has worked on several inves<ga<ons exposing corporate
 54

and government corrup<on, abuse of power, and government misinforma<on and fake news
campaigns,” the profile bio read.

“Anand was a partnerships and strategy consultant with online news plaCorm Newsclick.in,
focusing on exposing corporate fraud and corrup<on.” it further added.

Anand Mangnale wrote 15 ar<cles for NewsClick between August 2017 and March 2020.

In the Newsclick-China funding chargesheet, Special Cell men<ons that it was a man called
Anand Mangnale who handed Chinese money to Sharjeel Imam for Delhi Riots. Further, that
Mangnale was a part of the DPSG group along with Sharjeel Imam at the behest of
NewsClick. It was reported in 2020 that Mangnale is connected to Congress and was ac<vely
fundraising for them while being a part of DPSG and working for NewsClick. The full
inves<ga<on was conducted by OpIndia and can be read from the referenced link56.

Other notorious organisa'ons that Wikimedia Founda'ons runs –

An'-India, An'-Hindu and beyond
Wikipedia donates to several other organisa<ons which furthers the LeN agenda. For the
purpose of this report, we would list some organisa<ons which show the direc<on in which
Wikimedia Founda<on funds are used, and analyse some of the organisa<ons, the work of
which impact India specifically.

Art+Feminism Inc

Over the years, the Wikimedia Founda<on has paid copious amounts of money to
Art+Feminism Inc.

According to their IRS filings, Wikimedia Founda<on paid:

1. 2022: $381,685

56
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/05/newsclick-delhi-riots-anand-mangnale-money-sharjeel-imam-connected-
to-congress-soros-exclusive/
 55

2. 2021: $337,527
3. 2020: $ 44,982
4. 2019: $ 606,000

Art+Feminism claims that it builds a community of ac<vists that is commi]ed to closing

informa<on gaps related to gender, feminism, and the arts, beginning with Wikipedia.

On its website, Art+Feminism says, “Our materials are informed by cri<cal pedagogy,
intersec<onal feminist organizing principles, and designed for all experience levels and
gender iden<<es and expressions”.

The organisa<on was founded in 2014 by Siân Evans, McKensie Mack, Michael Mandiberg,
and Jacqueline Mabey57.

According to several ar<cles, the need for Art+Feminism was felt when there was cri<cism
about the non-representa<on of women and members of the LGBTQIA+ community as far as
the ar<cles are concerned and editors are concerned.

57

hIps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Art%2BFeminism_founders_Siân_Evans%2C_
Mackenzie_Mack%2C_Michael_Mandiberg%2C_Jacqueline_Mabey_%2847222382612%29.jpg/440px-
Art%2BFeminism_founders_Siân_Evans%2C_Mackenzie_Mack%2C_Michael_Mandiberg%2C_Jacqueline_Mabe
y_%2847222382612%29.jpg
 56

A 2015 WIRED arBcle58 says, “About 90 percent of Wikipedia editors are men, an issue so
well documented it has its own Wikipedia page. The issue has roiled the Wikimedia
FoundaBon for years. It's studied the problem and set goals for bridging the gap, goals even
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says the FoundaBon has “completely failed” to meet. The
lack of diversity is so deeply rooted that the NaBonal Science FoundaBon commissioned two
studies of why this bias exists. The problem is, because Wikipedia is run—in theory at least—
by and for the people, only the people can correct the imbalance. A growing group of socially
minded Wikipedia editors are taking up the cause with a slew of "edit-a-thons" that aim to
enhance the coverage of women, minoriBes, the LGBTQ community, and other
underrepresented groups on Wikipedia”

The ar<cle further said, aNer talking about Arts+Feminism, “Meanwhile, the Wikimedia
FoundaBon is increasingly doling out grants to close the gaps not only between genders, but
between races and naBonaliBes as well. Over the last year, 124 of the 236 grants the
foundaBon made went to the so-called “Global South,” which includes areas like Africa, LaBn
America, Asia, and the Middle East. This week, the foundaBon also launched its Women’s
Campaign, which will donate $250,000 to projects that seek to address the gender gap. The
foundaBon takes pains to point out it doesn’t directly edit Wikipedia itself. But it’s willing to
put up the money to see that Wikipedia more accurately represents the whole world, and
everyone in it”.

The Wikipedia page on Art+Feminism says that in 2015, the edit-a-thon event by the
organisa<on was held in several countries outside of the USA. The page says, “Outside the
United States, the 2015 event received media coverage at loca<ons including Australia,
Canada, Cambodia, India, New Zealand, and Scotland. Events con<nuously grow and take
place in countries in various con<nents all over the world. Inside the United States, the
event received media coverage at the flagship loca<on in New York, and also in California,
Kansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia”.

The 2015 event in India sponsored by Art+Feminism was held in Bangalore59.

Art+Feminism sends funds to India regularly, as evidenced by their IRS documents.

In 2022, they spent $13,411 in South Asia, including India and in In 2021 it was $ 2,71060.

While the amount certainly is not much, it is also true that the purpose of the spending was
“Edit-a-thons” for Wikipedia and therefore, it is certainly events where the funds are coming
from Wikimedia Founda<on – this – without Wikimedia having any presence in India and no
adherence to local laws (as we will see in a separate sec<on of the paper).

58
hIps://www.wired.com/2015/03/wikipedia-sexism/
59
hIps://www.deccanherald.com/content/464071/edit-thon-women-bridge-wikimedia.html
60
hIps://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizagons/832919353
 57

In India, The Heritage Lab is the India partner of Art+Feminism according to the founder
Medhavi Gandhi’s interview to The Indian Express61.

On their website, they say62, “The Heritage Lab has been spearheading the campaign in India
since 2017 with a two-fold aim of improving public awareness about women ar<sts of India
and increasing female editorship on Wikipedia. To par<cipate, you can also send us ar<cles
on women in art, history, culture - who have been under-represented online”.

Art+Feminism, Heritage Lab and Feminism in India have also collaborated regularly in
India6364. These have been events for Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons and therefore, directly linked
with the work of Wikipedia by an organisa<on like Art+Feminism which is directly funded by
Wikimedia Founda<on.

In 2021, Art+Feminism joined hands with Na<onal Ins<tute of Design for an event which
would entail edit-a-thon, panel discussions etc. The banner of the event itself had the logos
of not only Art+Feminism but also Wikimedia Founda<on.

61
hIps://archive.ph/Tge7a
62
hIps://www.theheritagelab.in/artandfeminism-india/
63
hIps://x.com/FeminismInIndia/status/1114425940937830400
64
hIps://x.com/FeminismInIndia/status/968067025657573377
 58

On 8th February 2020, days before the Delhi an<-Hindu riots engulfed the na<onal capital,
Art+Feminism shared a post on Twi]er (now X)65 talking about how the police had

65
https://x.com/artandfeminism/status/1225886962248187905
 59

‘removed’ an art display about the protests at Shaheen Bagh and beyond, against the
Ci<zenship Amendment Act.

On the 7th of February, on the last day of the Indian Art Fair in Delhi, the police had
responded66 to a PCR call about inflammatory posters at the fair. The pain<ngs displayed
belonged to one Yaman Navlakha and Gargi Chandola. The booth was of the Italian Embassy
Culture Centre by Post-Art Project.

The pain<ng had Burqa clad women resembling those from Shaheen Bagh and also, the an<-
Hindu slogans of “Hum Dekhenge” by Faiz Ahmed Faiz.

The ar<cle67 shared by Art+Feminism peddled complete fabrica<ons about what the CAA
was about. It read, “The CAA would force all residents to prove their ci<zenship. The act also
offers a pathway to ci<zenship for refugees persecuted for their religion—unless they are
Muslim. Opponents of the legisla<on contend that the CAA will strip Muslims of their
ci<zenship if they are unable to provide sufficient proof of iden<ty”.

As is known, the CAA is a legisla<on that offers expedited ci<zenship to those religious
minori<es from neighbouring Islamic na<ons, who had already taken refuge in India before
December 31, 2014. The fake news like the one furthered by Art+Feminism, directly funded
by Wikimedia Founda<on, is precisely what led to moths of violence, culmina<ng into the
an<-Hindu Riots in Delhi on the 23rd of February.

‘Feminism in India’, which Art+Feminism, The Heritage Lab and Wikimedia by default had
collaborated with is also a plaCorm that had glorified the violent protestors fuelled by fake
news and religious fervour during the an<-CAA violence and protests in 2019 and 202068.

66
hIps://www.outlookindia.com/nagonal/india-news-india-art-fair-paingng-that-sgrred-row-missing-argsts-
cry-foul-news-346850
67
hIps://news.artnet.com/market/india-art-fair-2020-poligcal-tension-1768323
68
hIps://feminisminindia.com/tag/cigzenship-amendment-act/
 60

In the past, ‘Feminism in India’ has demonised Hinduism and the fes<vals of the faith69.
It is important to bear in mind that Wikimedia Founda<on and Wikipedia have no office or
presence in India. Further, they have refused to adhere to Indian laws as we would explore
later in this report. Essen<ally, Wikimedia Founda<on is funding organisa<ons that have in
turn collaborated with organisa<ons in India – which regularly spread fake news and rhetoric
that demonises India, Hindus and spreads disaffec<on through their work and reportage. All
of this, while Wikimedia Founda<on claims that it is merely facilita<ng collabora<ve
endeavours by ‘volunteers’ who contribute to the content out of the goodness of their heart
and faith in free knowledge.

Whose Knowledge?

Whose Knowledge is an NGO which has received substan<al funding from Wikimedia
Founda<on. In 2022, Wikimedia Founda<on donated $196,434 and $168,878 in 2021. That is
$365312 is 2 years – amoun<ng to somewhere in the ballpark of Rs 30 crores. The NGOs
proposal for 2024 to Wikimedia Founda<on is $788979, to be u<lised over 3 years (2024-
2026)70.

According to the Wikipedia Founda<on return, Whose Knowledge is registered as an NGO in

the USA.

According to ProPublica, their revenue in 2022 was $906k, their expenses were $1.02M and
they have $483k in assets71.

Apart from Wikimedia Founda<on, other donors to Whose Knowledge include George Soros’
Open Society Founda<on72.

69
hIps://www.opindia.com/2018/03/feminism-in-india-website-twiIer-handle-spreads-hindupbhobia-islamic-
propaganda/
70

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/General_Support_Fund/Who
se_Knowledge%3F_2024-2026
71
hIps://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizagons/871925489
72
hIps://whoseknowledge.org/support/
 61

‘Whose Knowledge’ essen<ally furthers the same tropes such as Art+Feminism – which talks
about inclusive representa<on of marginalised communi<es on Wikipedia.

According to their About Us sec<on, Whose Knowledge? “Is a radical re-imagining and re-
design of the internet, so that together we build and defend an internet of, for and by all”.

They further say, “We are a global campaign to centre the knowledge of marginalized
communiBes (the majority of the world) on the internet.

3/4 of the online populaBon of the world today comes from the global South – from Asia,
from Africa, from LaBn America. And nearly half all women are online. Yet most public
knowledge online has so far been wri=en by white men from Europe and North America.

To address this, we work parBcularly with women, people of colour, LGBTQI communiBes,
indigenous peoples and others from the global South to build and represent more of all of
our own knowledge online”.

According to their Wikipedia page, “The Whose Knowledge? campaign was conceived by
Anasuya Sengupta over the course of 2015, and co-founded with Siko Bouterse in March
2016. Adele Vrana joined us in November 2017. We bring a unique combina<on of
experiences, skills and approaches to this work: cri<cal feminist scholarship and human
rights ac<vism, intersec<ng with a deep knowledge of internet technologies and online
community organizing. Siko has worked with global online communi<es for over 10 years
with an intent to build bridges and empower people to share knowledge. Anasuya has
worked in India, the global South, and interna<onally for over 20 years, leading ini<a<ves to
amplify voices 'from the margins'. Adele has led business development and partnerships
ini<a<ves to help build a more plural and diverse communi<es in her na<ve country of Brazil
 62

and globally. We met at the Wikimedia Founda<on, where we have been suppor<ng
individuals and groups aiming to address systemic bias on Wikimedia projects for five years”.

We consider this informa<on authen<c because according to Affilia<ons Commi]ee page73

on Wikipedia itself, this informa<on was submi]ed by Whose Knowledge itself. The
Affilia<ons Commi]ee noted on their page that “Whose Knowledge? has submi]ed an
applica<on for recogni<on, which has been reviewed by the Affilia<ons Commi]ee” and that
“The scope of the group, which can be found on their meta page, is "to correct the skewed
representa<ons of knowledge on Wikimedia projects as well as the wider internet."

The Affilia<ons Commi]ee advises and makes recommenda<ons regarding the recogni<on
and existence of Wikimedia movement affiliates74, and therefore, we can conclude that
Whose Knowledge is an official affiliate of Wikimedia Founda<on.

The reason why this submission for Wikipedia page by Whose Knowledge itself was
accepted was because it was aligned with Wikimedia, furthers the cause of Wikimedia and
Plans for ac<vi<es or efforts to advance Wikimedia projects.

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Whose Knowledge came into existence specifically by
and for the Wikimedia Founda<on supposedly to ensure equal representa<on on Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia page further says, “In September 2016, the Whose Knowledge? campaign
was publicly launched at the Associa<on for Women's Rights in Development (AWID)'s 2016
Forum in Brazil with 5 Wikimujeres(WikiWomen) and nearly 2000 women's human rights
defenders. The Wikimujeres delega<on was supported by the Wikimedia Founda<on. In
March 2017, it launched the #VisibleWikiWomen challenge, led by coordinators Mariana
Fossa< and May Hachem, to bring notable women's pictures onto Wikimedia Commons and
Wikipedia”.

According to the Whose Knowledge page, “Anasuya Sengupta is Co-Director and co-founder
of Whose Knowledge?, a global mul<lingual campaign to centre the knowledges of
marginalised communi<es (the minori<sed majority of the world) online. She has led
ini<a<ves across the global South, and interna<onally for over 25 years, to collec<vely create
feminist presents and futures of love, jus<ce, and libera<on. She is commi]ed to unpacking
issues of power, privilege, and access, including her own as an an<-caste savarna woman.
She is a co-founder and advisor to Numun Fund (the first feminist tech fund for and from the
Global South), advisor to the Flickr Founda<on, the former Chief Grantmaking Officer at the
Wikimedia Founda<on, and the former Regional Program Director at the Global Fund for
Women”.

From this informa<on, it is evident that:

1. Whose Knowledge came into existence specifically for the purpose of furthering
Wikimedia Founda<on interest.

73
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliagons_CommiIee/Resolugons/Whose_Knowledge%3F
74
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliagons_CommiIee
 63

2. It was founded by Anasuya Sengupta.

3. Sengupta was former Chief Grantmaking Officer at the Wikimedia Founda<on.
4. She is a caste ac<vist and she iden<fies herself as an “an<-caste savarna woman”.

Anusuya Sengupta regularly feeds into the divisive caste narra<ve and spreading vitriol
against Hindus. She also regularly furthers the narra<ve that Muslims and Dalits are under
a]ack in India by the Hindu majority popula<on – a narra<ve that has been debunked
summarily.

For example, in September 2023, Sengupta was a strong proponent for the SB403 Bill, which
would essen<ally demonise Hindus who belonged to ‘general castes’.

SB403 was a so-called an<-caste discrimina<on legisla<on which was making its way through
Californian state legislature. California Senator Aisha Wahab had tabled the bill. The dubious
organisa<on Equality Labs is one of the bill’s biggest supporters. The bill was completely
based on the Cisco caste case. Although the case fell flat, the SB403 bill was s<ll supported
by dubious elements. Equality Labs was the primary supporter of the Hinduphobic bill. The
founder and Execu<ve Director of Equality Labs, Thenmozhi Soundararajan has made
insidious comments against Hindus at large on various occasions – some of the comments
include: Upper-caste Indians are Nazis’, ‘Hindu scriptures do nothing but bring violence and
pain’, ‘Hindu texts give spiritual founda<on for slavery’. HAF’s Suhag Shukla wrote in her
ar<cle, “While Wahab and her co-sponsor, California Assembly member Jasmeet Bains,
con<nued to claim the worthy goal of non-discrimina<on, the Assembly Judiciary
Commi]ee’s analysis exposed the bill’s discriminatory intent”75.

75
hIps://theprint.in/opinion/sb-403-is-dead-but-hate-against-hindu-americans-has-only-begun/1806938/
 64

Anusuya Sengupta was a strong votory of the discriminatory SB403. In September 2023, she
had tweeted, “A cri<cal reminder of how many working class caregivers are from caste
oppressed communi<es. They deserve an end to violence and bigotry. Please make history,
sign #SB403 Gov. @GavinNewsom. Thank you for the solidarity @aijenpoo @HillaryClinton
@ChelseaClinton @darrenwalker 💙”76.

In another tweet, she said, “Appalled @GavinNewsom that you vetoed #SB403,
essentially telling caste oppressed communities in CA and beyond that their lives, their
labour, their dignity, matter less to you than the power of the privileged. But we know
the arc of the moral universe will bend towards justice”77.

She had also sat for a 24 hour hunger strike demanding that SB403 be passed78.

While it was proven that the Leicester violence of 2022 was against Hindus by Islamist
mobs, she had continued to blame Hindus, calling them fascists79

In 2022, aNer former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma men<oned certain Islamic Hadits on a
television channel news debate, Islamists in India had gone on a rampage – beheading at
least 6 people for suppor<ng Nupur Sharma. Sharma got death, beheading and gang-rape
threats from across the globe and to date, Sharma has not been able to leave her house
without a security cover. Several Maulanas and Islamists have been arrested, crossing over
from Pakistan to murder Sharma. Sengupta had turned the incident to claim that the
Islamists demanding “ac<on” against Nupur Sharma were the actual vic<ms. She had
tweeted in support of a Jamaat-e-Islami Islamist who had organised murderous protests
against Nupur Sharma in U]ar Pradesh. Sengupta went on to call Hindus ‘supremacists’80.

She had also, in 2023, shared ar<cles essen<ally making a case for the world, especially the
US, to sever <es with India due to the mythical genocide of Hindus at the hands of “Hindu
fascists”81.

From her social media ac<vity, it is evident that Sengupta subscribes to the an<-Hindu and
an<-India tropes that are oNen furthered in the western media and the Islamists.

Per<nently, Whose Knowledge, funded by George Soros and Wikimedia Founda<on among
others and started specifically by the former chief grant making officer of Wikimedia
Founda<on to further the interest of Wikimedia, partners with Equality Labs officially82.

76
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1704189464971510047
77
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1710776976003227857
78
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1699532206199226531
79
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1572497474383757312
80
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1538452752715620352
81
https://x.com/Anasuyashh/status/1582286014290096128
82
hIps://whoseknowledge.org
 65

Equality Labs

Equality Labs is a radical LeN organisa<on in the US that has ac<vely worked against Hindus
for several years. Disinfo Lab published a detailed report on ‘Opera<on Tupac’ where they
decoded the various organisa<on that were working on concert to exploit the fault lines in
India. Equality Labs found a detailed men<on in it.

The report says83:

One key organiza<on that operates on the Caste Faultline in the US is Equality Labs, which
was formed in 2016 as an Ambedkarite South Asian power-building organiza<on in the US
with the mo<ve to combat ‘Caste Discrimina<on’. Equality Labs was founded by
Thenmozhi Soundararajan, a Dalit techie, ar<st, and ac<vist born and brought up in the
US. While the organiza<on claims to be progressive and aims to combat caste discrimina<on,
it also strives hard to succinctly paint India as a na<on with an endemic caste problem and
widespread oppression, a colonial-era narra<ve widely purported by the Bri<sh to jus<fy
their imposi<on of Western value systems.

Another co-founder of Equality Labs is Sharmin Hossain, a Bangladeshi American, who

served as the Poli<cal Director before rendering her resigna<on in March 2021. 3 In April
2021, she founded a new organiza<on Queer Crescent, which is described as a poli<cal
home for LGBTQI+ Muslims.

In 2018, Equality Labs published a caste report in the US with the assistance of several

83
hIps://thedisinfolab.org/operagon-tupac/#rb-Introducgon
 66

organiza<ons such as IAMC, OFMI, and Alliance for Jus<ce and Accountability (AJA)- a
coali<on of Dalit organiza<ons alongside IAMC, OFMI, and Hindus for Human Rights
(HfHR).

In July 2020, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and two Indian
origin employees in the USA filed a lawsuit against IT firm Cisco Systems Inc. on the
grounds of caste discrimina<on against one of its Indian-American employees. 7 The suit
alleged that a Dalit employee at the IT company (referred to as John Doe) was discriminated
against by two of his fellow Indian origin colleagues, Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella
beginning in November 2016. The lawsuit also referred to the 2018 caste report of Equality
Labs. 8 Soon aNer the lawsuit, Equality Labs and its founder Thenmozhi Soundararajan
further raked up the issue by appearing on various media plaCorms.

Apart from working on the caste line, Equality Labs takes deep interest in the internal
ma]ers of India and works on different trajectories which coincidentally also happen to be
the fault lines in India. Equality Labs became ac<ve during the Ci<zenship Amendment Act
(CAA) protests which were happening in India. During that <me, Equality Labs collated CAA,
Na<onal Register of Ci<zens (NRC), and Na<onal Popula<on Register (NPR) with Genocide in
India and released a one-page pamphlet on that.

It also released a toolkit <tled “organizing against Hindu Fascism” to organize protests and
run online campaigns against the Indian establishment. The toolkit gave sample tweets as
well as crea<vity to run the campaigns and also hold protests. The password to access the
toolkit is “rejectcaa”. The toolkit also calls for suppor<ng various news plaCorms and
advocacy groups such as AltNews, Internet Freedom Founda<on, and The SoNware Freedom
Law Centre - SFLC.

On November 14, 2017, Equality Labs founder Thenmozhi Soundarajan and Pieter Friedrich
staged a protest at the California Department of Educa<on against changing the subject of
the caste system in India from California History and Social Sciences Curriculum. OFMI, was
founded by Pieter Friedrich, a self-proclaimed expert on South Asia, and ally of Khalistanis
terrorist Bhajan Singh Bhinder. OFMI was jointly run by Bhajan Singh Bhinder and his
employee Pieter Friedrich, who once worked with the ISI to send weapons to India for terror
a]acks in the 1990s, according to the research by Disinfo Lab.
 67

In May 2019, Equality Labs founder also hosted an event alongside Sikhs For Jus<ce (SFJ)
terrorist Gurpatwant Pannu, which is proscribed Khalistanis terror ouCit.
 68

HinduPACT, which shared the photograph, said that it was from an event that took place on
22nd May 2019. This par<cular event shows a much larger sinister plan, as it was just one
day before the Lok Sabha 2019 elec<ons results were announced. On the same day,
Soundararajan’s Equality Lab, in partnership with South Asian Americans Leading Together
(SAALT), then-API Chaya, and the office of representa<ve Pramila Jayapal held a
congressional briefing on caste discrimina<on in the US in Washington DC. Notably, that
briefing was based on the dubious survey that Equality Labs did on caste discrimina<on. The
same survey led to the SB403 bill that Tandon men<oned in his tweet84.

Another organisa<on that Whose Knowledge partners with is Centre for Internet and
Society. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a Bengaluru-based non-profit
mul<disciplinary research organiza<on. CIS works on digital pluralism, public accountability
and pedagogic prac<ces, in the field of the Internet and Society. CIS is also funded by
Wikimedia Founda<on and we will deal with this in a separate sec<on.

Black Lunch Table-Whose Knowledge partnership: Afro-Dalit project?

It is per'nent to note that Whose Knowledge, funded by Wikimedia Founda'on partners

with Art+Feminism, Equality Labs and CIS – all of which receives funds from the Wikimedia
Founda'on among others. It also partners with ‘Black Lunch Table’ – which is also funded
by Wikimedia Founda'on.

According to the Black Lunch Table website, “Organized around literal and metaphorical
lunch tables, BLT takes the school lunchroom phenomenon as its starBng point. In previous
iteraBons (2006-2011), BLT took the forms of online intercollegiate meet-ups, arBst salons,
and informal roundtable discussions. It presently comprises a series of arBst roundtables,
community roundtables, an online oral history archive, and Wikimedia iniBaBve . The format
for our roundtables is modelled aSer a project iteraBon we staged in 2014 in Chicago at The
Black ArBsts Retreat [B.A.R.], an annual symposium for Black arBsts. ParBcipants are curated

84
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/07/san-francisco-aIack-khalistanis-associated-with-sb403-acgvists-
thenmozhi-ro-khanna-silence/
 69

into conversaBons, provided with a set of prompts, and discussions are audio-recorded and
transcribed for eventual public access on our online archive. Our 2014 event provided a
unique situaBon wherein generaBons of historically significant Black arBsts were acBvely
involved in defining the agendas of our amorphous community. In January 2015, we staged
our first People’s Table (then called #blacklivesma=er table). That event responded to recent
police involved shooBngs of unarmed Black people, and state-violence both locally and
naBonally. The #blacklivesma=er session followed the format established at [B.A.R.] 2014 in
a two-part series of lunch table discussions engaging arBsts, acBvists, academics, students,
poliBcians, and local community members from across the Research Triangle in North
Carolina.

As we researched models for the BLT archive to house the recorded audio, we noted that
many significant Black arBsts were omi=ed from art historical archives and the world’s most
widely referenced encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Our Wikipedia iniBaBve redresses these
omissions by mobilizing a collecBve authoring of arBcles on the lives and works of Black
arBsts. When we began our Wikipedia project in 2014, important figures such as Fred
Moten, Meschac Gaba, Peggy Cooper Cafritz, and Valerie Cassel Oliver were all without
pages. Five years later, each of these important figures has a page that began as a BLT
target. Black Lunch Table is recognized as an official Wikimedia user group, Under COVID
lockdown we hosted dozens of online events including, Wikipedia edit a thons, workshops,
arBst features, and skill shares. We also collaborated with other insBtuBons to bring our
Wikipedia project to their communiBes.

In 2019, BLT was granted 501c3 status, and has evolved exponenBally with the support and
dedicaBon of its governance board, and the commitment of its funders. Thanks to the
support of grants from the Mellon FoundaBon, the Warhol FoundaBon, the Logan
FoundaBon, Ruth FoundaBon, Ford FoundaBon, CreaBve Capital, the Wikimedia FoundaBon,
the FoundaBon for Contemporary Art, and the InsBtute for Arts and HumaniBes at UNC, BLT
has matured from an independent collaboraBon between two arBsts into a nonprofit with
administraBve staff, producBon staff, and affiliate proxies in other ciBes”.

From this nexus, it is apparent that Wikimedia Founda<on is funding a web of organisa<ons
which further the caste narra<ve coupled with intersec<onal feminism and the Afro-Dalit
theory.

The Afro-Dalit theory essen<ally claims that Dalits are the blacks of India and non-Dalits are
the whites and that caste equals racism.

Hindu scholar Rajiv Malhotra has done extensive study on the subject and wri]en about
how the Afro-Dalit project is a means to end Hinduism in its en<rety.

In a 2022 News18 ar<cle, Malhotra writes, “Recently, a prominent Black intellectual called
Isabel Wilkerson has wri=en a book asserBng that the Afro-Dalit idenBty is the epicentre of
global vicBmhood. Titled, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, it claims that caste is not
simply one of the many forms of racism. According to her, caste is the backbone, the
structure on which all racism stands. The BriBsh learned caste ideas from Vedic texts and
took these structures to America to create the framework for racism against Blacks. From
 70

America, this approach to straBfying socieBes travelled further, and spread to Europe where
it led to the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews.

Wilkerson’s outlandish claim is that caste is the root cause of all racism in the world. By
isolaBng caste as the basic architecture on which all racism anywhere in the world is
established, she laid the foundaBon for Marxism’s latest a=ack on Hindu society. The
argument being made is that since casteism is indelibly associated with Hinduism because of
the karma theory, it can only be destroyed if Hinduism itself is dismantled”85.

It is also important to understand that the false equivalence between Blacks in the USA and
Dalits in India has contributed to extremely divisive narra<ves pertaining to India. Cri<cal
Race Theory, for example, is a divisive theory which is being used in the USA to explain
supposed systemic racism. It essen<ally views history, public policy, economics and societal
norms through the lens of racism, claiming that racism against blacks is at the heart of the
very essence of the USA. There has been a concerted effort to apply the same theory to
India with respect to caste – saying the ins<tu<onalised casteism is systemic in the Indian
society and polity. ONen referred to as the Cri<cal Caste Theory, the dangerous narra<ve is a
product of the Afro-Dalit narra<ve that is peddled by organisa<ons like Equality Labs.

The narra<ve is so pervasive that a write up on Cri<cal Race Theory on the World Economic
Forum also alludes to “caste” and societal hierarchy. The write up says:

The theory, which is typically taught at the graduate level, interrogates the role of race and
racism in society. It criBques how the social construcBon of race and insBtuBonalized racism
perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of colour to the bo=om Bers. Most
criBcally, in these racially charged Bmes we live in today, criBcal race theory recognizes that
racism is not a relic of the past. It acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregaBon, and
the imposiBon of second-class ciBzenship on Black Americans and other people of colour,
conBnues to permeate the social fabric of American society86.

Just as cri<cal caste theory propagates that every ins<tu<on, norm or law is governed by
inherent racism, cri<cal caste theory aims to extrapolate the argument to caste. While the
proponents of CRT dismiss any cri<cism as latent racism, the proponents of CCT dismiss any
cri<cism of caste theories (like that of Equality Labs) a result of seeped casteism, thereby,
dividing the Indian society.

Just as CRT is divisive in the US, CCT is divisive in India and has been concocted by the false
equivalence between Dalits and Blacks – a narra<ve that the Wikimedia Founda<on funded
organisa<on and their collabora<on seems to further.

Black Lunch Table and Whose Knowledge started as Wikimedia projects. The Black Lunch
Table gets funds from Wikimedia Founda<on every year.

85
hIps://www.news18.com/news/opinion/opinion-are-dalits-the-blacks-of-india-and-brahmins-the-whites-
6285271.html
86
hIps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/what-is-crigcal-race-theory/
 71

In 2022, it got $301,799, in 2021 it got $301,799, in 2020, they got $138,647, in 2019, they
got $80,000, in 2017, they got 53,000.

Access Now

Access Now is a Western LeNist NGO which claims to ‘defend and extends the digital rights
of people and communi<es at risk’.

As far as their advocacy is concerned, Access Now says, “We act quickly when people need it
most, leveraging innova<ve campaign and digital engagement tac<cs, bold visual advocacy,
legal know-how, and dynamic policy work. We build grassroots-to-global partnerships with
civil society, journalists, technologists, and beyond. We educate, pe<<on, and appeal to
decision makers, and mobilize support to pressure the powerful”.

For most of these NGOs, the defini<on of their area of work and the nature of advocacy is a
word salad that reveals paltry li]le. The only part, perhaps, that reveals briefly what Access
Now does is the last line – “We educate, pe<<on, and appeal to decision makers, and
mobilize support to pressure the powerful”.

From what is understood by their work, Access Now is a leN-leaning internet access and
digital rights advocacy group that works to decrease internet censorship and to curtail
viola<ons of privacy by businesses that collect the personal data of internet users.

However, as we will see, Access Now is funded by the very tech giants which collect data
personal data of their users.

Before we get into the funding and other ac<vi<es of Access Now, it is important to
understand their role and “ac<vism” in India.

In February 2021, Access Now spoke out against the social media regula<ons ushered in by
the Indian Government. The advocacy groups holds significant sway in the world of ac<vism
and therefore, its statement against the regula<ons was important.

The group said in a statement, “Access Now is extremely concerned by the alarming new
powers the Indian government has granted itself, announcing today, February 25, its
increased control over content on social media plaCorms. It has finalised an amended set of
rules — for immediate publica<on and implementa<on — to change how it can regulate
internet intermediaries such as social media plaCorms, and online media sites.”

Raman Jit Singh Chima, Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, said, “The mandates in the
new rules would result in encouraging internet plaCorms to over-censor content, require
dangerous unproven AI-based content regula<on tools, retain vast amounts of user data for
handing over to the government, and undermine end-to-end encryp<on crucial for
cybersecurity and individual privacy.”
 72

The IT guidelines which were issued in 2021 was essen<ally brought in to ensure
accountability of big-tech companies, social media giants and OTT plaCorms. However,
several vested interests, including Access Now, had raised a hue and cry.

A brief on the IT Guidelines issued in 2021 by the Govt of India

Social media

The guidelines published by the IT ministry contains comprehensive guidelines for social
media plaCorms, which has been defined as ‘social media intermediaries’ which primarily or
solely enables online interac<on between two or more users and allows them to create,
upload, share, disseminate, modify or access informa<on using its services.

The new guidelines say that the intermediaries must publish rules and regula<ons, privacy
policy and user agreement prominently on their websites. It holds significance given the
controversies surrounding privacy and user data at several social media plaCorms, especially
Facebook and its WhatsApp.

Contents not to be allowed on social media

According to the guidelines, the social media plaCorms will have to inform the users that
they can’t publish content belonging to others, defamatory, obscene, pornographic,
paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy, insul<ng or harassing on the basis of gender,
libellous, racially or ethnically objec<onable. Social media users also can’t publish content
that is harmful to minors, infringes patent, trademark etc, violates any law, deceiving or
misleading and impersonates someone else. Users also can’t pose content that threatens
the unity of the country, which contains soNware virus, and is patently false and untrue.

The guidelines make it clear that the social media plaCorms have to abide by any court order
or government direc<on, and have to provide any informa<on that is asked from <me
withing a given <me period.

ClassificaBon of social media

The new guidelines classify the social media plaCorms in two categories, significant social
media intermediary and other intermediary. The guidelines say that ‘significant social media
intermediary’ means a social media with users above such threshold as may be no<fied by
the Central Government.

The guidelines contain addi<onal responsibili<es for “significant social media intermediary”,
which means major plaCorms like Twi]er and Facebook.

It says that such plaCorms have to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who shall be
responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act and rules made under it. They also have to
appoint a nodal person of contact for 24×7 coordina<on with law enforcement agencies and
officers. Apart from this, they also have to appoint a Resident Grievance Officer, to handle
user grievances.
 73

The following provisions also apply only for significant social media intermediaries.

IdenBty of first originator of objecBonable content

The most important guideline regarding is that it virtually bans anonymous accounts, as it
says that the social media plaCorms must enable the iden<fica<on of the first originator of
the informa<on. It means, the plaCorms may require to provide an iden<ty proof, to comply
with this order. If some informa<on has originated outside India, the first person in India
who shared that informa<on will be considered as the first originator.

However, the iden<ty of the first originator will be required only if the informa<on shared
violates a law that a]racts jail term of five years or more. This means, for social media posts
that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly rela<ons with other na<ons,
public order, and offences related to rape, child sexual abuse material etc, the iden<ty of the
originator will have to be revealed.

The guidelines also ask the plaCorms to deploy technology measures such as automated
bots to iden<fy such content. The companies also may implement human oversight
mechanisms in this regard.

The guidelines make it clear that the steps taken to iden<fy social media users will have
consider the rights of free speech and privacy.

Paid posts

Another important guideline is regarding marke<ng and promo<ons done on social media,
as the guideline says the social media intermediaries have to clearly mark such content as
adver<sement, promo<on etc. This may have a significant impact on social media
influencers and celebri<es, who oNen post promo<onal material disguised as personal
opinion in return for payment.

Voluntarily verificaBon of accounts

While most social media plaCorms have mechanism to verify the accounts of users, it is
arbitrary, and it depends on the whims and fancies of the officials of the companies.
Verifica<on of a social media account means that it actually belongs to the person or en<ty
that it claims to be. Now the guidelines issued by the ministry makes provisions for voluntary
verifica<on of accounts by the users.

Removal or disabling of informaBon

The guidelines say that if social media plaCorms remove or disable any informa<on, they
much give the originator of the informa<on a no<fica<on explaining the ac<on being taken
and the grounds or reasons for such ac<on. The user also must be given an adequate and
 74

reasonable opportunity to dispute the ac<on being taken by such intermediary. This will
change the current scenario when social media sites, especially Twi]er, suspends accounts
without giving any opportunity to defend.

Social media sites also have to ensure that such ac<ons are based on an assessment of the
relevant context of the informa<on, and they must display a no<ce sta<ng the ac<on taken
by them, and the grounds or reasons for such ac<on.

If the social media plaCorms fail to comply with the above-men<oned measures, then the
safety net provided to them by disassocia<ng them from the content published on their
plaCorms will be removed. It means, if any plaCorm does not comply with this rules, they
will be held responsible for any content published on their plaCorms that violates any law,
and the officials of such social media plaCorms will be prosecuted for such content.

Digital media
Apart from social media, the government also have issued guidelines for digital media
plaCorms. Such Digital portals will have to comply with a code of ethics which has been
no<fied along with the guidelines. It prescribes three-levels of regula<on for digital portals,
which are self-regula<on by the en<ty, self-regula<on by the self-regula<ng body of the
applicable en<<es, and oversight mechanism by the Central Government.

For this purpose, the digital media houses will have to appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer
based in India, and they will have to come together to establish a self-regulatory body
headed by a re<red Supreme Court or High Court judge. For the third level, the ministry will
develop an Oversight Mechanism, which will include an Inter-Departmental Commi]ee for
hearing grievances

The government will also establish an online grievance portal, where complaints and
grievances regarding any content published by digital media sites can be submi]ed. The
concerned en<ty will have to respond to such complaints, and if the complainant is not
sa<sfied with the response, the same can be escalated to the concerned self-regula<ng body
and then the central government.

Significant publishers of news and current affairs

The guidelines also include separate provisions for ‘significant publishers of news and
current affairs’, which means media en<<es with 5 lakh subscribers or 50 lakh followers on
any significant social media plaCorm. Such media plaCorms will have to no<fy the Broadcast
Seva that it is opera<ng in the territory of India, by furnishing the informa<on that may be
required on the Broadcast Seva by the Ministry.

Guidelines for streaming plaCorms

The government also have issued guidelines for online entertainment plaCorms. The
guidelines prescribed appropriate self-classifica<on of the shows, instead of direc<ng any
censorship. It says that the streaming plaCorms will have rate content in three categories, U-
Universal, U/A, and A- Adult.
 75

The U category means it is suitable for all age groups. The U/A group has been further
divided into different categories, which are U/A – General, which is suitable for all but may
contain scenes not suitable for young children; U/A – 7+, suitable for 7 years and above, U/A
– 13+, and U/A – 16+. An A category movie or show can be watched by people aged 18 years
and above only. Shows and movies containing nudity without any sexual context can be
rated as U/A 16+.

The guidelines say that content on such plaCorms should take into account the poten<ally
offensive impact of ma]ers such as caste, race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality which
may be depicted in such streaming shows. The ra<ngs of the shows will depend on the
language used, the depic<on of sex and nudity, fear, threat and horror, and violence. Such a
ra<ng of shows and movies, instead of censoring them like what is done in case of films in
India, is the interna<onal prac<ce.

It was evident from the guidelines itself that the protesta<ons of Access Now was far more
agenda driven than based in merit. Access Now issued its statement as an advocacy group,
essen<ally, as a non-profit organisa<on which is indulging in advocacy for the greater good
of the people and to preserve the rights of the users.

On their website, they write, “Access Now does not accept funding that compromises its
organiza<onal independence, including funding rela<onships that may influence its
priori<es, policy posi<ons, advocacy efforts, regions of focus, or direct ac<on work.”
However, a look at their funding reveals that Access Now is essen<ally doing the bidding of
tech-giants while undermining the interest of India.

This group receives funding from some of the companies whose data collec<on prac<ces are
predatory and well documented, such as Facebook and Google. Access Now has also
received funding from tech companies MicrosoN, DuckDuckGo, Mozilla, Amazon, and Reddit
and George Soros’s Open Society Founda<ons and Wikimedia Founda<on.

In the IRS 990 documents, Wikipedia disclosed that it gave Access Now $50,000 in 2022.

In 2020, Wikimedia Founda<on gave $8,000 to Access Now.

Not just Wikimedia Founda<on, several governments have officially funded Access Now.

Un<l June 2020, the group had received hundreds and thousands of dollars in funding from
western government ins<tu<ons. Funders included the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign
Affairs (SFDFA), UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Swedish Interna<onal
 76

Development Coopera<on Agency (SIDA). Access Now received over $2 million from SIDA,
around $61,000 from FCO and around $40,000 from the SFDFA.

The previous year, the advocacy group received funds from Twi]er and Facebook in addi<on
to funds from government agencies. In fact, the majority of its funds came from government
agencies. 56.3% to be precise.

The story remains the same for 2018. 49.8% of its funds, almost half of it, came from
government agencies. Twi]er, Google and MicrosoN were other prominent donors.

In 2017, government agencies contributed 60% of Access Now funds. SIDA remained the
highest remained the highest donor with nearly $3 million in funds. George Soros’ Open
Society Founda<ons donated to them as well and in significant measure.

The story follows the same pa]ern in 2016. More than half of its funds came from
government agencies. The Dutch Ministry has funded them as well apart from the Oak
Founda<on and the Ford Founda<on.

In 2023, Access Now received 59.3% of its funds from Development Agencies and
Governments.
 77

Individuals
Foundations
1.9% 28.6%

$5,260,741

$10,901,976

Civil Society
Development Agencies/ $1,825,267 0.2%
Government
Corporations
59.3%
9.9%

In 2023, the following government en<<es funded Access Now:

1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

2. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
3. UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
4. German Federal Foreign Office
5. Global Affairs Canada
6. German Federal Foreign Office
7. Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
8. Finland Ministry of Foreign Affairs
9. Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Other Founda<ons and en<<es that donated to Access Now in 2023 were Ford Founda<on,
George Soros’ Open Founda<on and Tides Founda<on among many others.

Tech plaCorms included Google, Apple, MicrosoN, Amazon, Meta.

In 2022, Access Now received 58.6% of its funding from government en<<es.
 78

2022
Individuals
0.7%
Foundations
27.0%

Development Agencies/
Government
Corporations
58.6%
13%

Civil Society
0.6%

Thus, Access Now is majorly funded by the government of Sweden, from which it derives the
overwhelming majority of its funds from government agencies. Other than that, it receives
funds from the governments of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Switzerland.

The new regula<ons will most directly impact Twi]er, Facebook and Google and are
designed to make them accountable, all of which are prominent donors of Access Now.
Therefore, quite clearly, when the advocacy group cri<cizes the regula<ons, it will be
extremely difficult to argue that they are ac<ng in good faith.

On the Board of Access Now is Seema Chis<. According to their website, “Seema Chish< has
been a mul<media journalist since 1990, working in print, radio, and television in English and
Hindi. She was Editor, Delhi with BBC (India) from 1996 to 2006. Prior to this, she worked
with BBC World Service in London (1994-96) and in the television format at HTV (1990-93).
Chish< has been a senior editor with The Indian Express (2006-2020) where she has
published news reports, analysis on the marginalisa<on of minority communi<es, cultural
change, youth, and on India’s major poli<cal developments. She broke news stories on the
an<-corrup<on movement, on Indian judicial system, electoral poli<cs, and on technology
and poli<cs, including state surveillance of ci<zens. Her endeavour to tease out, un<e and
then help interpret the many strands of change in a large and diverse country like India
con<nues. She recently co-authored the book ‘Note by Note: The India Story (1947-2017)’, a
history of independent India told alongside the sound of Hindi film music for each of the
years. An independent journalist, she is the Media Advisor to the Na<onal Founda<on of
India and will be teaching at the Asian College of Journalism, one of Asia’s premium
journalism ins<tutes, this winter. She is also working on a book on an inter-religious
 79

marriage in her family and the importance of breaking barriers and steering away from
conserva<ve values in our lives”.

Seema Chis', who is the wife of Communist Sitaram Yechury and editor of TheWire, is also
an advisor at Na'onal Founda'on for India – which funds AMAN (as explained in the
previous sec'on) along with Tides Founda'on, Ford Founda'on and others. Other
advisors include Dhanya Rajendran of The News Minute and P Sainath.

Interes<ngly, Dhanya Rajendran and P Sainath, both have featured prominently in the
NewsClick-China funding case (AMAN was also connected to the NewsClick-China funding
case as detailed in previous sec<on).

One of the organisa<ons which emerged at the heart of the NewsClick-China funding case in
2023 was Tricon<nental, a Massachuse]s-based think tank, with leNist Vijay Prashad as its
execu<ve director87.

Tricon<nental was one of the nonprofit companies that received funding from Neville Roy
Singham and promoted Chinese propaganda. Neville Roy Singham is on the interna<onal
advisory board of the said think-tank accused of financing Chinese propaganda using
American non-profit organiza<ons.

P Sainath’s People’s Archive of Rural India or PARI had made several references to
ThoughtWorks founder Neville Roy Singham, the US millionaire at the centre of the
Newsclick Chinese funding row. Interes<ngly, P Sainath features as one of the senior fellows
at the Tricon<nental, which produced videos and ar<cles on socialist issues showing China in
a posi<ve light.

It was also revealed that Tricon<nental and Maku, a Chinese media company, agreed to work
with a Shanghai University to “tell China’s story”, a term commonly used for masking
propaganda. Vijay Prashad, a key name linked to both P Sainath and Neville Roy Singham in
the scandal, is a Marxist “historian”. P Sainath has also passingly men<oned Vijay Prashad
among others for “huge encouragement” and “support” for his portal, PARI.

Prasad has also been a contributor at “People’s Dispatch”, a media portal that touts itself to
be an “interna<onal media project with the mission of bringing to the world voices from
people’s movements and organisa<ons across the globe.” In one of the ar<cles from January
2020, Prashad sympathised with the JNU protesters and inveighed against the Modi
government.

ANer the expose, The People’s Archive of Rural India or PARI, one of the leNwing propaganda
portals which describes itself as an archive of ‘occupa<onal, linguis<c, and cultural diversity’
of India, removed references to ThoughtWorks founder Neville Roy Singham, the American
businessman recently under the spotlight for his closed links with Chinese propaganda
machinery and for funding Indian propaganda portal NewsClick.

87
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/08/vijay-prashad-neville-roy-singham-linked-to-the-newsclick-scandal-cpim-
brinda-karat-chinese-funding/
 80

Earlier, the PARI website, founded by P Sainath, a former The Hindu journalist and one of the
Urban Naxals who had sought an inquiry into allega<ons of sexual harassment against Chief
Jus<ce of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi in 2019, had extensively men<oned Singham on its
Acknowledgments sec<on, credi<ng him for transforming Sainath’s vision of launching PARI
into a reality.

“At every stage, subsequently, Roy’s ideas and energy pushed forward the making of PARI.
No acknowledgement of his contribu<on can be strong enough” the website had said88.

Apart from Seema Chis<, it is important to delve into some of the other board members of
Access Now as well. For example, Nanjala Nyabola, an Access Now board member, is the
founding member of the Digital Forensic Lab at the Atlan<c Council which shared a list of
40,000 Hindu handles with X in 2019 for banning them at the behest of the US govt
informa<on regula<on plaCorm GEC. Board member Arzu Geybulla writes for among other
publica<ons, Open Democracy a UK-based media plaCorm. OpenDemocracy is owned and
published through a non-profit founda<on. It has been funded by the Mo] Founda<on,
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Ford Founda<on, David and Elaine Po]er Founda<on,
Lush, Andrew Wainwright Trust and the Network for Social Change.

Wikipedia and its an'-India, an'-Hindu narra've

From a cursory perusal of the organisa<ons, founda<ons and en<<es which Wikimedia
Founda<on funds and accepts money from, and their subsequent an<-India ac<vity, it is
evident that the tentacles of Wikimedia Founda<on are embedded deep inside the Indian
territory, even if it may not seem so explicitly. It is true that for most people, Wikipedia is
merely a free online encyclopaedia which is, though flawed, one of the best mediums to get
quick and somewhat accurate informa<on on the go. It is a plaCorm that has voluminous
informa<on because there are thousands of editors from across the globe which contribute
ar<cles and finetune informa<on about the subject. It is also considered “reliable” by mostly
unsuspec<ng users because no ma]er where you look on the internet – the informa<on
available on Wikipedia is regurgitated ad nauseum. Given the partnership between Google
and Wikimedia/Wikipedia, the outcome is not one that should surprise anyone.

However, the image that Wikipedia has carefully craNed for itself, is just that – a carefully
craNed image of a collabora<ve encyclopaedia which gives accurate informa<on simply
because thousands of people are free to discuss the informa<on and eventually, come to an
agreement on what would the most unbiased representa<on of the subject would be.
Essen<ally, Jimmy Wales has long claimed that Wikipedia is ‘unbiased’ and ‘accurate’
because thousands of editors from different walks of life can contribute to ar<cles and edit
them, thereby, ensuring a self-check mechanism against bias and misinforma<on.

88
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/08/p-sainath-pari-removes-references-to-neville-roy-singham-aler-
newsclick-chinese-funding-expose/
 81

As we examined in the beginning of the paper, the conten<on that thousands of editors
from across the world, coming from different schools of thoughts can freely discuss/edit
ar<cles on Wikipedia is a mere myth. Before we delved into the stranglehold of a small
coterie of LeN editors on the plaCorm further, it becomes important to examine instances
where the bias in Wikipedia informa<on is evident.

Democracy in India

When one Googles ‘Democracy in India’, the Wikipedia ar<cle is the 4th result that shows up
in search. The Democracy in India should be an elaborate ar<cle given that India is world’s
largest democracy, every year there are elec<ons which are much bigger than elec<ons in
most other countries and that it has an ancient, long history of par<cipatory democracy and
republics. However, the Wikipedia the ar<cle has just 3 paras, and its only focus is to claim
that India’s democracy is among the worst in the world.

The full Wikipedia ar<cle on ‘Democracy in India’.

 82

This short wiki ar<cle en<rely relies on V-Dem Ins<tute’s democracy rankings to call India a
‘flawed democracy’. The ar<cle is just a summary of V-Dem report with no counter-points,
which says that India is “one of the worst autocra<sers in the last 10 years".

The wiki ar<cle claims that “Free poli<cal speech is limited” based on V-Dem claims.

The ar<cle’s first line originally was “Democracy in India is the largest by popula<on in the
world”. But in April this year, this was changed to “India was the 19th most electoral
democra<c country in Asia according to V-Dem Democracy indices in 2023 with a score of
0.399 out of 1.”

From the edit, it is evident that the ‘editor’ who removed the reference to India being the
largest democracy by popula<on commented, “what on earth does this mean” before
removing it.

The line which was added had gramma<cal errors which could have been edited, however,
the “editor” proceeded to remove the en<re reference to India being the largest democracy
in the world by popula<on.

The ar<cle also had reference to a book on Indian democracy by Ramchandra Guha and a
research report on Indian elec<ons, which were removed. V-Dem ranks India below
countries like Peru, Niger, Honduras etc in democracy ranking. Niger has seen several coupes
and coupe a]empts in recent history. The Peruvian president a]empted to dissolve the
Peruvian Congress in the face of imminent impeachment by the legisla<ve body.

On history of democracy in India, the ar<cle claims that there is no evidence that elec<ons
and democracy existed in ancient India.
 83

It is important to note that V-Dem reports have been debunked for their flawed
methodology and their source of funding has come under scru<ny several <mes in India.

V-Dem is heavily funded by George Soros and his Open Society. The funders also include
government agencies, which make the findings a direct interference in India’s internal affairs.

Here are some of the funders of V-Dem89:

1. George Soros’ Open Society

2. Swedish Research Council
3. European Research Council
4. European Commission
5. Research council of Norway
6. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden
7. Canadian Interna<onal Development Agency
8. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark
9. Facebook
10. USAID

George Soros, his campaigns against India and his close nexus with Wikimedia has already
been detailed in this report. It is per<nent to note that the USAID is widely regarded as a
regime change agency of the United States of America.

The U.S. Agency for Interna<onal Development (USAID) is the principal U.S. agency.
According to the USAID website, “The President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget Request for
the State Department and the United States Agency for Interna<onal Development (USAID)
is $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diploma<c engagement, which includes $32 billion
in foreign assistance for USAID fully- and par<ally-managed accounts, $3 billion (10 percent)
above the FY 2023 Adjusted Enacted level… The FY 2024 President’s Budget also requests
both mandatory and discre<onary resources to out-compete China, strengthen the U.S. role
in the Indo-Pacific, and advance American prosperity globally through new investments to
respond to these unprecedented and extraordinary <mes”.

The main objec<ve of USAID is clearly, to further US interests abroad and regime change has
been one of the interests of the US.

The USAID website says about their mission, “On behalf of the American people, we
promote and demonstrate democra<c values abroad, and advance a free, peaceful, and
prosperous world. In support of America’s foreign policy, the U.S. Agency for Interna<onal
Development leads the U.S. Government’s interna<onal development and disaster
assistance through partnerships and investments that save lives, reduce poverty, strengthen
democra<c governance, and help people emerge from humanitarian crises and progress
beyond assistance”.

89
hIps://www.v-dem.net/about/funders/
 84

One knows what it truly means when a US agency says that they want to promote
“democracy” in foreign countries. In fact, on its website, USAID also says, “We aspire to lead
interna<onal and US Government efforts to advance the economic, poli<cal, social, and
environmental well-being of the world’s most vulnerable people”.

USAID is an agency funded directly by the US government and is meant to fulfil USA’s foreign
policy agendas90.

William Blum has said that in the 1960s and early 1970s, USAID has maintained “a close
working rela<onship with the CIA, and Agency officers oNen operated abroad under USAID
cover.” The 1960s-era Office of Public Safety, a now-disbanded division of USAID, has been
men<oned as an example of this, having served as a front for training foreign police in
counterinsurgency methods (including torture techniques)

In 2023, an American lawmaker alleged that a US-based NGO in Pakistan has links with
designated terrorist organiza<ons. This NGO has been receiving financial aid from US Agency
for Interna<onal Development (USAID). In a le]er dated January 24 2023 to USAID
administrator Samantha Power, Congressman Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Commi]ee requested suspension of the USAID funding to the NGO pending a
full and in-depth review of these accusa<ons.

Reportedly, the in ques<on nonprofit organiza<on, Helping Hand for Relief and Development
(HHRD), which is based in Michigan, is affiliated with Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist terrorist
organiza<on that operates in South Asia. USAID granted HHRD a grant of $110,000 in
October 2021 to cover the costs of shipping associated with its humanitarian relief work.

“This award was made despite longstanding, detailed allega<ons that HHRD is connected to
designated terrorist organiza<ons, terror financiers, and extremist groups,” McCaul’s le]er
read.

Falah-e-Insaniat Founda<on (FIF), the charitable arm of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist

organiza<on responsible for the 2008 Mumbai a]acks, is one of the sponsors of HHRD
events in Pakistan.

It is per<nent to note that FIF has been designated as a terrorist organiza<on by the United
States in 2016.

Concerns about the HHRD’s rela<onship with Al-Khidmat, Jamaat-e-Islami’s official

charitable organiza<on, were also expressed in McCaul’s le]er.

The United States of America, through USAID, is also now being accused of affec<ng regime
change in Bangladesh leading to the ouster of Sheikh Hasina91. Minori<es in Bangladesh,
especially Hindus, are under serious a]acks in Bangladesh aNer the US-sponsored coup.

90
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/07/sam-pitroda-ngo-global-knowledge-inigagve-rahul-gandhi-usaid-state-
department-rockefeller-foundagon-deep-state/
91
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/08/kyrgyzstan-pakistan-sri-lanka-bangladesh-us-diplomat-donald-lu-rahul-
gandhi-met-regime-change-operagons/
 85

It is, therefore, evident that government agencies like USAID and founda<ons like that led by
George Soros have been a]emp<ng to affect regime change with these mo<vated reports.
Further, it is important to see how flawed the methodology of V-Dem is.

ANer the 2021 V-Dem report claiming that India was no longer a democracy but an ‘electoral
autocracy’, OpIndia had conducted a detailed research about their methodology.

First, a glance at the members of Interna<onal Advisory Board organisa<on shows its an<-
India bias. The board had two Indians, and both are known haters of the Modi government.
They were Centre for Policy Research Chairman Pratap Bhanu Mehta and JNU professor Nirja
Gopal Jayal. Both of them are known cri<c of Modi government’s policies, including the CAA.
It may be noted that V-Dem has used the CAA as one of the main examples as proof of India
turning autocra<c.

For some unknown reason, Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s name was removed from the list on the V-
Dem website. He was listed as an advisor on the website, as can be seen in an archive of the
webpage92.

Another member of the advisory board was a Pakistani na<onal, lawyer-poli<cian Aitzaz
Ahsan.

Apart from the advisory board, another major concern was the so-called country experts,
the people who provide the insight, based on which V-Dem ranks the countries. Shockingly,
the Sweden based organisa<on judges whether a country is democracy or not based on the
opinion of around two dozen people. The methodology adopted by V-Dem makes it clear
that their report is not based a large-scale survey, but based on ‘data’ provided by 5 person
per country for each indicator.

As the report is based on five indices, this means around 25 persons per country. The V-Dem
website confirms this in their website by saying, “We endeavour to have a minimum of five
experts for each indicator per country. This typically means we have twenty-five or more
experts per country, since each expert only codes indicators in his/her areas of exper<se.”

Another ma]er of concern is that the 25 experts who give data on a country may not be
from that country. V-Dem says that “two-thirds of Country Experts providing data on a
country should be na<onals or permanent residents of that country”. This means, 8 or 9
‘experts’ out of 25 giving opinion on a country are foreigners93.

For such mo<vated and biased reports94 to form the ONLY basis of the Wikipedia ar<cle on
India is essen<ally, aiding foreign agencies, bad-faith actors and elements like George Soros
to affect regime change in India, amoun<ng to interference in Indian democracy.

Interes<ngly, the page “Democracy in India” was earlier deleted by an administrator ci<ng
similar informa<on which was contained in another page as well. However, it was later

92
hIps://web.archive.org/web/20201105110201/hIps:/www.v-dem.net/en/global-team/advisory-board/
93
hIps://www.opindia.com/2021/03/the-v-dem-report-that-downgraded-india-is-opinion-of-25-people/
94
hIps://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/v-dem-report-2024-a-poligcal-hatchet-job-in-the-name-of-research
 86

“reviewed” and created again by an administrator level editor in February 2024 – in the
midst of the General Elec<ons in India.

Administrator PhilKnight who had ini<ally deleted the page is high up the Wikipedia
foodchain.

His page reads, “Welcome to my user page. I started edi<ng under the name 'Addhoc' in July
2006, and my request for adminship passed in September 2007. In March 2008, I changed
my username and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not this Phil Knight or anyone else
notable. In July 2009, I joined the Media<on Commi]ee, and following the December 2010
elec<ons, I was appointed to the Arbitra<on Commi]ee for a two year term. In January
2011, I was given checkuser and oversight privileges. In March 2013, I was appointed
chairman of the Media<on Commi]ee for a 6 month term. In February 2015, I was
appointed to the Ombudsman commission for a 12 month term”95.

The user Rosguill who reinstated the page is also an administrator of English Wikipedia96.

As men<oned earlier, there are only 435 ac<ve administrators, who are from across the
world. They are mostly all anonymous and their real iden<ty is not known. Wikipedia
administrators have power to alter content and decide almost everything about the ar<cles
present on Wikipedia. Not just the ar<cles, they have the power to even decide who can or
cannot edit the ar<cles on Wikipedia.

Administrators have the right to ban editors/users, curtail their ac<vity, protect pages so
editors cannot edit the content, delete pages aNer discussion, delete users, decide on
disputes etc.

This summarily negates the fact that Wikipedia is a free for all encyclopaedia where
thousands of editors have the right to edit and ensure accurate informa<on is presented.
This ar<cle on ‘Democracy in India’ is also tes<mony to what researchers have said about
Wikipedia and its bias. The ‘Cri<c Research’ cited in the beginning of the paper essen<ally
said that Wikipedia’s NPOV (neutrality) requirement does not mean that all view points in
the subject gets equal prominence or even representa<on in an ar<cle, especially when all
the sources that present a viewpoint opposing to the LeN have been blacklisted by the very
administrators who rule the roost on Wikipedia.

95
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhilKnight
96
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill
 87

Democra/c backsliding by country

This Wikipedia ar<cle lists countries where democracies are descending into autocracies,
and India is in the list. Not surprisingly, V-Dem Democracy indices is the source of the claim
that autocra<za<on is taking place in India aNer Modi govt came to power in 2014.

It states, “The V-Dem Democracy indices claim that democra<c backsliding is taking place in
India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bhara<ya Janata Party, ci<ng the
passage of the 2019 Ci<zenship (Amendment) Act and the government's subsequent
response to the Ci<zenship Amendment Act protests.”

The Wikipedia page which cites CAA as the main reason for ‘Democra<c Backsliding’ has
failed to men<on that CAA had nothing to do with Indian ci<zens – Hindus or Muslims. It
merely expedited the ci<zenship for those who had already come to India before December
2014, fleeing religious persecu<on in neighbouring Islamic na<ons. The violence that
subsequently took place was a result of misinforma<on being spread by several nefarious
elements and Wikipedia regurgitates that informa<on without basic fact-checking.

The ar<cle further states that “V-Dem Ins<tute iden<fied India as one of five severe cases of
democra<c backsliding, rela<ng to dispropor<onate limita<ons being placed upon the role
of the Parliament of India through measures responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
V-Dem is men<oned 4 <mes in the 390 word India sec<on, and it is evident that the en<re
claim is based on V-Dem reports.

Just like the Democracy in India ar<cle, the India sec<on of Democra<c backsliding by
country is also mostly a summary of V-Dem report, without any counter argument. It also
quotes other such reports to claim “India is a flawed democracy.”

The ar<cle also men<ons Freedom House report which had downgraded India from "free" to
"partly free" over an<-CAA protests. This Freedom House had used The Wire’s fake Tek Fog
story to make the claim. And even aNer the Wire retracted the story, the US government
funded human rights ‘watchdog’ retained it.

This ar<cle on Wikipedia is the prime example of how poli<cal interests and personal beliefs
tarnish informa<on pool, with the same informa<on being regurgitated and no scope of
rec<fica<on since any publica<on which essen<ally does not toe the LeN line is blacklisted
on Wikipedia.

The page “Democra<c Backsliding By Country” was created as an offshoot of the main page
“Democra<c Backsliding”.
 88

In the “Democra<c Backsliding” ar<cle on Wikipedia, India is men<oned in a table which

charts the <me since when the backsliding has supposedly started.

The table says that the backsliding in India started in 2014 aNer India elected PM Narendra
Modi.

There are three references added in Wikipedia.

1. A ‘Democra<c Decoupling’ research paper which relies heavily on V-Dem, Freedom

House which have been widely debunked97.
2. A paper called ‘A Tale of Culture-Bound Regime Evolu<on: The Centennial Democra<c
Trend and Its Recent Reversal’, which again relies on V-Dem. The paper says, “Using a
new measure of “comprehensive democracy” derived from V-Dem (www.v-dem.net),
my analysis traces the global democra<c trend over the last 116 years, from 1900 <ll
2016, looking in par<cular at the centennial trend’s cultural zoning”98.
3. The V-Dem report itself99

97
hIps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510347.2020.1842361?journalCode=fdem20&
98
hIp://fox.leuphana.de/portal/de/publicagons/a-tale-of-culturebound-regime-evolugon-the-centennial-
democragc-trend-and-its-recent-reversal(2b6baaf4-3942-4491-92ca-55782d455a62).html
99
hIps://web.archive.org/web/20210227182459/hIps://www.v-dem.net/en/news/democragc-backsliding-
india-worlds-largest-democracy/
 89

This certainly does not make the Wikipedia ar<cle “neutral”. It simply cites three sources
that confirms the bias of its LeN leaning editors.

Interes<ngly, this ar<cle does not even men<on countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Myanmar etc when it talks about democracy.

From the ‘Talk’ page of the ar<cle, it is evident that the editors of the page have a serious
bias towards the LeN.

Further, what is interes<ng is that this ar<cle on Wikipedia was a result of a formal “course”
offered by the Wikimedia Founda<on.

In the talk page, it is men<oned that this ar<cle was a “subject of a Wiki Educa<on
Founda<on-supported course assignment” in 2021100.

100
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democragc_backsliding
 90

When one goes to the “Course Page” linked in this sec<on, one sees it was a course offered
by Boston University in collabora<on with Wikimedia Educa<on101.

Wiki Edu is funded by Wikimedia Founda<on102.

This ar'cle which brands India as a country of concern where democracy is dying is
basically an ar'cle which was created with the explicit funding of Wikimedia Founda'on
which runs Wikipedia.

2020 Delhi Riots

When one Googles 2020 Delhi Riots, the first search result is the Wikipedia ar<cle. The 2020
Delhi Riot was a planned onslaught in the na<on capital by LeN and Islamist groups,
specifically targe<ng Hindus, with a stated objected of bringing the democra<cally elected
government to its knees. The inves<ga<on into the Delhi Riots 2020, which is s<ll sub-judice
has led to some startling revela<ons about how the riots were planned right from December
2019, culmina<ng in targeted violence against Hindus star<ng 24th February 2020.

The Wikipedia ar<cle on the 2020 Delhi Riots is summarily biased, blaming Hindus for the
riots and misrepresen<ng the facts of the case.

101

hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Boston_University/Public_Wrigng_Across_Genres_(Spring_2
021)
102
hIps://wikiedu.org/supporters/
 91

The opening paragraph of the Wikipedia ar<cle itself lays the blame squarely on Muslims
using smart language to downplay the brutal murders of Hindus and the findings of the
police inves<ga<on – including court observa<ons.

The ar<cle starts with branding the Delhi Riots a result of “Chiefly Hindu mobs a]acking
Muslims”.

While it gives a descrip<on of the Muslims killed, it relegates the violence against Hindus to
be merely ‘assaults’ – when the truth is far from it.

To understand the bias of the first para itself, it is per<nent to note that when the Wikipedia
ar<cle claims that “corpses were being found in open drains”, it references an NPR ar<cle103
in which, this sentence was men<oned verba<m without any corrobora<ve evidence. The
only documented case of a dead body being found in an “open drain” was that of Ankit
Sharma – a Hindu IB officer who was brutally murdered by an Islamist mob – led by AAP
councillor Tahir Hussain who has admi]ed on record that the violence was orchestrated to

103
hIps://www.npr.org/2020/03/07/812193930/delhi-riots-alermath-how-do-you-explain-such-violence
 92

target Hindus. If one was to read the Wikipedia ar<cle, however, one would be led to believe
that Muslim corpses by the hundreds were being found in open drains.

The second paragraph of the Wikipedia ar<cle solidifies the propaganda in the first para with
wildly one-sided claims.

To claim that Muslims were “Marked as targets”, Wikipedia relies on conjectures. While it
cannot be denied that there was retaliatory violence against Muslims, the conspiracy of the
violence was against Hindus and there was no evidence of Muslims being specifically
targeted or their genitals being checked to ascertain their iden<ty. In fact, there were several
accounts of Hindus being checked for their religious iden<ty before being targeted.

When Wikipedia talks about mosques being targeted, they reference a link about the Ashok
Nagar mosque which was gu]ed. There are several tes<monies of local Hindus who don’t
deny that the mosque was burnt but say that the mosque was burnt only aNer a Hindu
 93

temple was burnt by Muslim mobs104. It is also true that several Hindus were acqui]ed for
Ashok Nagar violence, something that the Wikipedia ar<cle fails to men<on105.

The Wikipedia ar<cle further reads, “The riots had their origin in Jaffrabad, in North East
Delhi, where a sit-in by women against India's Ci<zenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 had been
in progress on a stretch of the Seelampur–Jaffrabad–Maujpur road, blocking it.[29][30] On
23 February 2020, a leader of the ruling Hindu na<onalist Bhara<ya Janata Party, Kapil
Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to "hit the
streets".[31][32] ANer Mishra's ul<matum, violence erupted.[33] Ini<ally, Hindu and Muslim
a]acks were equally lethal.[34] Most deaths were a]ributed to gunfire.[35] By 25 February
2020, the balance had shiNed.[34] Rioters wearing helmets and carrying s<cks, stones,
swords or pistols, and the saffron flags of Hindu na<onalism entered Muslim
neighbourhoods, as the police stood by.[36][37] Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram"
("Victory to Lord Rama"), a religious slogan favoured by prime minister Narendra Modi's
party.[17] In the neighbourhood of Shiv Vihar, Hindu rioters a]acked Muslim houses and
businesses for three days, oNen firebombing them with cooking gas cylinders and guhng
them without resistance from the police.[38] In some instances, Muslims countered
perceived threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu
neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns.[39] During this <me,
stories were also told of Sikh and Hindu families coming to the aid of besieged Muslims;[40]
in some neighbourhoods, the religious communi<es cooperated in protec<ng themselves
from violence.[41]”.

The conspiracy to commit violence in February was being hatched since the 5th of December
2019. In fact, on the 23rd of February, it was the Muslim mob which started pel<ng stones
against the Hindus and the police personnel and the first person to be murdered by the
Muslim mob was police constable Ratan Lal. There is no basis to claim that it was Kapil
Mishra who had ins<gated violence and yet, Wikipedia has repeated this trope ad nauseum
without adding the counter argument either of other media houses or of the police
inves<ga<on itself. Further, it is a lie that most deaths on the 23rd and 24th were a]ributable
to gun fire. On the 24th itself, Ratan Lal was lynched to death by a Muslim mob. It was on the
night of 24th that the hands and legs of a Hindu man, Dilbar Negi, were chopped and he was
burnt alive by a Muslim mob – in Shiv Vihar – where Wikipedia claims Muslims were
overwhelmingly a]acked. Further, it was on the 25th that Ankit Sharma was brutally killed by
Tahir Hussain and his Muslim mob – the very date when Wikipedia says the violence became
overwhelmingly an<-Muslim.

Shiv Vihar, which the Wikipedia ar<cle claims was the epicentre of Hindus a]acking
Muslims, was actually the very place where Hindus came under a]ack overwhelmingly.
Dilbar Negi was murdered amidst chants of “throwing Kafirs out” and “taking Hindu girls
away” – these slogans were raised throughout Shiv Vihar106.

104
hIps://www.opindia.com/2020/02/eyewitnesses-delhi-riots-shiva-temple-desecragon-triggered-aIack-on-
mosque/
105
hIps://www.opindia.com/2022/09/delhi-court-acquits-yogendra-singh-and-suraj-in-a-delhi-riots-fir-filed-
by-shamshad/
106
hIps://swarajyamag.com/poligcs/kill-hindu-kafirs-and-take-away-their-daughters-delhi-riots-chargesheet-
tells-how-a-muslim-mob-set-dilbar-negi-on-fire
 94

Further, it was in Shiv Vihar where even a Hindu school was not spared, with a]acks being
launched from a Muslim school. Evidence of the fact that the violence was preplanned came
from Shiv Vihar as well, where it was revealed how Muslim students from the Muslim owned
school were sent home early – right before the violence against the Hindu school
commenced. From the roof of the Muslim owned school, weapons, acid pouches, catapults
etc were recovered.

The Wikipedia ar<cle furthers lies about CAA and shockingly, fails to even men<on Sharjeel
Imam and Umar Khalid – two of the prime accused in the conspiracy case.

The 2020 Delhi Riots page is also locked, which means that the thousands of editors across
the world have no access to edit the page. The page is under ‘extended access’ protec<on
which means – “Ar<cles under extended confirmed protec<on (ECP) can be edited only by
extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and
have made at least 500 edits, or have been manually granted extended-confirmed rights by
an administrator (usually because the account is a legi<mate alterna<ve account of a user
who has extended-confirmed rights on another account). Extended confirmed (30/500)
protec<on is therefore a stronger form of protec<on than semi-protec<on (rough guide)”.

Essen<ally, only a handful of people would have access to edit this page and that too, the
administrators can reverse – which has happened in the past – as a result – the
misinforma<on would never be corrected given the LeN confirma<on bias of Wikipedia’s
senior editors and administrators along with other sources which present an alternate view
being in the blacklisted category.

The 2020 Delhi Riots page was created by a Wikipedia editor DBigXray who has now deleted
his original account and in all probability, func<ons under another pseudonym.

There are several conversa<ons in the ‘talk’ page which reveal the ideological bias with
which this page was created and curated.
 95

In one of the conversa<ons, an editor provides sources for Ankit Sharma being stabbed
mul<ple <mes and even the brutality that was done to Dilbar Negi. The “senior editors”
simply dismiss these claims. To date, Dilbar Negi is not men<oned in the Wikipedia ar<cle.
The conversa<on also refused to consider evidence and sources regarding how the violence
was not an<-Muslim but an<-Hindu in nature107.

If Wikipedia truly followed the neutral point of view rule, it could have, at the least, added
how some sources claim that it was an an<-Muslim violence while others make an argument
for how it was an<-Hindu. While only the la]er is true, adding both would s<ll show
‘neutrality’, however, none of this informa<on was considered and added to the page which

107

hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_20#The_convicgon_in_court_tells_a_totally_diffe
rent_story
 96

shows the biased approach of the editors. It is also per<nent to note that a lot of the
informa<on was dismissed outright because the sources themselves have been blacklisted
by LeN leaning editors.

In one of the conversa<ons, aNer 9 Muslims were convicted for causing planned riots against
Hindus, it was brought to the a]en<on of admins that the claim that the riots were an<-
Muslim should be changed. The editors, clearly biased, resorted to whataboutery and
adhominem to not include that version108.

Throughout the ‘talk’ pages, the only reason given to not add a counterview based on
factual posi<ons is that the admins and editors need “reliable” sources and the sources
themselves have been selected carefully only to conform to a LeN bias.

The biases in the Wikipedia ar<cle about the Delhi Riots 2020 is enough for an en<re
research paper. For the purpose of this paper, we would limit ourselves the details already
men<oned, since it substan<ates the ques<on of bias substan<ally.

Hindu terrorism

The bias of the ar5cle – opinions passed off as fact, crimes of omission

If one searches ‘Hindu Terrorism’ on Google, the first result that comes up is the Wikipedia
ar<cle.

There is a wiki page called Hindu terrorism, and it is mostly based on opinions published in
various outlets like Economic and Poli<cal Weekly, Caravan, Wire, Scroll etc. It claims that
the accused in Hindu terrorism were members of Hindu organisa<ons such as Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or Abhinav Bharat. However, the terminology used by them
makes no way for nuanced takes and glosses over several important facts that negated any
existence of “Hindu Terror”. It also ensures that it does not delve into the allega<ons, backed
by several tes<monies and facts, that it was Congress which ac<vely tried to perpetuate the
myth of saffron terrorism.

The en<re sec<on defining “Hindu Terrorism vs Hindutva Terrorism” is a work of fic<on,
dubious opinions and crimes of omission.

108
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_19
 97

The sec<on starts by ci<ng an opinion ar<cle wri]en by one Nikita Saxena for The Caravan
Magazine to indicate when the phrase “Hindu Terrorism” started to get trac<on. The ar<cle
was actually about how the Modi government inves<ga<ng terror financing of Islamic and
Sikh terror groups – many of which are proscribed interna<onally. There is no dispute which
exists throughout the world that Islamic and Sikh extremist groups have indulged in grievous
terror ac<vi<es and been convicted for it. It was in this ar<cle that The Caravan writer talks
about Hindu terrorism, laden with opinions and conjectures. The same ar<cle is also
referenced in the last paragraph of this sec<on which talks about the Mul<-Agency Centre
which created focus groups with the mandate of looking into Islamist and Sikh terrorism and
the funding that they get.

First and foremost, the referencing of an opinion piece on a publica<on is in itself

problema<c. Wikipedia is supposed to be a user sourced ‘encyclopaedia’ and one of the
reasons why it has a serious leN bias is because of opinions by those agreeable to the LeN
ideology are passed off as facts. Further, if one no<ces there is a tag next to the reference to
the Caravan ar<cle which says, “undue weight? – discuss”.
 98

Undue Weight is a Wikipedia guideline which says, “Neutrality requires that mainspace
ar<cles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by
reliable sources, in propor<on to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources”.

The problem with this guideline is embedded, making it impossible for the ar<cle to be
neutral in viewpoint since the pool of “reliable sources” is in itself tarnished as discussed in
the research on Wikipedia Bias. Essen<ally, Wikipedia editors, who are overwhelmingly LeN
leaning blacklist any source as “unreliable” if it does not conform to their own poli<cal bias
and therefore, they only represent the views which are presented by the LeN. Even material
evidence and fact-checks which do not conform to the LeN bias are not men<oned in
Wikipedia because the sources which are not verifiably leN are blacklisted and therefore,
cannot be cited to present any alternate viewpoint or facts. The result is that the Wikipedia
ar<cles regurgitate every fake news peddled by the LeN without a counter and pass off even
opinions as facts.

The sleight of hand is also evident in the second sentence of the sec<on where it is
men<oned that Digvijay Singh had prominently men<oned the term “Hindu terrorism” in his
2007 elec<on campaign. The opposi<on by the BJP to the usage of the term is not
men<oned in the same paragraph, as neutrality would dictate, but as an explanatory note
towards the end.

The second paragraph of the sec<on starts with “While perpetrators have consistently
jus<fied these acts by their Hindu faith”, however, this sentence has no reference. It is
essen<ally an opinion by the editors of the page and not supported by any evidence. This
sentence is used to make a case for why the ar<cle is using the term “Hindu terrorism” and
not “Hindutva terrorism” – claiming that Hindus who have supposedly indulged in terror
ac<vity (not supported by facts) have jus<fied their ac<ons in the name of Hinduism. This is
done essen<ally to water down Islamic terrorism and put Hindus on the same list as Islamic
terrorists – as evidenced by the fact that the Caravan ar<cle, making the same case, is
referenced in this ar<cle, despite being a mere opinion.

In the third paragraph, the ar<cle does men<on some opinions on Congress’ coinage of the
Hindu terror bogey, however, it then discredits it by against quo<ng the Caravan ar<cle
where it men<ons that the BJP’s “narra<ve” that Congress created the Hindu terror bogey
sans facts is negated by the fact that it was inves<ga<ng terror financing to Islamic and Sikh
terror groups. It makes this claim by saying that while the Modi govt was inves<ga<ng
Islamic and Sikh terrorism, it ignored “several cases” of Hindu terror where Pragya Thakur
and Aseemanand have been “tried and arrested”.

The last sentence essen<ally makes it sound like Pragya Thakur and Aseemanand were held
guilty by a court of law, however, that is not true. The first example of ‘Hindu terror’ in the
ar<cle is Samjhauta bombing, where all accused were acqui]ed – including Aseemanand
and Sadhvi Pragya. In fact, there were several inves<ga<ons and proofs which showed that
Congress had poten<ally let go of Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists who were responsible for the
Samjhauta Blast in order to torture and implicate Hindus in the case. In the Malegaon Blast
as well, which this ar<cle refers to, the same conten<ons had surfaced.
 99

For 2006 Malegaon blast, ini<ally, nine suspects were included in the charge-sheet based on
the available evidence. One of the suspects Shabbir owned a ba]ery unit in Malegaon – he
was alleged to be a trained opera<ve of LeT and inves<gators had found traces of RDX in his
factory

For Samjhauta Express blast, United States shared intelligence inputs about the proven links
of Arif Qasmani, a Pakistani na<onal linked with terrorist organiza<ons. UN Security Council
has s<ll listed him as the perpetrator of Samjhauta Express blast.

However, the Government of India changed the course of the inves<ga<on to implicate
alleged Hindu extremists, one of which was Lt. Col Srikant Purohit, a serving army officer. He
was also charged for the 2008 Malegaon Blast. For 2008 Malegaon Blast, another alleged
Hindu extremist named Sadhvi Pragya Thakur was charged.

In the Court, as many as 59 witnesses from the Army stated that Purohit was a military
intelligence person who was actually doing his job (of gathering intelligence inputs) by
infiltra<ng extremist organiza<ons.

In 2016 it was found that ATS had planted RDX to frame Col Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya to
prove Hindu extremism. Inspector Mehboob Abdul Karim Mujawar also confirmed in a video
that ATS team had planted RDX to frame Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya.

In August 2017, Col Purohit was granted bail aNer spending 9 years in jail. Earlier, in April
2017, Sadhvi Pragya was granted bail too. The Bombay High Court, while gran<ng bail to
Sadhvi Pragya stated in its order that prima facie, there’s no case against her.

In fact, in the Samjhauta Blast case, ini<al reports had suggested the involvement of Pakistan
based terror group Laskhar-e-Taiba. In 2009 Asif Qasmani was named as the main accused
by the United States treasury and the United Na<ons Security Council (UNSC) which resulted
in him gehng a travel ban and also got his asset frozen.

But surprisingly the Indian inves<ga<ve agencies drew a completely different conclusion and
blamed “Saffron Terrorists” for the blast. According to reports in 2010, the NIA was
‘convinced’ that Hindus had done the blast (they were later acqui]ed by the court).

A Times Now expose had also revealed that the <me that the Pakistani suspects who had
planted the bomb were let off without any proper inves<ga<on under the UPA government.
According to the report the Pakistanis named Ajmat Ali and Usman were ini<ally arrested by
the Indian authori<es but were discharged within a fortnight.

One suspect named Ajmat Ali was arrested by the Punjab Police from the A]ari Railway
Sta<on as he did not have valid papers. He was apparently using an alias named Rajesh
Khanna but had a resemblance to the sketches of the bomb planter which were published by
the GRP in connec<on with the Samjhauta blast.
 100

But according to Gurdeep Singh, who was the Inves<ga<ve Officer assigned to the
Samjhauta Blast case, Ajmat was let off the hook aNer preliminary interroga<on due to
“direc<ons from seniors”.

None of these details have, of course, been added by the Wikipedia ar<cle109110.

In the Ajmer Dargah blast, the Wikipedia ar<cle men<ons that the accused had, in fact, said
that they had been forced to implicate RSS by the then Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde.
However, elsewhere, it men<ons how Shinde had spoken about Hindu terrorism and also,
calls Abhinav Bharat a “Hindu militant group” without men<oning that Shinde had, in fact,
apologised for his “Hindu terror” remark111 and that it was indeed the Congress government
which had refused to designate Abhinav Bharat as a terror group saying that they had not
indulged in terror ac<vity.112

The ar<cle was originally <tled Saffron Terror, but later it was renamed to Hindu terrorism.
However, the original ar<cle said that “Saffron Terror is iden<cal to Hindu Terror or Hindu
Terrorism.”

In the ‘Islamic terrorism’ ar<cle, they have men<oned mul<ple <mes that this term is
‘misnomer’, and use of the term is disputed. It cites several en<<es opposing the use of the
term Islamic terrorism, but no such objec<on is men<oned in the Hindu terror ar<cle.

In one sec<on in the “talk” page, it is evident that a por<on on the Delhi Riots 2020 was
removed because the version did not suit the administrator and editor’s poli<cal narra<ve.

The page on Hindu terrorism has been marked “Require extended confirmed access”, which
means it is extremely difficult for average Wikipedia editors to edit and therefore, the bias
would not be corrected based on verifiable informa<on.

The ‘talk’ page, a senior Wikipedia editor booked in India for crea5ng strife and bias

Previously, a sec<on on Delhi Riots 2020 was added to the Hindu terror Wikipedia ar<cle.

109
hIps://www.opindia.com/2017/06/did-upa-govt-let-off-pakistani-suspects-in-samjhauta-blast-to-further-
saffron-terror-theory/
110
hIps://www.opindia.com/2019/05/how-congress-created-the-hindu-terror-theory-a-saga-that-started-not-
with-malegaon-blasts-but-sikh-massacre-of-1984/
111
hIps://www.thehindu.com/news/nagonal/shinde-apologises-for-hindu-terror-remark-ahead-of-budget-
session/argcle4435746.ece
112
hIps://www.thehindu.com/news/nagonal/other-states/centre-rejects-maharashtra-govts-proposal-to-ban-
abhinav-bharat/argcle5049051.ece
 101

In this sec<on, it was added that a police inves<ga<on into the incident had revealed that
the perpetrator belonged to AAP and therefore, it was a conspiracy to create strife.

In the talk page, a Wikipedia editor, “Kau<lya3” essen<ally said that the Delhi Police
inves<ga<on should be removed since the Delhi police specifically is not a reliable source of
informa<on.

Further in the talk page, another editor chimed in saying that if there is another version of
the event which the Delhi Police discovered, it has to be men<oned in the ar<cle.
 102

ThereaNer, administrator agreed that Delhi Police is not a reliable source (LeN media is) and
proceeded to delete the en<re sec<on since the inves<ga<on did not conform to his poli<cal
bias.

It is important to men<on here that Kau<lya3 is a Indian-origin UK-based doctor – Uday

Reddy – who was recently booked in India for spreading disharmony between communi<es
with his an<-India edits on Wikipedia113.

An FIR has been registered against the Indian-origin man who works as a professor at a
University in the United Kingdom by the Manipur police in the state capital Imphal. He was
accused of inflammatory posts and statements on social media plaCorms.

Reddy’s X handle Kau<lya3 is withheld in India. In the complaint against Reddy, it was stated
that he may have links with Khalistanis elements in Canada. He has been accused of edi<ng
Wikipedia ar<cles with misleading informa<on.

The complaint against Reddy was filed by a resident of Manipur based on which the FIR was
registered. Reddy teaches Computer Science at the University of Birmingham. It has been
alleged that Reddy has been working online to create tensions between Meitei and Kuki
communi<es on religious grounds in Manipur. The FIR has been registered with a police
sta<on in Imphal East district under Sec<ons 117 (abetment), 295-A (insul<ng religious
sen<ments), 153-A (promo<ng enmity between communi<es) and other relevant provisions
of law.

The complaint read, “The accused person deliberately with malicious inten<on insulted the
Meitei’s religious beliefs and promoted enmity between the Meiteis and other communi<es
on religious grounds.” Though Reddy has not officially given any statement on social media,
he has thanked others for expressing solidarity with him.

The police said in a statement that Reddy oNen hosts spaces on social media plaCorms and
allegedly directs people in Manipur on how to create unrest and trouble against law

113
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/07/fir-against-uk-based-indian-origin-professor-uday-reddy-manipur-kuki-
meitei-hatred/
 103

enforcement personnel. The complaint read, “The unlawful ac<vi<es of the accused person
and his associates amount to an<-na<onal ac<vi<es that challenge the integrity and
sovereignty of India, and are fit to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the
Unlawful Ac<vi<es (Preven<on) Act.”

It further read, “As there is a high possibility of the accused being linked with Khalistanis in
Canada… and with narco-terrorist groups… the call records of the accused, financial
ac<vi<es… may kindly be inves<gated.” The complainant also requested the Indian
authori<es to contact the employers of Reddy and inform them about the “criminal acts
commi]ed by him against India”. He also requested to issue a lookout circular (LOC) to
monitor entry and exit points in India.

Uday Reddy has been called out mul<ple <mes for his lack of understanding about Manipur
and for spreading propaganda about Meitei community. For instance, in one of the
discussions he was called out for his failure to accurately address Manipur’s history,
specifically the Anglo-Kuki war.

He was also seen mocking Meitei vic<ms on several instances.

He also showed his an<-Hindu bias mul<ple <mes. In April 2022, he accused Hindus of
“weaponising” Ram Navami against Muslims. In a post on X, he wrote, “Hindutva na<onalist
organisa<ons, spearheaded by RSS and BJP, have weaponised the fes<val to create Hindu–
Muslim fric<ons, causing riots and deaths, in which the Muslims have been the major
sufferers.”

In reality, it was Muslims who mercilessly a]acked Hindus across India on Hindu fes<vals like
Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayan<.

Godhra Train Burning

When one searches “Godhra Train Burning”, the first result to show up is the Wikipedia
ar<cle.

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia ar<cle itself reveals the u]er bias of the page.
 104

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia ar<cle says that the cause of the fire that burnt 59
Hindu pilgrims to death “remains disputed” even though mul<ple people have been
convicted for burning the Sabarma< Express train in Godhra. In fact, even Indian leNists have
almost stopped claiming that it was an accident, but the Wiki ar<cle in the first para says
that “The cause of the fire remains disputed”.

The truth, however, is not “disputed”114.

On 27th February 2002, the Sabarma< express was scheduled to reach Godhra sta<on at
about 3:30 am. On that day, the train was running four hours late. As such, it arrived at
Godhra by 7:40 am.

8 minutes later, a mob of 2000 Islamists set 59 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children,
in the coach S6 of the train on fire in Godhra’s predominantly Muslim area – Signal Falia.

31 Islamists were found guilty of the Godhra massacre on February 22, 2011, by the trial
court (with only 11 receiving the death penalty and 20 receiving life in prison), and all 31
convic<ons were affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in October 2017, resul<ng in everyone
receiving a life sentence. Prior to that, based on the tes<mony of witnesses and survivors, it
was obvious to anybody with even a modicum of intellectual integrity that Muslims had set
the train on fire.

In February 2003, an accused person made a judicial confession in which he acknowledged

that Godhra was a well-planned a]ack and that he had personally par<cipated in it. A
judicial confession is conclusive evidence. This proves that the Godhra carnage was a
preplanned a]ack on the innocent Karsevaks.

In the March 2006 issue of Outlook, a report was published. This report includes the
following two paragraphs:

114
hIps://www.opindia.com/2023/01/bbc-documentary-on-gujarat-riots-whitewash-islamists-who-set-the-
godhra-train-on-fire/
 105

Gayatri Panchal, a resident of Ahmedabad, who survived the incident on February 27, 2002,
but lost both her parents in her reac<on to the report has said, “The report of the Banerjee
Commission is absolutely wrong. I have seen everything with my own eyes and barely
escaped myself but lost both my parents.”

Panchal, who has three sisters, said the Banerjee Commission report was not correct as the
fire could not have been accidental as no one was cooking in the S-6 coach and it was
packed with passengers. “Mobs pelted stones at the coach for a long and then threw in
burning rags and also poured some inflammable material so that the coach was on fire. I will
maintain the same wherever I am called to depose on the ma]er,” Panchal said.

So, it is clear that, according to the eyewitness account, coach S-6 caught fire when Muslims
drenched it in gasoline, set it ablaze, and circled the railway from all sides to prevent the
Ramsewaks from leaving, according to the police’s obviously plausible statement.

It becomes necessary to refer to the Nanava<-Mehta commission’s comments which cite the
forensic science laboratory’s reports. The report denies all the possibili<es and conspiracies
raised by Muslims and liberal ac<vists inven<ng mul<ple reasons for the coach being set
ablaze.

These theories included ideas of an imaginary scuffle between Karsevaks and the local
Muslim vendors, and an equally untrue incident of Hindus moles<ng a Muslim girl. Here is
what the commission has concluded:

“From the evidence of all these witnesses and other material on record it becomes clear that
except overcrowding in the train and occasional raising of slogans inside the train and on
plaCorms of the intervening sta<ons, the Ramsevaks had not done anything and no incident
had happened earlier which could have led to the incident which later on happened at
Godhra. In absence of any evidence whatsoever indica<ng any incident on the way, the
Commission has no hesita<on in coming to the conclusion that the sugges<on made by
Jamiat e Ulma-E-Hind that a quarrel had taken place between Ramsevaks and vendors at
Ujjain railway sta<on is without any basis. Its journey from Ayodhya to Godhra was trouble-
free.”

Regarding the fire and its origin, D V Tala< had told the Nanava<-Mehta Commission,

“About 60 litres of inflammable liquid must have been used in burning that coach. The floor
of the coach in some places was totally burnt. ANer explaining the difference between a fire
in an open space and a fire in a confined place, he stated that the phenomenon of flashover
can happen in a place that is small and completely closed. The size of S/6 was quite big. Its
total area of it was 5000 sq. N. Therefore, there was no possibility of a flashover in that
coach unless the fire was big. The fire had not started from below the coach. The total
quan<ty of liquid that was required for burning the coach could not have been thrown from
outside, nor the fire which took place in S/6 could have been caused only by the burning
rags thrown in it. As there was more damage in the eastern part of the coach, he had come
to the conclusion that the fire had originated in the eastern part of that coach.”
 106

The Godhra train burning of 2002 is the clearest illustra<on of the ruthless inhumanity of
Islamists. For the Wikipedia ar<cle to claim that the cause of the fire remains “disputed” is a
gross twis<ng of facts meant to whitewash a conspiracy that claimed the lives of 59 Hindus
including children and women.

When the ques<on of bias was brought up on the “talk” page of the Wikipedia ar<cle, the
senior editor on Wikipedia defended the glaring bias.

When someone pointed out that the ar<cle was biased and that the court of India, with
ample evidence, had convicted people for act of arson, Vanamonda93, a notorious and
prolific Wikipedia editor claimed that the Wikipedia policy required them to maintain
“neutral point of view” – which means summarising informa<on from “reliable sources” –
and not what the courts say.

Essen<ally, Wikipedia, as a ma]er of policy, only collates informa<on from LeN media
sources and does not even consider the court of India to be an authority aNer tens of
Islamists were convicted for the a]ack.

The Wikipedia ar<cle men<ons that the trial court convicted 31 Muslims for the burning,
which was upheld by High Court. But the ar<cle s<ll men<ons that “Scholars remain
scep<cal about the claims of arson”.

In one of the references, the Wikipedia ar<cle says, “Several other independent
commentators also concluded that the fire itself was almost certainly an accident, saying
that the ini<al cause of the conflagra<on was never conclusively determined.[21][22]
Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official story of the a]ack on the train—
that it was organized and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan—was en<rely
baseless.[23] Scholar Martha Nussbaum has also challenged this narra<ve, sta<ng that
several inquiries have found that the conflagra<on was the result of an accident rather than
a planned conspiracy.[24]”.
 107

In this regard, another discussion took place on the “Talk” page115 of the ar<cle. One editor
had removed the reference and Vanamonde93 had reinstated it.

The reason first given to the editor by Vanamonde93 was that the removal of the reference
to Martha Nussbaum and her conspiracy theory was not “neutral”.

The discussion thereaNer about the reference to Nussbaum was dismissive, bullying and
disingenuous.

The editor who had removed the reference tagged Vanamonde93 to say that the case of
Godhra train burning had been decided by the court and perpetrators convicted and
sentenced and therefore, the main peg of the ar<cle should be the convic<on and what the
courts said about the case.

115
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2
 108

Vanamonde93 essen<ally says that Wikipedia guidelines demand that less weightage be
given to court judgements and more weight be given to observa<ons by “experts”. The
editor then points out that nowhere does the guideline say that vanamonde93 is alleging
and that “context ma]ers” demands that the inves<ga<on is the main context of the ar<cle.
Vanamonde93 then accuses the editor of being obtuse and shuts him down.

The editor then gives further context. The editor points out that the ar<cle by this “expert”
only says that a large amount of inflammable was used and therefore, she does not actually
endorse the “accident theory”.
 109

ANer that, Vanamonde93 and others bully the editor to declare that the reference will stay
and that he has no right to second guess an academic.

In another conversa<on, there were ques<ons raised about the quality of resources and the
sentence which said that the causes of the fire are s<ll disputed or that they have not been
proven conclusively.
 110

The individual raising this ques<on says that the reference for the doubts raised are from
2013 and in 2016, the police had iden<fied and arrested the mastermind, therefore, the grey
area created in this ar<cle should be removed.

Vanamonde93 again refuses, saying that the police is not a reliable source.

Repeatedly, Vanamonde93 refuses to acknowledge the court verdict saying that “it means
very li]le”.

The Wikipedia ar<cle quotes the Concerned Ci<zens Tribunal report which ruled that
concluded that the fire was an accident. This ‘Tribunal’ was a private group convened by
Teesta Setalvad, who had tutored Gujarat riot witnesses to give false statements.
 111

The ar<cle further quotes historians and scholars to claim the fire was an accident. Whether
it was fire or accident is a ma]er of forensic examina<on, not the subject of opinion of
‘scholars’.

Freedom of the Press in India

The first sentence in the Wikipedia page on “Freedom of the Press in India” is as follows:

“Freedom of the press in India is legally protected by the Amendment to the consBtuBon of
India,[1] while the sovereignty, naBonal integrity, and moral principles are generally
protected by the law of India to maintain a hybrid legal system for independent journalism.
In India, media bias or misleading informaBon is restricted under the certain consBtuBonal
amendments as described by the country's consBtuBon. The media crime is covered by the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is applicable to all substanBve aspects of criminal law”

This en<re paragraph makes very li]le sense and also misrepresents the cons<tu<on of India
given that there is no amendment to the cons<tu<on which legally protects freedom of the
press. Freedom of the press is included in the gambit of freedom of speech and expression.
Further, there is no “cons<tu<onal amendment as described by the country’s cons<tu<on”
which restricts media bias – this sentence essen<ally goes to project a misleading impression
of India given that it insinuates that any editorial slant may be outlawed by the cons<tu<on
itself.

Interes<ngly, the only reference for this en<re paragraph is an opinion piece in the
Washington Post headlined, “In Modi’s India, journalists face bullying, criminal cases and
worse”. The ar<cle was wri]en in 2018 by Annie Gowen who has a history of an<-India and
an<-Hindu tweets, laden with misinforma<on and inaccuracies116117.

The next paragraph reads as follows:

Nevertheless, freedom of the press in India is subject to certain restricBons, such as

defamaBon law, a lack of protecBon for whistleblowers, barriers to informaBon access and
constraints caused by public and government hosBlity to journalists.

There is again no reference to substan<ate that the public at large is hos<le towards
journalists, as is the government. The only purpose this serves is to paint India in an
autocra<c light.

116
hIps://www.opindia.com/2018/07/racist-foreign-journalist-annie-gowen-washington-post-brazens-it-out-
even-as-hindus-seek-apology-for-her-insulgng-tweet/
117
hIps://www.opindia.com/2018/07/hinduphobe-journalist-of-washington-post-now-tries-to-lie-about-
censorship-on-media-in-kashmir/
 112

Further in the ar<cle, The Wikipedia ar<cle strings together a bunch of opinions to pass it off
as fact.

The Wikipedia ar<cle further says that the Indian government in 2020 had issued warnings
to foreign media.

The reference they use for it is an Outlook ar<cle from 2020 which merely states that the
foreign media did not report accurate on the Delhi Riots 2020 and the government had
issued rejoinders to them118.

The ar<cle then men<ons the raids on BBC and insinuates that the raids were conducted
because of an an<-Modi documentary aired by the BBC.

In truth, the raids had nothing to do with the BBC documentary. In February 2023, the BBC
offices were surveyed by tax authori<es for 3 days. ANer the survey, the Finance Ministry
had issued a statement explaining the depth of tax fraud commi]ed by the BBC.

Without naming BBC, the statement said that a survey ac<on under sec<on 133A of the
Income tax Act, 1961(the Act) was carried out at the business premises of group en<<es of a
prominent interna<onal Media Company at Delhi and Mumbai.

The statement noted that BBC is engaged in the business of development of content in
English, Hindi and various other Indian languages; adver<sement sales and market support
services, etc in India.

The statement said that the income/profits shown by various group en<<es under BBC India
do not match their scale of opera<ons in India, as the quan<ty of content in India is

118
hIps://www.outlookindia.com/nagonal/india-news-sarkar-unhappy-with-india-as-seen-from-abroad-news-
302944
 113

substan<al. In the raid by the Income tax department, which has been described as a survey,
several pieces of evidence were found that show that tax has not been paid on certain
remi]ances which have not been disclosed as income in India by the foreign en<<es of the
group.

The ministry further informed that the survey revealed that BBC India had made remi]ances
to its foreign offices for u<lising the services of seconded employees, or temporary
employees sent from overseas. While such remi]ances are subjected to withholding tax,
BBC avoided it.

Further, the I-T department also found discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to
Transfer Pricing documenta<on. Such discrepancies relate to the level of relevant Func<on,
Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis, incorrect use of comparable which are applicable to determine
the correct Arm’s Length Price (ALP) and inadequate revenue appor<onment, among others,
the statement said.

The ministry has said that the survey opera<on has resulted in the unearthing of crucial
evidence by way of statements of employees, digital evidence and documents which will be
further examined in due course. “It is per<nent to state that statements of only those
employees were recorded whose role was crucial including those connected to, primarily,
finance, content development and other produc<on-related func<ons,” the ministry said.

Interes<ngly, while the ‘Liberal’ ecosystem in India had tried to defend the BBC and blame
the Modi government for conduc<ng the survey at the BBC premises, the broadcas<ng
company has a notable past of tax evasion and fraud. For example, Thousands of public
employees, including those at the BBC, were not paying their taxes at the source, according
to a 2012 report from the public accounts commi]ee in the United Kingdom (UK).

There were, at that <me, also reports claiming that the BBC has agreed to cough up Rs 40
crores to make up for their tax evasion over a period of almost 6 years – from 2016 to 2022.

The Wikipedia ar<cle, of course, leaves out the several a]acks against journalists that the
LeN does not agree with. While it men<ons imagined threats by Sagarika Ghose and Ravish
Kumar, it does not men<on how the Congress alliance govt in Maharashtra arrested and kept
Arnab Goswami in jail for weeks over a case that was later dismissed by the court.

Further, the Wikipedia ar<cle also talks of Bobby Ghosh and passes off specula<on and
opinion about the reasons of his exit from Hindustan Times as a fact. The Hate Tracker that
 114

Ghosh had started was actually taken down because wild inaccuracies were pointed out in
the tracker and not because there was any government pressure119120.

Narendra Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has received the ire of the LeN and the Islamist since the
beginning of his poli<cal career, sans truth. That bias is clearly also reflected in the Wikipedia
page of the leader.

At the outset, the Wikipedia page outright lies about PM Modi’s marriage.

PM Modi did not “abandon” his wife. The truth is that it was a child marriage which was
forced upon him by his parents121. The Wikipedia ar<cle, perhaps deliberately, hides the fact
that it was a child marriage.

The Wikipedia ar<cle then says that Narendra Modi’s Gujarat government was “considered
complicit” in the 2002 Gujarat Riots.

119
hIps://www.opindia.com/2017/08/hindustan-gmes-hate-tracker-a-classic-case-of-how-media-peddles-an-
agenda/
120
hIps://www.opindia.com/2017/10/what-has-happened-to-hindustan-gmes-database-hate-tracker/
121
hIps://www.indiatoday.in/india/west/story/narendra-modi-marriage-jashodaben-188381-2014-04-10
 115

The truth is that the Court had acqui]ed Narendra Modi and found no evidence to suggest
that the government was complicit. This fact is men<on later in the ar<cle, however, the
Wikipedia ar<cle relies on opinion pieces to claim that he was “considered complicit”.

The Wikipedia ar<cle then goes on to make several claims about the na<onal spending on
healthcare, educa<on etc without any references.

Toeing the Pakistan line, the Wikipedia ar<cle claims that the Balakot airstrike was a failure
based on dubious sources, however, this is not true. The Indian Army explained in details
how the Balakot airstrike was carried about122, with an admission from Pakistani diplomat
himself as well123.

122
hIps://www.opindia.com/2020/02/balakot-airstrikes-pakistan-pulwama-jaish-terror-camps-indian-air-
force/
123
hIps://www.cnbctv18.com/india/balakot-strike-killed-300-terrorists-says-former-pakistani-diplomat-
7954241.htm
116
 117

The en<re ar<cle regurgitates the lies which have already been extensively debunked,
however, the counterargument to these false asser<ons are not added in the ar<cle. As
explained before, this is because any publica<on which is likely to publish the counter to
such falsi<es against India and Hindus have been mostly blacklisted by the LeN editors of
Wikipedia.

The en<re Wikipedia ar<cle essen<ally relies on conjectures, conspiracy theories and
opinions by LeNists and Islamists of various hues. For example, there is an en<re sec<on on
“Hindutva” in the Narendra Modi Wikipedia page.

The en<re paragraph is that of an opinion and the references men<oned are also opinion
pieces published in The New York Times, The Hindu, Atlan<c etc. The paragraph specifically
calls “Love Jihad” – a phenomenon where Hindu women are targeted on the basis of their
religious iden<ty a conspiracy theory – while claiming that Hindu conversions are rampant –
making it sound like the conversions are based on coercion. This asser<on inverts the
situa<on where actually, Hindu women are assaulted and forced to convert to Islam, many
<mes, with the Muslim men changing their religious iden<ty to Hindu to trap the women
while conversions to Hinduism are few and far between, always voluntary.

While claiming that historians with dubious records are being appointed by the Modi
government, the Wikipedia ar<cle, by name, relies on the opinions of LeNists like Nandini
Sundar who openly sympathise and whitewash the crimes of separa<sts and armed militants
like the Naxals.
 118

ThereaNer, the Wikipedia page spreads falsi<es about CAA, a sensi<ve subject in India given
that its passage saw Islamists plan and execute violence specifically targeted at the Hindu
community. The ar<cle misrepresents that CAA made religious the basis for ci<zenship. CAA
was meant to expedite ci<zenship for persecuted minori<es of neighbouring Islamic na<ons
who were already living as refugees in India. It is obvious that a bill meant to give refuge to
persecuted minori<es from Islamic na<ons would not grant ci<zenship under it to Muslims –
the majority popula<on in those countries. Further, it is also not men<oned that people
have other ways and means to apply for ci<zenship in India – include Muslims.

All non-ci<zens are equally covered under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946, The
Registra<on of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the rules /
orders made thereunder, and there is no separate rule for Muslim non-ci<zens. All legal
migrants, including Muslims, can acquire ci<zenship as per the prescribed norms124.

The ar<cle also lies about the details of the Delhi Riots 2020 – a subject which has already
been discussed in a separate sec<on.

Jai Shri Ram

Jai Shri Ram is a religious chant sacred to Hindus. It essen<ally means “Glory to Shri Ram”, a
revered deity in Hinduism. The Wikipedia page, however, makes disparaging remarks based
on mo<vated media reports.

The opening paras of the Wikipedia ar<cle itself disparage the religious chant claiming it to
be used as a warcry to perpetrate communal violence against Hindus.

124
hIps://www.opindia.com/2020/02/muslims-refugees-can-congnue-to-get-cigzenship-as-per-provisions-of-
cigzenship-act-caa-does-not-prevent-that-government-clarifies-in-lok-sabha/
 119

The sources referenced to make this outlandish claim are mostly opinion pieces from Scroll,
EPW, NYT and authors like Christophe Jaffrelot and Nandita Menon.

One of the cases that they men<on to “substan<ate” their asser<on that Jai Shree Ram is a
communal war cry is of a Muslim man being lynching by Muslims for chan<ng Jai Shree Ram.

The incident took place in the Kathgharhi village of Ramkola police sta<on in the Kushinagar
district of U]ar Pradesh, where the youth named Babar was lynched because he
campaigned for Bhara<ya Janata Party (BJP) and distributed sweets aNer the Yogi Adityanath
the government was formed. Babar was severely beaten up by his neighbours and rela<ves
on 20th March 2022. The youth was referred to the district hospital and then to Lucknow
where he died during treatment on Sunday 27th March 2022.

The Muslims in the area were angry with Babar even aNer his death. When the body of the
deceased reached the village, people were enraged. People refused to perform the last rites
of the body. The administra<ve staff also became ac<ve considering the seriousness of the
case. The local MLA PN Pathak also reached the spot. ANer the assurance of MLA PN Pathak
and administra<ve officials, the family agreed to perform the last rites. The area MLA himself
 120

shouldered the body of the deceased Babar. In fact, aNer the forma<on of the BJP
government in UP on March 10, Babar had distributed sweets in the en<re village.

The family members of the deceased Babar said that the people living in the neighbourhood
were angry because Babar was campaigning for the BJP. Many <mes Babur was warned that
he should not campaign for the BJP. Babar asked for security from the Ramkola police sta<on
to several officials, but his plea was not heard. As the Ramkola police sta<on did not respond
to him, the goons were emboldened and they beat Babar badly and then threw him down
from the roof. Seriously injured in the a]ack, he died during treatment at the hospital. ANer
this, Babar’s wife has lodged a case against the accused at Ramkola police sta<on.

SDM Varun Pandey, who rushed to the spot, said the case is being inves<gated, the accused
will be arrested and strict ac<on will be taken against those who are guilty. BJP MLA PN
Pathak said the accused will not be spared at any cost. The SDM also said that the vic<m had
complained about death threats, but no ac<on was taken at that <me. He added that an FIR
has been registered, and they are inves<ga<ng the ma]er.

If anything, this incident shows how individuals are being persecuted for chan<ng Jai Shree
Ram and asser<ng their poli<cal and religious agency. In this case, the vic<m was a Muslim,
lynched by Muslims who harboured specific animosity towards Hindus and their religious
and poli<cal expression. This incident, far from proving Jai Shree Ram as a warcry, proves
that Islamists are persecu<ng those who express devo<on to Lord Ram125.

While making the Wikipedia ar<cle on Jai Shri Ram poli<cal and insul<ng towards Hindus,
the ar<cle fails to men<on that there have been several instances where fake news was
spread about Muslims being forced to chant Jai Shri Ram.

Here is a list of 20 incidents where fake news was spread about Muslims being persecuted
for not chan<ng Jai Shree Ram126:

Alt News cofounder Mohammed Zubair communalised a peEy fight to defame ‘Jai Shri
Ram’

On Monday (June 14), Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair took to Twi]er to claim that
an elderly Muslim man, Abdul Samad Saifi, in Ghaziabad was assaulted and forced to chant
‘Jai Shri Ram’. While speaking about the ma]er, Abdul Samad Saifi had also claimed that he
was locked inside a room and brutally thrashed by miscreants who forced him to chant ‘Jai
Shri Ram’.

However, the truth is far from this Hinduphobic narra<ve weaved by Zubair and the ‘vic<m’.
The video of the assault does not contain any audio, which can verify the claim that Saifi was
coerced into chan<ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’ or ‘Ram Ram’. Moreover, the vic<m had alleged that a
gun was used by the accused to in<midate him although it wasn’t visible in the video
footage.

125
hIps://www.opindia.com/2022/03/muslim-youth-lynched-in-uIar-pradesh-for-celebragng-bjps-victory/
126
hIps://www.opindia.com/2021/06/list-incidents-jai-shri-ram-fake-hate-crimes/#google_vigneIe
 121

The U]ar Pradesh police had also clarified that the accused and the vic<m knew each other
prior to the incident and that it was a case of personal rivalry. The cops did not men<on any
reference to religious slogans in their statement.

Fake communal angle in Asif Khan murder case

Last month, Haryana Police had ruled out any communal angle in the murder of Muslim
youth Asif Khan from Mewat. As per reports, Asif, along with his two cousins was returning
from his sister’s house when he was allegedly a]acked by a group of men and was beaten to
death. However, soon aNer the report of his death poured in, some media houses claimed
that he was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ before being killed, thereby giving it a communal
angle.

Kerala-based portal Maktoob Media claimed that Asif was ‘forced to chant Jai Shri Ram’ and
referred to the religious slogan as ‘warcry of Hindu na<onalist militants’. Sharjeel Usmani,
the Newslaundry columnist, also used the unfortunate crime in Haryana to peddle hatred
against the Hindu community. However, Maktoob Media offered no evidence to prove this
fact. In fact, even the ini<al statement of one of the witnesses said how they were a]acked
by a group where most men were known to them.

Eventually it turned out to be a case of internal poli<cal rivalry and there was no communal
angle in it.

Outrage over ‘Jai Shri Ram’ wriEen on walls of a mosque in Bhainsa, Telangana

On May 26, communal tensions erupted in Bhainsa, Telangana. Some members of Muslim
community led riots against the Hindu community when they saw “Jai Shri Ram” inscribed
on the walls of a mosque. Later, it turned out that the culprits were Muslims. One of the
individuals were iden<fied as Mohammed Abdul Kaeef and the other was a minor. Both the
accused lived in the near vicinity of the Masjid. The police revealed that the minor boy wrote
‘Jai Shri Ram’ aNer being instructed to do the same by the older of the two.

Apart from the CCTV footage, the handwri<ng also matches with the suspect. The accused
have confessed to the crime, the police officer said.

Liberals peddle fake narra<ve that Tanishq showroom was a]acked by ‘Jai Shri Ram’
chan<ng Hindu mob

Last year, aNer the Tanishq showroom in Gandhidham, Kutch in Gujarat issued an apology to
Hindus for the controversial adver<sement glorifying ‘love jihad’, the ecosystem came
together to build a narra<ve that the showroom was ‘a]acked’ by a ‘mob’ and the owners
‘forced’ to put up apology.

Basically, NDTV created the narra<ve of the showroom being a]acked, which the leNist
ecosystem eagerly lapped up. Screenshots were shared and people made to believe ‘Hindus
intolerant of inter-faith marriage ads’.
 122

Alt news co-founder Mohammed Zubair also jumped onto the bandwagon to claim that a
mob chan'ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’ aEacked the Tanishq showroom.

OpIndia then wrote in details how this news was completely devoid of facts and obviously
peddled with a sole aim to slander Hindus. We men<oned how the Kutch Police had
confirmed that there was no a]ack on the showroom. Moreover, the Tanishq showroom
employees at Kutch’s Gandhidham were absolutely clueless about the ‘mob a]ack’.

The truth was that, contrary to the Hinduphobic cabal’s portrayal, a few people did sit
outside the showroom peacefully and chanted “Jai Shri Ram”, expressing their disapproval
against the Tanishq ad.

LeNist media peddles Muslim cab driver was ‘lynched to death’ and forced to chant ‘Jai Shri
Ram’, Noida police refutes claim

In September 2020, the leNist media worked over<me to a]ribute a communal angle to the
death of a Muslim cab driver named ANab Alam claiming that he was lynched to death by a
communal mob aNer forcing him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

LeNist propaganda website like TheWire and Amar Ujala claimed that ANab Alam was made
to chant Jai Shri Ram.

These fake narra<ve was soon busted by the Noida police who confirmed that they had
examined the audio recording and the vic<m, ANab Alam, was not asked to chant Jai Shri
Ram.

Muslim auto driver in Rajasthan thrashed by drunk miscreants for tobacco and money, leNist
media gives communal angle

On August 9, 2020, a 52-year-old Muslim auto driver named Gapphar Ahmad had reportedly
claimed that he was thrashed by miscreants in Sikar in Rajasthan. He alleged that the
assaulters forced him to chant slogans such as ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Modi Zindabad.’

Several media organiza<ons including Jansa]a, Aaj Tak and Navbharat Times gave the
incident a communal spin.

The truth was that some drunk miscreants had asked the auto driver for tobacco, who
refused. This led to an alterca<on between the auto driver and the miscreants, who chased
the auto driver and beat him up.

The fact behind a Nepali man tonsured and forced to shout ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Nepal PM
Murdabad’

The July 2020 incident of a Nepali man being tonsured and forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ had
created quite a storm across the na<on. ANer media outlets blamed ‘Hindu ouCits’ for the
incident, it came to light that the man responsible for performing the said act on the Nepali
 123

man was one Arun Pathak, who belonged to the Shiv Sena, currently a ‘secular’ party aNer
its recent alliance with the Congress and the NCP.

Later, the Varanasi Police also confirmed that the Nepali man in ques<on was an Indian
ci<zen.

Furthermore, it has now been confirmed that the whole incident was a pre-planned act. As
per reports, the so-called Nepali youth, iden<fied as Dharmendra Singh, was contacted by
Arun Pathak’s men 16th July and was told that his services are required for a couple of hours
at Ganga Ghat. He was told that there is some event where he would have tonsure his head
and chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. For his services, he would be given Rs. 1000.

The Godhra ‘hate crime’ lie peddled by mainstream and digital media outlets proved
untrue

On August 2, 2019, many mainstream media outlets had reported that 3 youth in Gujarat’s
Godhra was assaulted by a group of miscreants the previous night for not chan<ng ‘Jai Shri
Ram’.

As per reports, a complaint lodged with the Godhara A Division police by one Siddiq Abdul
Salam, a resident of Mohamadi mohalla in Godhara town, six unknown miscreants assaulted
his son Samir (17) and two of his friends, Salman and Sohail for not chan<ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

However, the Godhra police had stated that aNer a detailed examina<on of all available
CCTV footage and an inquiry, it has been revealed that Siddiq was lying. As reported by Desh
Gujarat, the police inves<ga<on confirmed that the clash had nothing to do with chan<ng of
any religious slogan.

Despite the truth coming out in the open, the leNist media shamelessly did not bother to
issue any clarifica<on and apology for peddling the misleading ‘hate crime’ narra<ve.

The July 2019 Chandauli fake ‘hate crime’

In July 2019, a 17-year-old Muslim boy from Chandauli, UP, named Khalid Ansari had
allegedly set himself on fire in a dargah. A resident of Township of Lohia Nagar town of
Thana Syedaraja he had claimed that he was set on fire for refusing to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ on
28 July. ANer the boy succumbed to his injuries, many media houses started peddling the
conspiracy theory that Khalid was a vic<m of hate crime.

However, the Police, aNer inves<ga<ng the case, examining the CCTV footage and talking to
eyewitnesses had concluded that Khalid himself had set himself on fire.

When media used maliciously edited video to allege that BJP minister forced Muslim MLA to
chant Jai Shri Ram

‘Na<onalist’ channel Times Now has joined the rank of leN-liberals in peddling the fake
narra<ve that Hindus are forcing Muslims to chant Jai Shri Ram. They used a heavily edited
 124

video in July 2019 to accuse a BJP minister in Jharkhand of spreading hate in the name of
Hindutva.

Repor<ng on an incident that happened outside Jharkhand assembly, Times Now alleges
that minister CP Singh crossed the line when he forced Congress MLA Irfan Ansari to chant
Jai Shri Ram. The same allega<on with the same video clip was published by other media
houses also, including the usual suspects who are expected to present such distorted news
to peddle their agenda. All of them claimed that the BJP minister forced Ansari to chant Jai
Shri Ram.

However, this claim turned out to be false. It was cleared that CP Singh asked Ansari to chant
Jai Shri Ram only because Ansari was claiming that Ram and the slogan belong to everyone,
not just BJP.

When Sheikh Aamer faked ‘forced to chant Jai Shri Ram’ story to get applauded in the
community

On July 23, 2019, another fake incident of ‘hate crimes’ made it to the front page of many
newspapers. In this case, the alleged vic<m Shiekh Aamer reportedly contrived a story that
the 4 youths he had an alterca<on with had forced him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogan and
filed his complaint on this basis at the police sta<on to seek grandstanding from members of
his community.

However, barely a day aNer filing a complaint that some persons had forcibly asked him to
chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’, the alleged vic<m Aamer went back on his statement. Aamer conceded
that he fabricated the story of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogan being enforced upon him to raise his
stature among his community members and teach those who dare to challenge people from
his community a lesson.

How a Muslim man in Aurangabad transformed an alterca'on due to personal enmity into
‘hate crime’ to malign Hindus

One Imran Ismail Patel, a hotel employee in Aurangabad had filed a complaint on July 19,
last year, against a group of 10 people alleging that a mob intercepted him while he was
returning to his house and forced him to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ following which he was
thrashed by them.

However, according to the police, the preliminary inves<ga<on revealed that the incident is
being unnecessarily communalised and the evidence suggests that the scuffle occurred
because of personal enmity.

The eye-witnesses who had come to Imran’s rescue had put paid to the claims made by
Imran that he was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. Instead, they had asserted that the incident
was a result of a personal feud.

Another ‘hate crime’ in Bhagpat which turned out to be fake

 125

On July 14, 2019, several media houses had reported that one Imam (Muslim cleric) called
Imlaq-Ur-Rehman was assaulted by men and was made to chant Jai Shri Ram. The report
also men<oned that his beard was pulled by the assailants and that the police has booked
12 people in connec<on with this case. OpIndia reached out to Baghpat SP who has
categorically rubbished the claims and asserted that Imam Imlaq-Ur-Rehman was not made
to chant Jai Shri Ram, his beard was not pulled and there was no religious undertone to this
assault. He asserted that this was a case of a pe]y brawl between some men and the Imam.

Unnao madrasa student injured in a fight over cricket, not for not chan'ng ‘Jai Shri Ram

Yet another news of Muslims forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and beaten for not doing so has
turned out to be fake. The Imam of the Jama Masjid in Unnao had warned of
‘unprecedented ac<on’ if the Hindu boys who were involved in the fight over cricket match
were not arrested.

He had even claimed that the madrasa boys were beaten up by the Hindu boys aNer they
were asked to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. But later police had found that there was no religious
angle to the incident.

According to the enquiry conducted by UP police, it was found that a fight had broken out
between two groups while playing cricket. In a press conference where ADG (LO) P V
Ramaswamy and IG (LO) Praveen Kumar were present, they denied that anybody was forced
to chant any religious slogan, and said that it was a fight between two groups on the
playground that had turned violent.

News of Muslim auto driver thrashed for not chan'ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’ turned out to be fake

On July 5 2019, reports emerged that a Muslim auto driver in Kanpur, Aa<b, was allegedly
thrashed for not chan<ng Jai Shri Ram. It was reported that he was allegedly locked up
inside a public toilet by three people for refusing to chant ‘Jai Shree Ram’.

The Telegraph had reported that Aa<b was asked by the customers who hired his auto to
chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ aNer they refused to pay the fare. Congress mouthpiece Navjivan, had
also reported how three youths mercilessly thrashed Aa<b for refusing to chant ‘Jai Shri
Ram’. In fact, there were reports that communal tensions have escalated in the area because
rumours were floated on WhatsApp that Aa<b had died aNer being thrashed for not
chan<ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

However, the allega<ons that Aa<b was forced to chant Jai Shri Ram are false. According to
Police, the men who boarded Aa<b’s auto were drunk and ma]ers escalated when they
refused to pay the fare and got into a heated argument.

SP South Raveena Tyagi had then confirmed to OpIndia that the news of Aa<b being forced
to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ was false.
 126

Madrasa teacher in Delhi not hit by a car for refusing to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’

The incidents of fake ‘hate crimes’ have become increasingly common. On June 21, 2019, a
controversy had erupted aNer a Muslim man had claimed that he was allegedly hit by a car
aNer he refused to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. A madrasa teacher named Mohammed Momin had
alleged that he was allegedly abused and then run over by the car as he refused to chant
Hindu religious slogans at Delhi’s Rohini Sector.

However, an eyewitness at the spot has now rubbished the claims of Mohammed Momin. As
per the police report, the eyewitness during the preliminary inves<ga<on did not
substan<ate the allega<ons.

In Cooch Behar a Muslim man forces another to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’, liberals huddle up to
hold Hindu accountable

On June 29, 2019, a video went viral, where a Muslim man was seen doing sit-ups, while
holding his ears, and was allegedly being forced to chant “Jai Shree Ram”. Another Muslim
man has been arrested in connec<on with the case. According to media reports, Apsi Miyan
was arrested for making another Muslim man, Agsar Ali, chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ forcefully in
Cooch Behar district of West Bengal. Despite facts being there out in the open, it was not
surprising that the ‘liberal-secular’ gang had begun demonising Hindus for the act.

However, before blaming Hindus, these an<-Hindus should have considered how Hindus
would get a Muslim to chant “Jai Shri Ram” in a place like West Bengal’s Cooch Behar, where
under Mamata Banerjee’s regime they themselves have to think twice before chan<ng the
slogan.

Karimnagar: No, ‘Majnu’ was not beaten up for refusing to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’

In the beginning of June, 2019, a former AIMIM leader took to Twi]er to claim that a Muslim
man was beaten up in Karimnagar, Telangana. He alleged that the Muslim man was beaten
up for not chan<ng ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

However, Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Telangana State, shared a video of the

Muslim man where he clarified that he was beaten up over a personal issue and there was
no communal side to it.

Barkat Alam ‘aEacked’, forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’

In a similar incident reported from Gurugram, Haryana on May 31, 2019, a Muslim man
named Barkat Alam had alleged that his skull cap was thrown away aNer a group of Hindus
had a]acked him. He had even claimed that he was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

Prime-<me debates happened around him since the incident took place right aNer Narendra
Modi was re-elected as Prime Minister with a thumping mandate. However, the CCTV
recording revealed how it was actually a scuffle between few men and the argument turned
into push and shoving in which his cap fell down. The CCTV footage showed how no one had
 127

deliberately removed his skullcap. And how even his ini<al complaint never men<oned that
he was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

Criminal incident given a communal spin, Rajasthan in June 2017

The incident happened in Nagpur district of Rajasthan where a group of men, some hiding
their faces, were recorded on camera abusing and assaul<ng a woman with plas<c pipes and
forcing her to chant religious slogans. It was not clear who recorded the incident, but the
video clearly showed that the men were forcing the woman to chant “Allah” and “Jai Shri
Ram”.

However, people from expected quarters conveniently ignored the ‘Allah’ part and focused
only on the ‘Jai Shri Ram’ part to give the en<re incident a communal spin even though the
incident was purely criminal and was horrifying enough even without the communal spin.

It is evident, therefore, that the Wikipedia page on Jai Shri Ram has been deliberately kept
one sided – an editorial decision.

In fact, if one looks at the ‘talk’ page, it is revealed that there was a sec<on someone had
added which spoke about the usage is in such fake cases, however, it was removed – the
move jus<fied due to flimsy reasons by ‘Kau<lya3’, the very editor booked in Manipur for
crea<ng strife.
 128

From the talk page, it becomes evident that the sec<on on such fake Jai Shri Ram crimes was
removed because apparently, there were no “reliable sources” to prove these cases. A user
proceeds then to provide “reliable” sources (which are essen<ally some LeN sources that
Wikipedia accepts).

Kau<lya3, who has been booked in Manipur for inci<ng violence and disaffec<on then
jus<fies the removal saying that there are not enough verifiable sources to prove “posi<ve”
posi<ons in this ar<cle – which is crimes driven by the Jai Shri Ram chant – and therefore –
nega<ve posi<on – fake news – cannot be added.
 129

One has to then ask why this page takes the slant that it does. In the end, the user who
provided sources to ensure the ar<cle could be made less bias gives up, saying that it is
evident to him that editors have an agenda.

In another conversa<on about the fake Jai Shree Ram cases, the concerns are dismissed
ci<ng flimsy reasons yet again.

In this sec<on, a clearly fake account (Postaltoad) lists down why the source men<oned for
the fake Jai Shri Ram crimes is not reliable. Further, the account claims that the instances
where either Muslims or sympathe<c media blatantly lied about involvement of Jai Shree
 130

Ram in the crime are “minor incidents” and therefore must not be added – making a case for
the removal of the sec<on completely.

ThereaNer, Kau<lya3, the very man booked in Manipur, says that even if the Logical Indian
was a “reliable source”, the sec<on on fake crimes a]ributed to Jai Shri Ram should not be
added because it just makes a “BIG DEAL” out of minor instances.

Newslinger – another prolific LeNist who has been involved in several such bias ar<cles –
says that the sec<on has been removed because of the unreliability of the source and
because it is given the subject undue weight in the ar<cle.

In another conversa<on, Kau<lya3 says that fake cases are of no interest to “US” because
Wikipedia is not a fact-checking website. Newslinger goes further, claiming that the co-
founder of Wikipedia is also, not a reliable source.

While Newslinger claims that the co-founder of Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the ar<cle
tarnishing Hindus men<ons Rana Ayyub’s opinion piece as a reliable source. Rana Ayyub is
currently under inves<ga<on for embezzlement of funds and the Supreme Court had also
observed that her “journalism” in the 2002 Gujarat case had no reliability and was
fabricated.
 131

Both the ‘editors’ then deny an edit request asking for a more ‘neutral’ term be used instead
of ‘warcry’. In the process, there is also conversa<on about banning “right wing people” who
disagree with their bias.

The editors then proceed to be extremely worried about a cri<cism of the page published,
claiming that the edits on the page ‘would increase’ because a cri<cism was published.
 132

There was another conversa<on, a contributor says that the sentence in the introductory
paragraph should be changed. His edit sugges<on was rather reasonable, keeping intact that
LeN bias of the introduc<on as well, however, it was rejected by Kau<lya3 saying that the
most prominent use of Jai Shree Ram is to perpetrate violence against Muslims.
 133

This Wikipedia ar<cle is protected and therefore, not everyone can edit it, as evidenced by
the talk page discussions as well.

The page on Jai Shri Ram was created by an account which no longer exists. In his log, it is
evident that he only made edits to some Bollywood pages and the only page of significance
created was Jai Shri Ram.

It is, therefore, en<rely possible that this account was merely a pseudonym which was used
to create the page and then deleted. Currently, the page is being manned by two main
accounts – Kau<lya3 and Newslinger.

Bias sources – how sources are blacklisted, making content bias

In the beginning of this paper, research papers showed how most non-LeN sources were
banned for usage in Wikipedia.

The list of deprecated sources and blacklisted sources indicate how the ar<cles on Wikipedia
are doomed to be biased because of the sources which are considered reliable and the ones
which are not. The decision to deprecate sources itself stems from the LeN bias that the
editors seem to suffer from.

For example, Wikipedia considers Al Jazeera an unques<onably reliable source, indica<ng it

in green.
 134

Al Jazeera is a Qatar state-funded news organisa<on which has spread radical agendas,
misinforma<on, fake news and propaganda on several occasions. Recently, it was even
revealed that Al Jazeera journalists with fly-by-night operators who were working as
“journalists” during the day but Hamas terrorists during the night. Any concerns of bias have
been stonewalled by those who are sympathe<c to the Islamic cause. In one of the talk
pages, when someone lists instances of fake news that was spread by Al Jazeera during the
Israel-Hamas war, the editors promptly tell the concerned person that misinforma<on was
spread because of the ‘fog of war’.

BBC, which is state-funded media, is in the green as well.

However, there are several others which are not even discussed. Indian state news channel
Doordarshan, for example, does not feature in the list.

As far as some other sources are concerned – OpIndia, Swarajya are banned and blacklisted,
however, TheWire, despite its several disinforma<on campaigns, Newslaundry, Scroll, Print
etc are marked reliable.

An analysis of how TheWire page is craNed and the issues leN out is impera<ve to
understand the inherent bias of Wikipedia editors, the sources that are used and therefore,
the bias of Wikipedia itself.

In one discussion, an individual men<ons how TheWire was called out for blatantly fake
news over the achievements of the Indian Navy. ANer the ar<cle was published, Commodore
Jaideep Maolankar (R) had lashed out at TheWire for blatantly mispresen<ng his views in
 135

their ar<cle to deliberately downplay the achievements of India and the Indian Navy.
OpIndia was the only portal to publish a report on the statements of the veteran127.

In TheWire talk page, the editors stone-walling the proposal to add the fake news spread by
TheWire.

The conversa<on here says that the statement on Twi]er by Commodore Jaideep Maolankar
(R) cannot be used as a reference because it would be considered a “self-source” and
OpIndia, which covered the statement of Maolankar cannot be used as a reference because
the source itself has been blacklisted.

It is per<nent to note that ‘self-source’ guideline of Wikipedia does not preclude the
addi<on of a Twi]er source clarifying that he has been misquoted in an ar<cle128. Further,
the sources being blacklisted on flimsy and ideological grounds by Wikipedia only serves to
exis<ng bias of the editors, ensuring that the informa<on itself is skewed and biased.

127
hIps://www.opindia.com/2022/09/the-wire-commodore-jaideep-maolankar-ins-vikrant-comments/
128
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-
published_and_quesgonable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
 136

In another discussion, for example, the editors first agreed and then stonewalled the
addi<on of a sec<on about how TheWire fake news led to violence in the Northeast and
other fake news that was spread by the publica<on.

The editor who was a]emp<ng to stonewall the conversa<on about TheWire’s fake news
being added in the Wikipedia ar<cle was rude and essen<ally claimed that individual
bringing it up was being obtuse.

In the end, another editor said that the individual should go ahead and add the por<on
about TheWire causing violence with its fake news.

However, when that informa<on was added to the Wikipedia ar<cle, Kau<lya3, who has
been booked in Manipur for inci<ng hate, reverted that edit129.

129
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?gtle=The_Wire_%28India%29&diff=1005285583&oldid=1005209689
 137

It is per<nent to note that Indian Express is not a blacklisted source on Wikipedia and
therefore, there is no real reason for Kau<lya3 to remove the reference. To date, this por<on
does not appear in TheWire Wikipedia page.

The fake news that was spread by TheWire about the Palghar lynching of two Sadhud was
also removed by Kau<lya3 ci<ng that there was no source for it.
 138

The problem here is, against, the ques<on of sources which have been blacklisted. Any
informa<on on fake news being spread and the consequences of it by the LeN media would
be mostly covered in the non-LeN media, which has in itself been blacklisted by LeN editors
of Wikipedia. The result of this well-craNed strategy is that the informa<on is heavily biased,
skewing towards the LeN.
 139

In another discussion, the official Twi]er handle of the police calling TheWire story fake was
called an unreliable source.

Kau<lya3 and Newslinger successfully stonewalled the edit which was meant to add the
police calling a TheWire story fake.

First, Kau<lya3 says that he is not aware what Newslinger reverted, however, is right because
Twi]er is not a reliable source.

Newslinger then chimes in saying that even if it’s the official police handle, a secondary
“reliable source” will have to cover that statement before it can be used as a reference. Any
source that would poten<ally cover the statement of the police has been blacklisted by
Wikipedia editors.

In another discussion, an individual asked for the discussion among editors about whether
TheWire was a reliable source to be cited in Wikipedia.

Indian Wikipedia editor flat-out refuses and claims that there is no need for the discussion at
all.
 140

In another sec<on, Kau<lya3 and other editors ensures that an FIR against TheWire was not
men<oned claiming that FIRs are “very normal” according to TheWire and therefore, it
should not be men<oned since they are very common130.

130
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wire_(India)/Archive_1#White_washing
 141

However, in Wikipedia ar<cle about the blacklisted sources, the FIRs against those
publica<ons are prominently men<oned.

While men<oning the quashing of the FIRs against the publica<on, it has s<ll not been
men<oned that the Supreme Court chas<sed the government while filed the FIRs.

It is, therefore, evident that there is a concerted effort by Wikipedia editors to ensure the
editorial slant of the ar<cles on the website, conforming to a specific ideological side while
depreca<ng sources that present a counter to the ideological stands taken by the LeN.

Wikipedia in India
Currently, Wikimedia Founda<on/Wikipedia have no official presence in India – which is to
say – that there exists no registered ‘chapter’ of Wikimedia Founda<on/Wikipedia in India
aNer it was derecognised by the Wikimedia Founda<on in 2019. While Wikipedia has no
official presence in India, it con<nues to work in India and even fund Wikipedia programs in
India – including funding editors and administrators.

This sec<on will deal with the history of Wikimedia Founda<on in India, how it funds
Wikipedia work in India, its response to the IT Guidelines and the blatant misrepresenta<ons
by Wikimedia Founda<on.

Wikimedia Founda/on in India – history of its official chapter

In 2004, a discussion was ini<ated between some Wikipedia editors and Wikimedia
Founda<on for the forma<on of a formal Wikipedia India Chapter. The discussion ranged
from the nature of legal en<ty to the funding that would be required. One Himanshu was
meant to lead to research on whether Wikipedia Chapter should be registered as an NGO in
India131.

131
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India/2004_IRC_meegng#Funding
 142

The discussion in 2004 was inconclusive, however, the discussion was restarted in the year
2007132. A Wikipedia administrator ‘NichalP’133 made a mailing list to discuss the crea<on of
Wikipedia Chapter. The discussion progressed substan<ally and a set of bylaws (draN) was
also created by Indian Wikipedians134.

In December 2008, Jimmy Wales and Sue Garner visited India135. Jimmy Wales is the head of
Wikimedia Founda<on and Sue Garner was the Execu<ve Director of Wikimedia Founda<on.
During their trip, they spoke about opening an Indian Chapter of Wikimedia and also
a]ended a talk hosted by Kiruba Shankar. Kiruba Shankar calls himself a ‘tech entrepreneur’
and is the founder of an NGO. He was the first in India to ini<ate ‘Wikipedia Academy’ where
individuals could organise themselves and learn how to edit Wikipedia136.

In July 2009, there was a Wikipedia Meet-up in Banglare at the residence of a Wikipedia
Administrator from Kerala – Tinu Cherian Abraham. The mee<ng was held on the 5th of July
2009 and star<ng of a Wikipedia India Chapter was discussed as per the logs.

In the notes of the mee<ng, Tinu Cherian remarked that the “Centre for Internet and Society
(CIS – India) had offered to host such mee<ngs and events in the future.

It is important to note that Wikimedia Founda<on officially funds and works with CIS-India
since 2012137.

132
hIps://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2007-November/thread.html
133
hIps://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nichalp
134
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India/bylaws/historic
135
hIps://gmesofindia.indiagmes.com/tech-news/wikipedia-wants-more-from-
india/argcleshow/3840119.cms
136
hIps://www.kiruba.com/press/wikipedia-academy-inaugurated/
137

hIps://foundagon.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolugon:FDC_recognigon_for_the_Centre_for_the_Internet_and_So
ciety
 143

In 2012, Wikimedia Founda<on gave a grant of $200,000 to CIS-India to further the mission
of Wikimedia Founda<on138.

To date, Wikimedia Founda<on con<nues to fund CIS-India. There is a 2023-2-24 grant from
Wikimedia Founda<on to CIS-India as listed by CIS139. Further, Wikimedia directly funds
other ini<a<ves which partner with CIS-India to further the work of Wikimedia Founda<on
(for details, check sec<on on Whose Knowledge and Equality Labs).

In June 2010, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees voted to cons<tute the Wikimedia India
Chapter140. By 2011, it was registered as a society via Registrar of Socie<es, Bangalore Urban
District Cer<ficate No: SOR/BLU/DR/1137/10-11 dt 03 Jan 2011. It was a not-for-profit
organisa<on.

The first execu<ve commi]ee board comprised of:

Rahul Deshmukh: President

Yohann Varun Thomas: Secretary
Sanket Oswal : Treasurer
Santosh Shingare: Member

138
hIps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Internet_and_Society_(India)#:~:text=2%20Swatantra%202014-
,Wikimedia%20Projects,in%20Indic%20languages%20and%20English.
139

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Centre_for_Internet_and_So
ciety%27s_annual_work_plan_for_2023-2024#Final_Message
140
hIps://foundagon.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolugon:Approval_of_Wikimedia_India
 144

Viswanathan Prabhakaran: Member

By September 2012, Wikimedia Chapter was working directly with the Government of
Karnataka. Outreach events were kicked off with a Wiki Academy for Department of Public
libraries, Government of Karnataka and in November 2011, Wikimedia India Chapter co-
hosted the first WikiConference India with the Mumbai Wikipedia Community.

In 2011, it was reported that Shiju Alex had been made part of the core team of Wikimedia
in India. He had been rewarded for improving the Malayalam Wikipedia considerably. This is
just another proof that Wikipedia is not par<cularly a band of disparate individuals edi<ng
Wikipedia pages at will, however, there is very oNen, a monetary and official benefit
involved141.

Interes<ngly, India was the first chapter that Wikimedia sanc<oned outside of India142.
Clearly, Wikimedia Founda<on had special plans for India.

In July 2019, aNer 8 years of direct funding from Wikimedia Founda<on for the India
Chapter, Wikimedia announced that the India chapter would be derecognised from
September 2019143144. However, the funding in India by Wikimedia Founda<on even aNer
the folding of the official Wikimedia Founda<on con<nued.

How Wikimedia Founda/on con/nues to fund projects without being present in India

As evidenced, to date, Wikimedia Founda<on funds CIS-India for Wikimedia projects.

Further, as shown in the previous sec<ons, there are several cases where Wikimedia
Founda<on funds US-based NGOs and projects which in turn fund projects in India and
collaborate with NGOs to carry out the work of Wikimedia.

It therefore appears that Wikimedia Founda<on con<nues to func<on in India without being
officially present in India and submihng to Indian laws.

Wikimedia paying editors, admins and ‘volunteers’ through grants

Wikimedia Founda<on calls editors, administrators and contributors to Wikipedia

“volunteers”. The en<re pitch of Wikipedia is that there are thousands of volunteers of edit
Wikipedia out of their commitment to free content and accurate informa<on being made
available freely to the world.

141

hIps://web.archive.org/web/20111217045121/hIps://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/ciges/kochi/shiju
-alex-wikipedia-india-core-team-638
142
hIps://www.bloomberg.com/news/argcles/2011-11-02/wikipedia-india-office-will-help-boost-fundraising-
founder-says
143
hIps://punemirror.com/pune/cover-story/its-a-curtain-call-for-wikimedia-india-
chapter/cid5089357.htm#google_vigneIe
144
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India
 145

However, first and foremost, as has been evidenced, it is demonstrably untrue that all
“volunteers” are free to edit Wikipedia and the informa<on is “accurate” because of the
“wisdom of the crowds”. Essen<ally, Wikimedia sells its product and asks for dona<ons on
the plank that because there are thousands of volunteers from different walks of life,
perspec<ves and ideologies, the Wikipedia ar<cle on any subject would be more accurate
due to the collec<ve wisdom of such contributors. The truth, however, is far from it. The
deliberate and pa]erned blacklis<ng of sources from one ideological spectrum owing to the
LeN bias of the senior editors and administrators, who have sweeping rights, leads to a
situa<on where the informa<on is solely based on LeN sources. Further, the administrators
and senior editors, who have sweeping rights, oNen ban contributors or shut down their
edits by ci<ng vague guidelines and reasons, bully with other senior editors and
administrators, ensuring that the bias is maintained.

Wikimedia, however, could just as easily say that even the depreca<on of sources and
consensus (bullying) of the administrators and editors falls under the “wisdom of the crowd”
and Wikimedia has no role to play in the process. However, that is far from the truth as well.

Wikimedia Founda<on spends millions every year in paying editors, administrators and
chosen contributors.

In their 2022-2023 annual report, Wikimedia Founda<on disclosed that it paid 33% of its
dona<ons to “volunteers”.

Once people are paid, they cease to be “volunteers” but Wikimedia s<cks to this word
because it obviously helps them craN the dis<nct impression of relying solely on wisdom of
the crowds and the goodness of people.

43% went in technology. 11% went in raising more funds and 13% was salaries.
 146

Essen<ally, in one year alone, Wikimedia spent almost $60 million paying its “volunteers”
and this is just Wikimedia dona<ons. This does not account for the amount which is
disbursed for advocacy and other purposes through Wikimedia Endowment.

While Wikimedia claims that it spends 43% in technology to keep Wikimedia up and
running, only a frac<on of their expenses accounts for web hos<ng. Awards and grants forms
their single greatest direct expense.

In the latest annual report, the Endowment Fund of Wikimedia is also shows as disbursing
grants.
 147

Interes<ngly, Wikimedia also disburses grants under “donor advised grants” – which
essen<ally means that they would not reveal exactly where that money was u<lised.

There are several grants that Wikimedia Founda<on gives to editors for edit-a-thons, other
programs and collabora<ons without having any presence in India.

Wikimedia Founda5on – CIS India

 148

As men<oned earlier, Wikimedia Founda<on collaborated with CIS-India in 2017. It

con<nues to fund CIS to date, even aNer folding its services in India.

In India, Wikipedia’s parent organisa<on Wikimedia had collaborated with Bengaluru-based

Centre for Internet and Society-Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) in 2017 to start ‘Project Tiger’
with the aim of genera<ng more content for Wikipedia in Indian regional languages.

A 2019 ar<cle in Inc42 says145, “While Wikipedia is run by an independent non-profit, it does
work closely with Google to idenBfy pages that need quicker updates or more translaBons
based on search volumes. Google has had a say in ‘Project Tiger’ as well. It collaborated with
Wikimedia FoundaBon and its partner organisaBon CIS-A2K to give a Chromebook to
volunteers so that the task of contribuBng content to Wikipedia becomes easier. Besides, the
Wikimedia FoundaBon offers contributors a sBpend for an internet connecBon.

However, Google’s interest is not about translaBng all pages for Indian regional language
internet users. At least not right now. The company has provided a list of arBcles which are
searched more frequently by Indian regional language users. Based on this list, Indian
Wikipedia contributors are tasked with translaBng popular arBcles in Indic languages.

“The list of arBcles that were provided were mostly trending arBcles on Google. However, we
did a consultaBon, and we found out that a few acBve editors didn’t parBcipate because they
found the list to be irrelevant and later a local list was provided,” said Gopala Krishna A, a
community advocate who has been associated with Project Tiger.

To address this gap, Google will provide a list of arBcles in different languages while Project
Tiger will also translate some arBcles selected by the community.

“For Kannada, contributors may want to contribute arBcles on, say, places to see in
Bengaluru. For Tamil people, it might be Tamil literature. So for the next phase, the
contribuBons will also be based on the subjects of interest of the contributor,” added
Gopala”.

A 2019 ar<cle146 in the WIRE said that Google was paying Wikimedia Founda<ons millions,
and a lot of it is going towards GLOW (Project Tiger, essen<ally). The ar<cle said, “Even
efforts like GLOW—which will now expand to Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria, as well as the
Middle East and North Africa—can help Google’s own bo=om line. When the iniBaBve first
launched in India, Google provided Chromebooks and internet access to editors, while the
Centre for Internet and Society and the Wikimedia India Chapter organized a three-month
arBcle wriBng compeBBon that resulted in nearly 4,500 new Wikipedia arBcles in 12 different
Indic languages. Smartphone penetraBon in India is only around 27 percent; as more people
in the country start using Android smartphones and Google Search, those arBcles will make
the tech giant’s products more useful. Wikipedia’s blog post announcing Google’s new
investment makes this strategy fairly clear, noBng that the company also provided Project

145
hIps://inc42.com/features/can-wikipedia-overcome-gender-gap-as-it-looks-to-translate-argcles-in-indian-
languages/
146
hIps://www.wired.com/story/google-wikipedia-machine-learning-glow-languages/
 149

Tiger with “insights into popular search topics on Google for which no or limited local
language content exists on Wikipedia.””.

Google had given $2 million to Wikimedia Founda<on and an addi<onal $1 million to

Wikimedia Endowment for this program which con<nues to this day147148.

‘Know With Wiki’ campaign and paid partnerships with ‘ArtWhoring’ and others

In 2022, Wikimedia Founda<on launched a “Know With Wiki” campaign where they reached
out to several influencers to talk about Wikipedia ar<cles on local subjects.

The Wikimedia Press release said149:

The Wikimedia FoundaBon, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, today launched a
campaign in collaboraBon with Indian youth influencers to highlight the power of free
knowledge and show people how projects like Wikipedia can help them access and share
knowledge globally. Over the next three weeks, the influencers will release short 60-second
videos on Instagram highlighBng Wikipedia arBcles related to topics about the everyday lives
of Indian youth and their online pursuit for knowledge. The public can follow the campaign
online using #KnowWithWiki.

The “Know Your World Be=er with Wikipedia” campaign will encourage Indian youth to
follow their curiosity and do their own research on a wide variety of topics by seeking out
open, fact-based, and reliable informaBon, currently available on Wikipedia, the world’s
largest online encyclopaedia. From music and sports, to body posiBvity, sustainability and
even insects, the featured content will raise awareness about the ways in which Wikipedia
can be used as a place to explore and share knowledge.

“Indians are among the world’s highest consumers of online media and informaBon. Rooted
in a nonprofit model, Wikipedia offers them a means to more deeply connect with the issues
they care about — from the fun to the serious — by delivering reliable, well-sourced
knowledge; it also invites them to share what they know,” said Anusha Alikhan, Wikimedia
FoundaBon Vice President of CommunicaBons. “Our hope is that by improving the
understanding of Wikipedia as a pathway for free knowledge, we can build stronger
connecBons with the Indian public.”

The content collaborators include popular ex- Radio Jockey Abhinav; comic influencers
Sanyam Sharma, Aabir Vyas and Vagmita (thaBndianchick); north-eastern model and actress
Merenla Imsong; illustrator-writer Priyanka Paul; disability rights acBvist Virali Modi; Forbes
30 under 30 member and influencer Tirthak Saha; and sustainability influencer Nayana
Premnath.

147
It is, therefore, clear, that Wikimedia Founda<on con<nues to pay editors in cash or kind
in India through CIS-India – even though they have no offices in India.
148
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2022/05/17/wikimedia-foundagon-kicks-off-fundraising-campaigns/
149
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2022/05/06/wikimedia-foundagon-launches-knowwithwiki-
campaign/
 150

Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, and the fiSh most visited in India.
More than 300,000 volunteer contributors add, edit, and update arBcles on Wikipedia and
Wikimedia projects every month. Indian volunteers represent almost a fiSh of that number,
with over 65,000 contributors. They debate, fact-check, and work together to help ensure
arBcles are neutral and based on reliable secondary sources of informaBon, including news
and academic arBcles, research, and other publicaBons. Wikipedia exists in major Indian
languages such as English, Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, and Punjabi. This campaign will ensure that
more people in India understand how Wikipedia is built and the acBve role it can play in
shaping informed discussion and debates in their daily lives.

Khanyi Mpumlwana, Wikimedia FoundaBon CreaBve Director said, “The inspiring thing
about this audience is that they are already informing each other about the world around
them; their aspiraBons, health, interests and passions are being exchanged in so many ways
on social media. Our aim with this experiment is to show GenZ audiences in India that
Wikipedia already has a role to play in the things they are talking about, and how using this
pla}orm can help them further their pursuits to know more.”

One of two pillars of the Wikimedia FoundaBon’s strategic direcBon is to achieve knowledge
equity, breaking down the social, poliBcal, and technical barriers prevenBng people from
accessing and contribuBng to free knowledge. With this in mind, the campaign is a way to
show Indian youth that everyone has a role in contribuBng to our shared understanding of
the world.

To learn more about Wikimedia FoundaBon’s efforts to increase knowledge equity in its
projects, explore our Open the Knowledge iniBaBve. Follow the campaign online using the
hashtag #KnowWithWiki.

The press release men<oned that they had collaborated with several individuals, including
illustrator-writer Priyanka Paul. When one checks her Instagram profile with the hashtag,
there is indeed a link that is prominently marked as a “Paid Partnership” with Wikipedia.
151
 152

Priyanka Paul has been a controversial “influencer”. In June 2024, Priyanka Paul deliberately
hurt the religious sen<ments of the Hindu community by pain<ng and peddling Hinduphobic
posters. Notably, Priyanka Paul, an “Ambedkarite Feminist” goes by the user name
artwhoring on Instagram. She has been garnering a]en<on with her posters that desecrate
Hindu Gods and Goddesses.

In 2024, controversy erupted over her pain<ng, which insulted Lord Ram. In the picture, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar is seen assaul<ng the Hindu God with the religious slogan ‘Jai Shri Ram’
wri]en halfway, while Dr. Ambedkar assaults the deity while chan<ng ‘Jai Bhim!’ Using the
same template, Paul has also insulted MK Gandhi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Here are the posters which sparked outrage150:

150
hIps://www.opindia.com/2024/06/priyanka-paul-artwhoring-on-instagram-faces-massive-backlash-over-
hinduphobic-posters/
153
154
 155

Wikipedia Kannada and Tulu – Funded by Wikimedia and CIS-India

In 2020, Times of India published an ar<cle151 which detailed how Wikipedia was
developing, bit by bit, ar<cles in Kannada and Tulu. In the Times of India ar<cle, UB Pavanaja
is quoted as saying that the first ar<cle in Kannada was one on Shivamogga. Since then, the
Kannada and Tulu Wikipedia sec<ons have grown immensely. He men<ons that a lot of it is
also funded by the Wikimedia Founda<on and the CIS-India (which is working in
collabora<on and is funded partly by Wikimedia Founda<on).

Millions in ‘Grantmaking in South Asia’ – Dominated by India

Regional commi,ee – almost all members from India

Wikimedia Founda<on gives out several grants, as evidenced earlier in this paper. They don’t
have a specific sec<on for grants to Indian en<<es, however, they do have a South Asia
sec<on on their grant page. The South India sec<on details who are on the ‘regional
commi]ee’ to evaluate grant proposals.

151
hIps://gmesofindia.indiagmes.com/city/bengaluru/building-wikipedia-in-kannada-and-
tulu/argcleshow/77959721.cms
 156

The current round of ‘grant making’ from the general support fund is ongoing. On the
Wikimedia Founda<on page, there is a <meline of the process that organisa<ons would have
to follow for it.

The “regional commi]ee” which decides who get the grants is comprised of almost all
Indians – save for two.

“The primary role of the Regional Fund Commi]ees (RFC, also Regional Funds Commi]ees,
Regional Grants Commi]ees) is strategic thought partnership to help understand the
complexi<es of Wikimedia Founda<on Funding regions and to make funding decisions for
grant applica<ons in the regions, providing knowledge and exper<se to applicants to support
successful movement ac<vi<es. An important aspect of the Wikimedia Founda<on’s funding
programs is the role that volunteer commi]ees have in providing both guidance and support
to applicants as well as making decisions about how movement funds should be distributed.
Based on the movement strategy recommenda<ons, we maintain commi]ees that enable
communi<es in each region and thema<c experts to have a central role in sehng priori<es
and alloca<ng funds for specific types of ini<a<ves. Each of these processes benefits greatly
from exis<ng exper<se, new ideas, and awareness of required skills and circumstances for
local communi<es”, Wikimedia Founda<on says.

The regional fund commi]ee in this segment for South Asia comprises of 7 members. 5 out
of the 7 members are from India. Medhavi Gandhi is the “lead co-organiser” at
Art+Feminism – which is funded directly by Wikimedia Founda<on (dealt with in a previous
sec<on).

Another, Ravidreams who was appointed only in August 2024 is Ravishankar Ayyakkannu
according to his Wikipedia page. He was involved in Project Tiger (which is in collabora<on
with CIS-India) and has worked with the Wikimedia Founda<on in the past. He has worked
as Program Director of Wikimedia India Chapter (2014-16) and Head of Strategic
Partnerships (Asia and Eastern Europe) at the Wikimedia Founda<on (2016-18). He had
stood for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elec<on.
 157

In his submission for the 2021 elec<on to the board of trustees152, there is an interes<ng
segment which speaks about India.

His en<re pitch in this segment is that he has been “vocal against many of the ruling
government’s policies like the NEP”.

In his statement for the 2021 elec<on153 for board of trustees154, he writes, “As the Head of
Strategic Partnerships (Asia and Eastern Europe) at the Wikimedia Founda<on during 2016-
18, I designed a Google-sponsored Wikipedia community engagement program called
Project Tiger, which increased the Indian language content in 10 different languages by more
than 16,000 ar<cles within a short span of 3 months. Google scaled this successful pilot into
a global program called Project GLOW across 18 languages in 5 regions”.

152

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundagon_elecgons/2021/Candidates/Ravishankar_Ayyakkann
u
153
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundagon_elecgons/2021/Results
154

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundagon_elecgons/2021/Candidates/Ravishankar_Ayyakkann
u
 158

He used to be the Regional Manager for Strategic Partnerships in Asia and Eastern Europe of
the Wikimedia Founda<on. In 2017, he had worked with Afghanistan en<<es to connect
them to the Wikimedia Founda<on as well in his official capacity155.

The ‘General Support Fund’, of which the commi]ee comprises mostly of Indians, funds
upwards of $10,000. There is no upper limit to the funding156.

How Wikimedia funds editors through grant making

In the Wikimedia Founda<on’s 2022 report, it shows how heavily Wikimedia Founda<on
invests in Editors.

155
hIps://tolonews.com/science-technology/roshan-partners-wikimedia-foundagon-empower-afghans
156
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs
 159

From

From South Asia, the main contributor was India. The defini<on of an editor as men<oned in
this segment is “People who edit Wikipedia projects, crea<ng or improving content as a
result of grantee ac<vi<es”.

Essen<ally, this would mean that Wikipedia is disbursing millions to individuals to edit
content on Wikipedia and create content as well.

In the South Asia sec<on, it says that the main contributor is India with 75% of the
par<cipants. Interes<ngly, in the 2022 annual report, it says that the editors being paid by
Wikimedia Founda<on came from CIS-India157 and West Bengal Wikimedia User Group.

157

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Community_Fund/Annual_plan_of_the_Centre
_for_Internet_and_Society_Access_to_Knowledge
 160

The number of paid editors target by grantees is staggering, with India coming in 4th in
2022158.

The total funding in 2022-2023 as general grants was upwards of $16 million. Wikimedia
Founda<on report says this:

Grants administered by Community Resources in the 2022-2023 fiscal year fall under the
following programs:

Community Funds for Wikimedia communiBes: General Support Fund for flexible operaBonal
support (usually between $10,000 and $300,000 USD);

Rapid Fund for organizing projects (between $500 and $5,000 USD);
and Conference Fund for local or regional convenings

158

hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Reports/Grantee_partners’_intended_programming_
and_impact_2022/Contributors
 161

Alliances Fund for mission-aligned organizaBons

Research Fund for Wikimedia-related research

Movement Strategy ImplementaBon Grants to move the Movement Strategy
recommendaBons forward

In 2022-2023, 78% of funds went to 96 General Support grants, while a majority of grants
funded were smaller Rapid grants (57%), comprising 216 grants and 4% of funds overall.

Of the 96 General Support grants, 22 (23%) were mulB-year grants (14 in their second year
of funding, 8 in their first). Another 26 (27%) were receiving General Support funds for the
first Bme, up from 21% of General Support grantees in 2021-2022.

With South Asia proven to be mostly comprising of projects and editors from India, it can
safely be concluded that a majority of the $726,283 went to Indian collabora<ons and
editors.

In fact, this amount is just the <p of the iceberg. Wikimedia Founda<on says that this figure
does not include other grants that were given by the founda<on.

It says, “Some grants made by the Wikimedia FoundaBon are not managed by the
Community Resources team and are not included in the analyses above. In 2022-2023, those
257 grants were made via the following program159s:

159
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Reports/Funding_Report_2022-2023
 162

Knowledge Equity Fund

Wikimania Scholarships
ThemaBc Community Programs Partnerships
Organizer Lab
Eduwiki for Reading Wikipedia in the Classroom”

The Knowledge Equity Fund was floated in collabora<on with Tides Founda<on (men<oned
in the revelant sec<on). Wikimania160 is heavily supported by Google as well (read relevant
sec<on). In the 2024 Wikimania Conference in Poland, for example, Indian Wikipedia
contributors were also honoured161.

It is, therefore, safe to conclude that Wikimedia Founda<on is funnelling millions into India
through their collabora<ons not just to pay editors but also for various other advocacy and
educa<on related work.

Wikimedia Founda<on Financials – How much money comes into “South Asia”?

We have established in the previous sec<on that when Wikimedia Founda<on talks about
funding ac<vity in “South Asia”, a majority of that fund flows into India. The previous sec<on
is only indica<ve of the ac<vi<es that Wikimedia Founda<on funds in India – including
paying editors.

A look at the Wikimedia Founda<on financials reveals the millions of dollars being spent in
“South Asia” every year. With the analysis in the previous sec<on, it is safe to assume that
majority of it is being spent in India.

In 2022, according to the Wikimedia Founda<on form 990 with the IRS, it disbursed in South
Asia:

1. Program services: $965,677

2. Further Mission: 724,158
3. Further Mission: 95,174
4. Scholarship to a]end Wikimania Conference: 213,010

The total comes to $19,98,019.

Further, in the same year, it disbursed:

1. Art+Feminism: $381,685
2. Whose Knowledge: $196,434

Both these organisa<on work closely in India as explained in relevant sec<ons.

160
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/pargcipate/events/wikimania/
161
hIps://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/wikimania-2024-honours-indian-wikipedia-volunteer-
siddharth-vp-names-him-tech-contributor-of-the-year/argcle68500410.ece
 163

Therefore, that is $25,76,138 – which is upward of Rs 21 lakhs, a large part of which is being
funnelled to or used in India/India related ac<vity.

In 2021:

1. Program services: $ 999,916

2. Program services: $ 26,556
3. Further Mission: $ 46,876
4. Scholarship to a]end Wikimania Conference: $ 1,801

In this year too, money was disbursed to Tides Advocacy, Whose Knowledge, Art+Feminism
and other Wiki projects like Wiki Educa<on which could be used in India.

What is also evident is that there was an exponen<al increase in the spending in “South
Asia” from 2021-2022 to 2022-2023.

Example of how Wikimedia is paying to keep Wikipedia biased – Funding ‘Newslinger’

As discussed in a previous sec<on, the list of ‘reliable sources/perennial sources’ is

essen<ally a list of sources that can or cannot be cited as reference material while wri<ng
and/or edi<ng ar<cles on Wikipedia. As demonstrated earlier, the editorially mo<vated list
of deprecated sources actually facilitates keeping the content biased and inaccurate on the
website.

As it turns out, Wikimedia Founda<on paid a handsome amount to ‘Newslinger’ – an

administrator who has ac<vely stonewalled editors and contributors to ensure the LeN bias
of Wikipedia on many India-centric ar<cles and has ac<vely campaigned to deprecate non-
LeN sources – to ins<tu<onalise the list of ‘reliable sources’.

ANer the WikiConference North America 2019 – a WikiCredCon – a WikiCred program was
started by the Wikimedia Founda<on that gives ‘grants’ to its editors and administrators to
“keep” Wikipedia reliable.

The grants that are handed out under the WikiCred program range anywhere between $250
to $10,000.

WikiCred if funded by Wikimedia Founda<on, Facebook, MicrosoN and Craig Newmark.

 164

The latest WikiCred (2022-2023) was funded by Wikimedia Founda<on and Craig Newmark
Philanthropies according to their website162.

In 2020, some proposals which successfully answered the ques<on, “What role can the
Wikimedia community play in strengthening credibility and reliability in the informa<on
ecosystem?” were given grants by the Wikimedia Founda<on. The criterion was simple – it
should benefit Wikipedia.

One of the proposals that was accepted in 2020 and became a grant recipient was
‘Newslinger’163.

The proposal summary of Newslinger is as follows164:

Sourceror leverages Wikipedia’s credibility data to improve media literacy and combat
disinforma9on on the web. The plaWorm provides a browser extension that informs
Internet users of the quality of the content they consume, and an API that enables

162
hIps://www.wikicred.org/#-2
163
hIps://misinfocon.com/introducing-the-first-round-of-wikicred-grantees-4c23448902d2
164

hIps://wikiconference.org/wiki/2019/Grants/Sourceror:_The_Wikipedia_community%27s_pla|orm_against_
disinformagon
 165

developers to incorporate the Wikipedia community’s reliability evalua9ons into new

technologies.

The <tle of the proposal by Newslinger was “Sourceror: The Wikipedia community's plaCorm
against disinforma<on”.

By his own admission, which was then ra<fied by the Wikimedia Founda<on by giving him a
grant, he has dedicated his energy to maintaining the list of sources on Wikipedia.

Newslinger says in his proposal, “Over the past 20 months, I have dedicated substanBal
effort to maintaining the perennial sources list, an index of commonly discussed sources on
the English Wikipedia classified by reliability and accompanied with summaries of related
noBceboard discussions. Thousands of editors refer to the list every month to determine
whether a source is credible enough to support claims in Wikipedia arBcles. The list (iniBally
created by MrX) contains contribuBons from 123 editors and incorporates source evaluaBons
from over a thousand editors submi=ed in the past 13 years. It was viewed more than 36,000
Bmes in the last 30 days”.

He says, Sourceror is a technology plaCorm that uses the data in the perennial sources list to
help editors combat misinforma<on and disinforma<on in Wikipedia ar<cles. Sourceror also
aims to increase media literacy among Internet users in general.

Essen<ally, Newslinger was granted thousands of dollars to ensure that the list of perennial
sources is turned into a template not just across Wikipedia but throughout the internet.

The proposal aims to convert the perennial sources list into a machine readable format
towards the following aims:

1. At a recurring interval, the Sourceror Bot scrapes the perennial sources list, parses all
of the informa<on within, and records the changes into a database.
2. The Bot may eventually be extended to track addi<onal data about the sources (e.g.
number of Wikipedia pages that link to the cita<on).
3. The Sourceror API accepts data queries from client applica<ons and provides
responses in the machine-readable JSON format.

The second project, dependent on the first, was an app that would make informa<on about
the perennial sources readily searchable and readable.

The proposal says:

Project 2 uses the Sourceror API to form a responsive single-page applica<on that displays
the data from the perennial sources list in a format that is more accessible for mobile (and
also desktop/laptop) devices. This project implements the following objec<ves:

1. The Sourceror Web App displays all of the informa<on in the perennial sources list in
an accessible interface that eliminates horizontal scrolling for devices with smaller
screens.
 166

2. Users can search for the source they are looking for without having to scroll through
the list. Users can also filter the list by specific a]ributes (e.g. reliability
classifica<on).
3. The App loads and displays related informa<on (e.g. country, language, and Alexa
rank) about the sources from Wikidata alongside the corresponding entries when the
user is online.
4. The App includes an entry editor that allows users to create new entries and revise
exis<ng entries in the perennial sources list without needing to understand template
syntax or work with a large wikitext document.
5. The App is a progressive web applica<on that works offline. ANer the user opens the
App in their mobile web browser, they have the op<on to install the App to their
mobile device's home screen. Once downloaded, the App displays cached
informa<on when the user is offline and retrieves updates when the user is online.
6. The home screen feature works for both Android and iOS. Desktop/laptop computers
can also make use of the offline func<onality.
7. The App is available for Android devices in the Google Play Store (which allows
lis<ngs for progressive web apps).

This proposal clearly a]empts to templa<se the editorial opinions of paid editors and
administrators (and others who follow their lead) beyond Wikipedia. The list of sources –
reliable, deprecated and blacklisted would be available to users on a downloadable app
where they would be able to search for the opinions of these editors on the source and then
decide what views they should believe and which they should not.

The third project for which Newslinger was paid by Wikimedia makes it even more
dangerous.

The proposal says:

On the English Wikipedia, there are currently over 180,000 ar<cles that are tagged as lacking
cita<ons, and over 387,000 claims that are tagged as "cita<on needed". These issues are
only resolved when editors add reliable sources or remove claims that are unsupported by
reliable sources.

Project 3 introduces features to make it easier to iden<fy and properly handle sources
indexed in the perennial sources list. This project implements the following objec<ves:

1. The Sourceror Browser Extension displays an icon on the browser toolbar that
corresponds to the reliability classifica<on of the current page, if the website is
indexed in the perennial sources list.
2. Users can click on the Extension's icon to display the informa<on from the current
website's entry in the perennial sources list.
3. For all links on the current page to a website indexed in the list, the Extension visually
indicates (e.g. with an icon or colour highlight) the reliability classifica<on of the
website. This feature is op<onal, and can be disabled by the user.
4. The Extension contains a cita<on generator that produces a properly forma]ed Cite
web template for the current website, if it is on the perennial sources list.
 167

5. This feature may eventually be expanded to cover websites that are not on the list,
pending data contribu<ons from the community.
6. The Extension is a WebExtension that works on Mozilla Firefox (including Firefox for
Android), MicrosoN Edge, Google Chrome, and Chromium-based browsers.
7. The Sourceror User Script allows users to rapidly remove cita<ons of unreliable
sources in a couple of clicks. For each selected cita<on, users can choose to replace
the cita<on with a more reliable source, replace the cita<on with a "cita<on needed"
tag, or delete the informa<on supported by the cita<on.
8. The Sourceror Browser Extension and Sourceror User Script are designed to
complement exis<ng ini<a<ves, including Cite Unseen, unreliable.js, and Cita<on
Hunt.

Addi<onally, the Extension is intended to bring the Wikipedia community's source

evalua<ons to a broader audience. The success of source-ra<ng projects including
NewsGuard, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias/Fact Check indicates that there is popular
demand for resources that evaluate website credibility. Wikipedia is in an excellent posi<on
to provide this resource to the public, as editors already use it internally.

This would mean that when any page on the internet is opened, an icon would flash the
opinions of administrators and editors like Newslinger as to whether that website is
considered reliable of not according to the sources list of Wikipedia.

The paid administrator of Wikipedia is here is trying to authen<cal and templa<se his own
opinions on sources, along with those of others like him, across the internet with the
financial and editorial sanc<on of Wikimedia Founda<on.

Given that Wikimedia Founda<on ve]ed the project, the work done by Newslinger and
other editors on the perennial sources list and sanc<oned a grant for this project, implies the
explicit agreement of the Wikimedia Founda<on with the editorial decisions taken by
Newslinger and therefore, Wikimedia cannot claim that it has no control over the content on
Wikipedia.

Does Wikimedia Founda'on submit to Indian laws?

The short answer – No. Wikimedia Founda<on does not submit to Indian laws in any aspect
– whether it pertains to court summons, financial disclosures, FCRA rules etc.

In 2023, Delhi Court had issued summons to Wikipedia, BBC and Internet Archive over the
banned Modi documentary by BBC. Wikipedia and BBC went to court, arguing that they are
appearing in protest because the Delhi Court has no jurisdic<on over Wikipedia – given that
it is a foreign en<ty. Internet Archive had, however, removed the archived version of the
documentary on the court’s order165.

165
hIps://organiser.org/2023/05/12/173647/bharat/pm-modi-documentary-bbc-and-wikipedia-argue-that-
delhi-court-lacks-jurisdicgon-internet-archive-removes-documentary/
 168

Wikimedia Founda/on’s reply to IT Guidelines – How they lied

In 2018, the government of India had released Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules,
2018, invi<ng comments from all stakeholders.

In January 2019, Wikimedia Founda<on along with Mozilla and GitHub responded to the IT
Guidelines expressing grave concern166.

The statement read, “We write to you with deep concern about your Ministry's latest
proposals on intermediary liability. We support the considera<on of measures to make the
internet a safer experience for everyone, including by holding internet plaCorms to higher
standards of responsibility. However, the current proposal takes an unprecedented step
towards the transforma<on of the internet from an open plaCorm for crea<on,
collabora<on, access to knowledge, and innova<on to a tool of automated censorship and
surveillance of its users”.

The statement at the <me had 4 issues with the Intermediary Guidelines.

Failure to remove illegal content

Wikimedia Founda<on was extremely concerned about the provision that would hold
intermediaries responsible if they failed to remove illegal content from their plaCorm.

They said in their statement, “First, under the new rules, all online intermediaries are
required to “proacBvely” purge their pla}orms of "unlawful" content or else potenBally face
liability for the acBons and posBngs of their users. This would upend the careful balance set
out in the exisBng law which places liability on the bad actors who engage in illegal
acBviBes, and only holds companies accountable when they know of such acts. These liability
protecBons have been fundamental to the growth of the internet as an open and secure
medium of communicaBon, commerce, and innovaBon. They have allowed anyone to host
pla}orms for speech, innovaBon, and discourse without fear that they would be crushed by a
failure to police every acBon of their users. Imposing the obligaBons proposed in these new
rules would place a tremendous and in many cases fatal burden on many online
intermediaries, especially new organizaBons and companies. A new community’s or a
startup’s first move should not be to build expensive filtering infrastructure and hire an army
of lawyers. Meanwhile, those large pla}orms that are able to comply, will be incenBvised to
over-censor and take down lawful content in order to avoid the threat of liability and
liBgaBon. There is no system of proacBve management that can remove unlawful content
without making mistakes. This kind of filtering hampers the diversity of online discourse and
chills free expression, eventually hurBng the users who rely on these pla}orms most of all”.

The is the classic trope that is used by Wikimedia Founda<on – they wish to impose upon
governments across the world that they are a free and fair plaCorm which is merely ac<ng
as an intermediary with no idea and/or control over the content that is being published on

166
hIps://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/files/2019/01/LeIer-to-Indian-MEITY-on-proposed-intermediary-liability-
rules.pdf
 169

Wikipedia. It claimed that this provision would hamper free speech and that hurt those who
rely on Wikipedia, because it would end up with the company over-censoring content,
including legal content.

This is patently false. As demonstrated, Wikimedia Founda<on has carefully cul<vated a

specific editorial stand with its grants and patronage. For example, the page on ‘Democra<c
Backsliding in India’ as discussed earlier was the result of an explicitly funded project by the
Wikimedia Founda<on.

The ar'cle which branded India as a country of concern where democracy is dying is
basically an ar'cle which was created with the explicit funding of Wikimedia Founda'on
which runs Wikipedia under the Wikipedia Educa'on program.

Therefore, it is disingenuous of Wikimedia to claim that they are unaware of the kind of
content which is ac<vely promoted on their plaCorm. Further, Wikimedia Founda<on
specifically pays several editors and organisa<ons. While there are intermediaries who could
argue that they cannot be held liable for the content which is freely being published by
others, Wikipedia cannot make that claim since it not only promotes censorship of one kind
of sources – which is explicitly taking an editorial line – but also pays several of the editors,
administrators and contributors who write on Wikipedia. There are arguments to be made
that any plaCorm that toes an editorial line in the selec<ve censorship of content should be
considered liable for any illegal content on their website – thereby making them a publishers
and not intermediaries. Wikimedia is a fit case for being considered a publisher and not an
intermediary under the criterion that they are not only toeing a pre-decided editorial line
but also paying their editors, writers, admins and contributors to create content on
Wikipedia.

Cost of surveillance requirement

Wikimedia Founda<on had said, “Second, this proposal would significantly expand
surveillance requirements on internet services. This is both through the requirement to
monitor the pos<ngs of all users as well as the specific direc<on to handover informa<on
about “senders and receivers” of content to the government. We believe that strong
protec<ons of user privacy are necessary to foster a healthy discourse and access to
knowledge on the internet. At a <me where your own Ministry is seeking to enshrine the
principle of “data minimiza<on” in law, this proposal threatens to take several steps back on
user privacy”.

It is per<nent to remember here that Wikimedia Founda<on spends almost 35% of its
millions in revenue paying editors, writers and administrators through grants. Further, it
funds millions for advocacy as well. To claim that the cost of surveillance would be an added
cost is outlandish. Secondly, no intermediary, least of all one that has clearly toes an editorial
line, can shrug off responsibility when commihng illegality in the name of privacy.

Wikipedia not an intermediary

 170

The statement read, “Third, the term "intermediaries" is defined in an extraordinarily broad
way that is likely to cause unintended harm. These rules apply indiscriminately to all
intermediaries, sweeping up online repositories of knowledge, browsers, opera<ng systems,
and countless other kinds of internet companies and organiza<ons into its scope.
Importantly, we do not believe this broad range of services are the intended targets of this
regula<on. While the Government may intend for enforcement to be selec<ve, the legal risk
applies to virtually all internet services”.

Wikimedia had a problem with the wide net being cast by the Intermediary rules to include
several websites including “repositories of knowledge” – what Wikipedia essen<ally refers to
itself.

Cant’ open office in India

The Wikipedia statement said, “Fourth, the proposed rules put a blunt requirement on any
service with more than 5 million users in India to incorporate in the country. This is a major
opera<onal obliga<on being imposed on a substan<al number of global businesses and
websites, without jus<fica<on for this standard, and without a <me period for compliance.
This raises fears of interna<onal companies, services, and nonprofits being forced to close
themselves off to Indian users, while also deterring poten<al market expansion of new
players into India. Less diversity of services means less choices for users, harming the
vibrancy of the Indian digital ecosystem”.

While the Wikimedia Founda<on statement in this case makes it sound like they are
concerned about how major tech companies would be forced to close down in India and
that it would end up limi<ng their choices, the truth is that Wikimedia Founda<on does not
want to open an office in India because it would then need to comply with Indian laws. The
Wikimedia current files no returns in India, does not adhere to FCRA rules, is not
incorporated in India and yet, con<nues to pay en<<es in India and editors, who in turn take
editorial stands about Indian affairs. Currently, they also simply men<on payments in India in
their IRS records as “South Asia” because IRS requires the disclosure only of specific
companies/NGOs paid in the USA. If Wikimedia Founda<on opens its offices in India, it
would have to account for the payments they are making to Indian en<<es, Indian editors
and admins and also, submit to Indian laws regarding the rampant illegal content on
Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Founda<on further said, “As an open source browser, a crowd-sourced
encyclopaedia, and an open repository of code, we are all online intermediaries that are
supported by and freely available to tens of millions of acBve Indian users and volunteers.
We are commi=ed to privacy, freedom of speech, access to knowledge, and open
collaboraBon, but these rules would push us to surveil and censor content to the point of
embedding automated infrastructure for surveillance and censorship of Indian users into our
networks. As currently draSed, these rules would undermine Indian users’ access to myriad
sites and services, pu€ng them at a considerable disadvantage compared to users,
developers, and organizaBons in other countries”.
 171

Wikimedia Founda<on here declares itself as an intermediary, claiming to be an open

repository and a crowd-sourced encyclopaedia. As has been demonstrated earlier, Wikipedia
is certainly not a crowd-sourced Wikipedia. There is a dis<nct model of promo<on and
incen<visa<on which Wikipedia follows and the hierarchy is strict enough for Wikipedia to
be controlled only by a few commi]ed, incen<vised editors and admins, who have a dis<nct
editorial line. We will discuss in the next sec<on why Wikipedia insists on being branded as
an intermediary, whereas, according to the law, they should be considered a publisher.

ANer the January 2019 statement, Wikimedia released another statement in December
2019167.

Expressing concern about the guidelines, Wikimedia Founda<on said, “The proposed
changes may have serious impact on Wikipedia’s open edi<ng model, create a significant
financial burden for nonprofit technology organiza<ons and have the poten<al to limit free
expression rights for internet users across the country”.

Wikimedia Founda<on expresses “deep concern” about the financial burden that would
accrue should they be required to follow the law. It is per<nent to remember that this point
that Wikimedia Founda<on makes millions of dollars every year and spends anywhere
between 30% and 35% on paying its editors, admins and contributors by way of grants. The
amount that they use for keeping Wikipedia online (server costs etc) is a nominal percentage
of the millions they make through the Wikimedia Founda<on and the Wikimedia
Endowment Fund. For Wikimedia to express concern about the cost of following Indian law
is a trope, to say the least.

The Wikimedia statement talks about how it would have a nega<ve impact on Freedom of
Expression of millions of people whereas, it is demonstrably true that only a handful of
editors and administrators actually have freedom of expression as far as Wikipedia is
concerned where even facts are selec<vely quoted.

In the statement, Wikimedia Founda<on further says, “The informaBon that is included on
Wikipedia is collected and curated by thousands of global volunteers who work together to
make knowledge available for everyone. Wikipedia is structured by individual languages, not
geographic markets. People work together in real-Bme to write arBcles about topics of
interest on Wikipedia. Some people make larger changes to the arBcles and add substanBal
secBons with new informaBon, others focus on incremental improvements by correcBng
grammar. Together, they work to ensure informaBon stays neutral and is based on reliable
sources. They also remove content that does not meet the site’s quality standards. This
collaboraBve system of people would be severely disrupted by obligatory filtering systems
that monitor for and automaBcally remove illegal content across the website. Short response
Bmes for removals that would essenBally require the use of automaBc systems would
interfere with people’s ability to collaborate in real Bme “on Wiki”, the collaboraBve, open
ediBng model that has been crucial to Wikipedia’s growth”.

167
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/news/2019/12/26/indias-proposed-intermediary-liability-rules-could-
limit-everyones-access-to-informagon-online/
 172

At the cost of being repe<<ve, it is impera<ve to understand that the trope oN repeated by
Wikipedia to jus<fy non-compliance with Indian laws is untrue. The Wikipedia content is not
collected and collated by thousands of volunteers across the globe, as Wikimedia would
have one believe. Further, when Wikimedia says that the content on the plaCorm is
unbiased and is based on ‘reliable sources’, the pool of ‘reliable sources’ itself is tainted to a
point where Wikipedia’s small group of editors and admins who decide the editorial line of
Wikipedia don’t consider police and court statements as accurate. Further, there is a
concerted effort, funded by Wikimedia, where non-LeN sources are overwhelmingly banned
from being cited, making the content skewed, unreliable, biased and bordering on slander in
several cases.

The only reason why Wikimedia repeats the trope of collabora<ve edi<ng and reliable
sources is because it is used as a sch<ck to skirt Indian laws by claiming that Wikimedia has
no editorial control over the content of Wikipedia and that it is a purely people based
encyclopaedia. As has been demonstrated, it is indeed a fact that Wikimedia specifically
funds editors and administrators, incen<vising their role in the editorial line they con<nue to
take in Wikipedia ar<cles.

The convoluted jus<fica<on that Wikimedia then gives for not submihng to Indian laws is as
follows: Requirements to quickly and automaBcally remove content that may be illegal in
one jurisdicBon without meeBng globally accepted human rights standards are also
anBtheBcal to Wikipedia’s global perspecBve and reach. People around the world see the
same content on Wikipedia—someone in New Delhi could collaborate on the same English
Wikipedia arBcle alongside an editor in Berlin. This process makes Wikipedia arBcles richer
and more reflecBve of how the world understands a given topic. As such, it is impossible to
restrict changes inside a Wikipedia arBcle from being visible in one country and not another.
Fulfilling mandatory content removal requirements from one country would leave
problemaBc gaps in Wikipedia for the whole world, break apart highly context-specific
encyclopaedic arBcles, and prevent people from accessing informaBon that may be legal in
their country. Wikipedia’s broad reach and cross-cultural collaboraBon is integral to our goal
of providing access to knowledge for everyone, and these requirements significantly hinder
that goal.

Further, Wikimedia claims to be a frugal, small global NGO which cannot afford hiring more
people for the purpose of complying with Indian laws – “We are also concerned about the
material burden that some requirements in the draS bill would place on the Wikimedia
FoundaBon’s nonprofit model that operates to serve people around the world. While it may
be possible for larger companies to comply with local incorporaBon rules, it would be an
unrealisBc burden for a global nonprofit with limited resources to comply with local
incorporaBon requirements. Rules which require the removal of content or cooperaBon with
law enforcement within short Bme periods could also prove impracBcable without significant
addiBonal investments in either new employees or technology. We fear that such burdens
will consume vital resources that would otherwise be directed to providing access to
knowledge and reliable, neutral informaBon to Indian ciBzens”.
 173

Why Wikipedia should be considered a publisher, not an intermediary

The Informa<on Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021 applies to Digital Media – this includes intermediaries and a ‘publisher of news
and current affairs content or a publisher of online curated content’.

Wikimedia Founda<on insists that Wikipedia is an intermediary – that too – one that should
not be required to open offices in India, is free, fair, neutral and depends on thousands of
‘volunteers’. However, the fact that Wikipedia has a clear editorial line which is maintained
by its editors and administrators, many of whom are paid by the Wikimedia Founda<on,
qualifies them to be considered publishers.

According to the IT Guidelines, ‘news and current affairs content’ includes newly received or
noteworthy content, including analysis, especially about recent events primarily of socio-
poli<cal, economic or cultural nature, made available over the internet or computer
networks, and any digital media shall be news and current affairs content where the context,
substance, purpose, import and meaning of such informa<on is in the nature of news and
current affairs content.

Further, the IT Guidelines says168:

‘News aggregator’ means an en<ty who, performing a significant role in determining the
news and current affairs content being made available, makes available to users a computer
resource that enable such users to access the news and current affairs content which is
aggregated, curated and presented by such en<ty.

‘On demand’ means a system where a user, subscriber or viewer is enabled to access, at a
<me chosen by such user, any content in electronic form, which is transmi]ed over a
computer resource and is selected by the user.

‘Online curated content’ means any curated catalogue of audio-visual content, other than
news and current affairs content, which is owned by, licensed to or contracted to be
transmi]ed by a publisher of online curated content, and made available on demand,
including but not limited through subscrip<on, over the internet or computer networks, and
includes films, audio visual programmes, documentaries, television programmes, serials,
podcasts and other such content.

Defining a ‘publisher’, the IT Guidelines say:

‘Publisher’ means a publisher of news and current affairs content or a publisher of

online curated content;

168

hIps://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Informagon%20Technology%20%28Intermediary%20Guidelines
%20and%20Digital%20Media%20Ethics%20Code%29%20Rules%2C%202021%20%28updated%2006.04.2023%
29-.pdf
 174

‘Publisher of news and current affairs content’ means an online paper, news portal, news
aggregator, news agency and such other en<ty called by whatever name, which is
func<onally similar to publishers of news and current affairs content but shall not include
newspapers, replica e-papers of the newspaper and any individual or user who is not
transmihng content in the course of systema<c business, professional or commercial
ac<vity;

‘Publisher of online curated content’ means a publisher who, performing a significant role in
determining the online curated content being made available, makes available to users a
computer resource that enables such users to access online curated content over the
internet or computer networks, and such other en<ty called by whatever name, which is
func<onally similar to publishers of online curated content but does not include any
individual or user who is not transmihng online curated content in the course of systema<c
business, professional or commercial ac<vity.

As has been evidenced, Wikipedia checks all the boxes when it comes to func<oning as a
publisher. An intermediary which primarily or solely enables online interac<on between two
or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access
informa<on using its services. Essen<ally, an intermediary makes no editorial decisions of
which facts are suitable for publica<on per their editorial line, which sources should or
should not be cited, which content should be published or not and which content is notable
or not notable. Intermediaries merely enable users to air their own views using their
plaCorm and the intermediary itself is not meant to be the arbiter of that content – unless it
breaks the law.

In the case of Wikipedia, however, the requirements of an intermediary are not met. While
Wikipedia wants people to believe that it has no role or involvement in the nature of content
that is published on its website, however, that is demonstrably untrue. There is a specific
payment model that is in place at the Wikimedia Founda<on to ensure that editors and
administrators con<nue to be engaged in edi<ng/wri<ng ac<vity and these editors in turn
have the power to decide the editorial line that is taken in every ar<cle on Wikipedia. The
editors and administrators censor informa<on, sources and even contributors according to
their decided editorial line. In such a scenario, Wikipedia’s argument about being a small
NGO merely facilita<ng thousands of people to make informa<on freely available to the
world is a trope that does not seem valid.

Colonising the internet, one WikiFunc'on at a 'me: Future plans of

Wikimedia Founda'on – Abstract Wikipedia
One of the future plans of the Wikimedia Founda<on is a project that would essen<ally
colonise the internet. “Abstract Wikipedia” is an ongoing project by the Wikimedia
 175

Founda<on, funded by Google (with a $3 million grant)169 and Rockefeller Founda<on with a
$1 million grant170.

The official Wikimedia Founda<on page on Abstract Wikipedia says171:

When Wikipedia debuted on the internet in 2001, the first arBcles were in English, but
everyone from founder Jimmy Wales to Wikipedia’s first volunteer editors wanted the
website to quickly evolve into a mulBlingual knowledge source. Wikipedia is now in 312
acBve languages, and while English Wikipedia has 6 million arBcles, and 17 other languages
have 1 million arBcles or more, the majority of Wikipedias—more than 200—have fewer
than 50,000 arBcles, despite represenBng languages spoken by more than 1.5 billion people.
A new, two-part project called Abstract Wikipedia seeks to close this gap.

Abstract Wikipedia will accelerate language equality across Wikipedia, evolving Wikipedias
with small arBcle bases into full-fledged knowledge sources that benefit hundreds of millions
of people. The project uBlizes a new technical architecture that will translate baseline
content into text that can be used across Wikipedia’s language ediBons. Wikimedia’s Head of
Special Projects Denny Vrandečić, an internaBonal expert in technologies that categorize and
process data in advanced ways, is leading this new project.

We expect the project’s first new arBcles to be published in 2023, but the first key element of
the project, WikifuncBons, has already launched in a beta phase. Through WikifuncBons,
volunteer editors will contribute technological funcBons to translate language-independent
arBcles from Abstract Wikipedia into arBcles for different language Wikipedias—from Urdu
to Igbo, and Swahili to Burmese.

The Wikimedia FoundaBon’s vision is a world where “every single human being can freely
share in the sum of all knowledge.” Abstract Wikipedia will help us achieve this ambiBous
goal.

Essen<ally, this project would turn informa<on into coded Wiki Func<ons which could then
be replicated across Wikipedia in various languages.

Explaining this, Slate published an ar<cle that read172:

“FuncBons are a type of knowledge, and therefore it’s our job to allow everyone to share in
this knowledge,” Denny Vrandečić said while introducing WikifuncBons during Wikimania,
the user conference for Wikipedia and the other free knowledge projects hosted by the
Wikimedia FoundaBon, which this year had more than 4,000 registered virtual a=endees.
WikifuncBons is the first new Wikimedia project to be launched since 2012, and although the
site itself is not expected to be available unBl 2022, development has already kicked into high
gear.

169
hIps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2023-07-17
170
hIps://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/07/12/abstract-wikipedia-gains-new-support-from-the-rockefeller-
foundagon/
171
hIps://wikimediafoundagon.org/story/abstract-wikipedia/
172
hIps://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-human-language-wikifuncgons.html
 176

At heart, WikifuncBons is rather technical: It will let the community create funcBons—that is,
sequences of computer programming instrucBons. These funcBons will use data as inputs,
apply an algorithm, and calculate an output, which can be rendered into one of the natural
human languages to answer quesBons. That could have enormous implicaBons for what you
actually read on Wikipedia. A simple funcBon might involve calculaBng how many days have
passed between someone’s date of birth and date of death. The output would be the
person’s lifespan, a fact that could appear in the content of that person’s Wikipedia
biography.

Returning to the Dianne Feinstein example: When Vrandečić reviewed how San Francisco was
described in each language back in 2019, he noBced that 62 Wikipedia language ediBons
listed an out-of-date mayor. The most egregiously out-of-date instance was the Cebuano
Wikipedia, which listed Feinstein as the current mayor of San Francisco. The problem was
that the Cebuano language Wikipedia was very out-of-date, which is where Wikidata could
have helped. Wikidata allocates items a unique QID; the concept “mayor of San Francisco,”
for instance, is Q795295. Different language ediBons of Wikipedia can then insert Wikidata
queries within their arBcles. That way, if the mayor of San Francisco is updated aSer an
elecBon, one change to the central Wikidata item can update all of the language ediBons of
Wikipedia automaBcally.

In its future state, WikifuncBons is expected to be closely related to another project that has
yet to launch, Abstract Wikipedia, an idea that Vrandečić first proposed in a Google working
paper enBtled “Architecture for a mulBlingual encyclopaedia.” Before joining the foundaBon,
Vrandečić worked as an ontologist at Google, and he explained to me in an interview that the
name “Abstract Wikipedia” is trying to communicate that it’s a Wikipedia not wri=en in a
natural language, but in content abstracBng from a concrete natural language. So, for
example, the future Abstract Wikipedia page for Marie Curie might consist of several curated
WikifuncBons, and these WikifuncBons would be used to express biographical informaBon
about Marie Curie, such as the fact that she was both a physicist and a chemist. The
machine-readable abstract version of the Wikipedia page can then, theoreBcally, be piped
out to the 323 language versions.

Abstract Wikipedia could help Wikipedias that currently have fewer arBcles. For instance,
there are fewer than 12,000 Wikipedia arBcles in Hausa, a language spoken in West and
Central Africa, compared with 6.3 million arBcles in English Wikipedia. Without automaBon,
it would take a lot of human Bme and energy for Hausa Wikipedia to expand from its current
thousands of arBcles to millions of arBcles—and of course, not everyone has the economic
means to donate copious amounts of free labour to an internet encyclopaedia. But the
programming-language arBcles on Abstract Wikipedia could perhaps provide a good starBng
place most of the Bme. Since these arBcles are wri=en in the machine-readable format of
WikifuncBons, they can more easily be translated by machine into the many natural, human
language ediBons of Wikipedia”.

Essen<ally, Abstract Wikipedia would not do narra<on, but only turn “facts” into
Wikifunc<ons – which would be replicated in local languages.
 177

So if the LeN editors and administrators of English Wikipedia believe that PM Narendra Modi
is a dictator, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, that epithet for PM Modi could poten<ally
be turned into a “Wiki Func<on” which would then be replicated in Wikipedia of all
languages from around the world. If the LeN leaning Wikipedia editors and administrators of
Wikipedia English believe that Jai Shree Ram is a ‘warcry’, that ‘informa<on’ could be turned
into a WikiFunc<on which would then be replicated in all languages across the world.

It is a fact that a lot of informa<on appears differently in vernacular Wikipedia and English
Wikipedia. Apart from established facts like the mayor of a city, there are several other
iden<fiers that also appear differently. Further, there is a lot of informa<on that might not
even appear on several languages across the world.

With Abstract Wikipedia, in collabora<on with Google, Wikimedia Founda<on would

colonise the internet where all the biased, mo<vated, factually inaccurate informa<on
driven by the LeN editors and administrators would be replicated across the world –
rewri<ng history as we know it. ThereaNer, every AI func<on across the world would use the
informa<on that is replicated across all plaCorms, considering it authorita<ve informa<on on
the subject and any other fact, fact-check, counter or established sequence of events would
be deemed inauthen<c and unreliable – including police statements and court documents. If
Wikipedia English determined in the Godhra case that the court verdict does not hold
relevance – and that would be a fact replicated across the internet in all languages with no
scope for rec<fica<on or argument. Wikipedia English decided that there is no democracy in
India – that would be a fact replicated across the internet in all languages with no scope for
rec<fica<on or argument. Wikipedia English determined that only a few sources are reliable,
others are not - that would be a fact replicated across the internet in all languages with no
scope for rec<fica<on or argument. Wikipedia English decided that Delhi Riots were
spearheaded by the Hindus - that would be a fact replicated across the internet in all
languages with no scope for rec<fica<on or argument.

Wikipedia is rewri<ng our reality and our history as we speak – with impunity – without
submihng to Indian laws. It is doing so with millions and billions of dollars while pretending
to be a small NGO that does not have the funds to submit to Indian laws. Governments
across the world, including India, needs to take steps to rec<fy the real-<me colonisa<on of
the internet before it is too late.

Recommenda'ons
Following are the recommenda<ons based on the research into Wikimedia Founda<on and
Wikipedia:

Declare Wikipedia as a publisher

Wikipedia has claimed to be an intermediary which depends on the wisdom of the crowd
without content interven<on and editorial line, based on ‘reliable sources’ and maintaining
and neutral point of view. This, however, is far from the truth, as evidenced in the research.
Wikipedia meets all the standards of a publishers. They collate informa<on on current
 178

events and historical events, they pay their editors and administrators and they are easily
accessible by the people at large on the internet. Given that Wikipedia has an editorial stand
based on the editors and administrators, the evidence suggests that they are no longer
eligible to be considered an intermediary. Once declared a publisher, Wikimedia would have
to have their offices in India, set up a grievance redressal system and submit to Indian laws
about illegal content which undermines the sovereignty of India or creates disaffec<on.

Scru/nise financial transac/ons

Wikimedia Founda<on conducts several financial transac<ons in India to further its business
interests and fund LeN organisa<ons and individuals who end up underming the sovereignty
of India and crea<ng disaffec<on. Any financial transac<ons in India, payments in India and
fund collec<on from India is bound by Indian laws including IT laws, FCRA, laws governing
NGOs and the IT Guidelines among others. The government should impress upon Wikimedia
Founda<on that they, legally, need to establish official presence in India and submit to
financial scru<ny as per Indian laws.

Establish browser extension that marks bias on Wikipedia ar/cles

As is discussed in the research, Wikimedia Founda<on has paid thousands of dollars to

Wikipedia administrator ‘Newslinger’ to create an app and a browser extension which would
templa<se the Wikipedia bias in the perennial sources – which essen<ally means that when
anyone reads a website on the internet, it would be the bias opinions of Wikipedia editors
that would pop up deciding which source is reliable and which isn’t. With Wikimedia
Founda<on and Google being hands in glove, there is no doubt that this project could be
implemented. The government of India should work on a browser extension that can
poten<ally flag bias, misinforma<on, disinforma<on and fake news on Wikipedia ar<cles, at
the very least, pertaining to India.

Evaluate Wikipedia under the Compe//on Act 2002

The Compe<<on Act, 2002, is the primary legisla<on in India addressing an<trust issues. It
was enacted to promote and sustain compe<<on in markets, prevent an<-compe<<ve
prac<ces, and protect the interests of consumers. Google in collabora<on with Wikimedia
Founda<on is skewing the scale in favour of Wikipedia content and informa<on, underming
Indian media and content sources. The depreca<ng of sources and Google and Wikimedia
Founda<on ra<fying the bias informa<on results in serious loss of revenue and ranking for
Indian websites which they do not editorially agree with. Google and Wikimedia Founda<on
should be inves<gated for an<-compe<<on prac<ces.
179