Wikipedia’s Loophole Permitting Anti-Religious Bias: Is There a Way to Level the Playing Field?

As covered in recent articles in this series, religions are particularly prone to misrepresentation in Wikipedia.

The platform wields tremendous power to spread false and defamatory information globally. It can ruin reputations with impunity, leaving individuals, religious movements and organizations defenseless. 

Anonymity shields editors, admins and arbitration committee members from accountability, preventing the rectification of defamation and religious bias on the website.

How could this happen? What permits the Wikimedia Foundation to operate with impunity? What attempts have been made to rectify defamation or injustice? Have they succeeded or failed? And how could Wikipedia be brought into compliance with human rights conventions?

Accessed by billions, Wikipedia dominates search engine results globally. It appears as the first result for countless keywords; its influence is incomparable. Although surrounded by controversy, from hoaxes to defamation, it operates with impunity. 

Has Anyone Prevailed in a Libel Case?

The short answer is: not really. 

In the U.S., no one has prevailed in a libel suit with damages or a liability ruling based on Wikipedia content. 

Literary agent Barbara Bauer sued Wikipedia in 2008 for listing her as the “dumbest” on its “worst agents” list. She sued the WMF in New Jersey, but the judge tossed it out, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: “No provider… shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.

John Seigenthaler was falsely tied in Wikipedia to the Kennedy assassinations and was advised by legal not to sue experts based on the same Section 230.

Outside the U.S., there have been partial wins: Germany (2019) and Portugal (2023) forced content edits, but no damages were awarded, and the WMF was not held culpable. 

How Does the WMF Maintain Impunity

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was sparked in 1996 by the explosive growth of the Internet. It established how platforms are treated as hosts, not publishers—absolving them of user activity.

Wikipedia anonymity increases this protection. Editors hide behind pseudonyms, and the WMF’s privacy policy protects them, rapidly purging data that might be subpoenaed to force their identification. Trying to sue the defamer directly is a thankless task. Tracing ‘WikiUser123’ through VPNs is a dead-end activity.

The WMF shrugs off foreign rulings, too—U.S. sovereignty and the First Amendment shield the WMF from overseas courts. For example, in Louis Bacon’s 2011 UK case, it refused to unmask editors without a U.S. subpoena, which was not forthcoming.

The Wikipedia article on Fuzzy Zoeller describes the professional golfer’s aborted attempt to achieve justice in his claim of Wikipedia defamation by attempting to unmask the perpetrator: “On February 13, 2007, Zoeller sued Josef Silny & Associates, a foreign-credential evaluation firm based in Miami, Florida. The lawsuit alleged that defamatory statements appeared in the Wikipedia article about Zoeller in December 2006, originating from a computer at that firm. According to the suit, the edits suggested Zoeller had committed acts including alcohol, drug and domestic abuse. Defendant Josef Silny said a computer consultant would investigate. However, Zoeller dropped the lawsuit in December 2007 after being unsuccessful in finding the poster. Zoeller could not sue Wikipedia for the statements due to protections accorded to providers of “interactive computer services” under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”

In 2007, three plaintiffs in France lost a defamation case over being labeled “gay activists.” A court ruled that the WMF wasn’t liable under French law based on Section 230 and that the content was already gone.

In 2014, Yank Barry filed a defamation lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors but withdrew it after a month.

The ongoing defamation case ANI v. WMF (2024) seeks two crore (20 million) rupees from Wikipedia for calling ANI a propaganda tool.

The WMF resists unmasking editors, and Section 230 could block U.S. enforcement if it comes to that.”

Is there a way forward?

Can equity be achieved without diluting the First Amendment?

Some suggestions exist:

• Change Section 230 to make the Wikimedia Foundation responsible if they ignore clear reports of lies that hurt people. Experts such as Danielle Citron, Distinguished Professor in Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she teaches information privacy, support this idea—it still  protects free speech but forces the WMF to step up and fix problems.
• Notice-and-Takedown: Mimic the DMCA: force quick removal of defamatory posts or lose protection—demand swift content removal after notice, with penalties for delay.
• Global Leverage: Sue in strict jurisdictions (e.g., India) and push worldwide enforcement.
• Push through a law forcing WMF to enforce authenticated IDs, which are to be held confidential and released only for litigation. This practice would permit victims to sue defamers without rewriting Section 230 or diluting the Constitution.

Despite the challenges involved in these solutions, justice and reform of the Wikipedia model are necessary for truth and equity to prevail.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.