Online sources such as Wikipedia not completely dependable: SC

Online sources such as Wikipedia are based on a crowd sourced and user generated editing model that is not completely dependable and can promote misleading information, the Supreme Court has said

Supreme Court
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Jan 18 2023 | 1:44 PM IST

Online sources such as Wikipedia are based on a crowd sourced and user generated editing model that is not completely dependable and can promote misleading information, the Supreme Court has said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said it acknowledged the utility of the platforms that provide free access to knowledge across the globe but also cautioned against using such sources for legal dispute resolution.

"We say so for the reason that these sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd sourced and user generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also," the bench said on Tuesday.

The apex court said courts and adjudicating authorities should endeavour to persuade counsels to rely on more reliable and authentic sources.

The observations came in a judgment in a case regarding the correct classification of imported 'All in One Integrated Desktop Computer' under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The top court noted that adjudicating authorities, especially the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) had extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusions.

Interestingly, former apex court judge Justice Markandey Katju had referred to Wikipedia for definition of the term "common law marriage" while delivering a judgment in 2010.

Justice Katju had made information available on Wikipedia the basis for formulating a four-point guideline and ruled that live-in relationships must satisfy it to be categorised as a "relationship" in the nature of marriage under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Quarterly Starter

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

Save 46%

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Access to Exclusive Premium Stories Online

  • Over 30 behind the paywall stories daily, handpicked by our editors for subscribers

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtWikipedia

First Published: Jan 18 2023 | 1:44 PM IST

Next Story