Wikipedia has been introduced as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone can publish problematic material or false information. But it's also Wikipedia's greatest strength that it has been so open to basically everyone and that gave us a wide range of really good articles that rivaled the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Wikipedia is a product of the free internet. It is a product of a world that many politicians still don't understand. But those politicians still make laws that do not make sense, because they believe that something has to be done against those information crimes. And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base.
The internet has it's problems, no doubt about that. But what these laws do is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually, the water probably stays in, because it's not like those laws solve anything.
RobKohr · 5m ago
I feel that the left and the right are tag teaming on this topic. Both sides want to track who says what on the internet for their own purposes.
taraindara · 2m ago
I’ll add to this, no politician is on your side unless it means getting your vote to keep them in power. It’s hard to be an actual good person and get too far up in politics, especially in today’s environment.
So, yes, I believe they both want tracking to exist, because they both benefit massively from it.
bakugo · 1m ago
> And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base.
Care to remind me what side of the political spectrum was desperately trying to silence all health-related discourse that did not match the government's agenda just a few years ago?
mathiaspoint · 18m ago
Kind of funny after the authors of the law complained service providers were interpreting it overzealously.
No, if Wikipedia falls under it anything meaningful does. You have once again failed to understand the internet.
MattPalmer1086 · 21m ago
The Online Safety Act is a hideous piece of legislation. I hope Wikipedia block the UK.
(I am a UK citizen).
slaymaker1907 · 11m ago
Act like an authoritarian regime, get treated like other authoritarian regimes.
ndriscoll · 47m ago
I don't understand why Wikipedia would fall under Category 1. Am I looking at the wrong thing, or does the definition in 3.(1) not require the service to use an algorithmic recommendation system (which Wikipedia does not do)?
> Definition of content recommender systems: Having any “algorithm” on the site that “affects” what content someone might “encounter”, is seemingly enough to qualify popular websites for Category 1. As written, this could even cover tools that are used to combat harmful content. We, and many other stakeholders, have failed to convince UK rulemakers to clarify that features that help keep services free of bad content — like the New Pages Feed used by Wikipedia article reviewers—should not trigger Category 1 status. Other rarely-used features, like Wikipedia’s Translation Recommendations, are also at risk.
> Content forwarding or sharing functionality: If a popular app or website also has content “forwarding or sharing” features, its chances of ending up in Category 1 are dramatically increased. The Regulations fail to define what they mean by “forwarding or sharing functionality”: features on Wikipedia (like the one allowing users to choose Wikipedia’s daily “Featured Picture”) could be caught.
Sephr · 17m ago
"Content forwarding or sharing functionality" seems like it would cover any website with a URL.
riffraff · 17m ago
As I understand it, they refer to some of the moderation tools and the likes, which are not part of the typical Wikipedia experience.
Everybody including the judges seem to agree this is dumb but it's the current law.
MattPalmer1086 · 17m ago
I agree, it does seem odd. They do promote bits of their content on the main page, I assume with an algorithm, but it's hardly like a social media feed.
betaby · 33m ago
Because laws are not interpreted in a logical way. Especially the laws with a 'safety' aspects.
oconnore · 18m ago
Wikipedia is based in San Francisco. Why can't they just tell the UK to pound sand?
jmclnx · 1h ago
I wonder why Wikipedia does not ban access from the UK due to this ruling ? I think doing that will get them an exemption rather quickly.
tehwebguy · 21m ago
Do they even need to? Seems like they can just eliminate all the jobs in the UK and let the ISPs ban them when the time comes.
dmoy · 20m ago
My read of the article is that it's still an ongoing legal battle, even after this one judgement.
So maybe yes, but maybe no, depending on how things pan out in subsequent rulings?
moralestapia · 7m ago
>I think doing that will get them an exemption rather quickly.
Some of us prefer civilization, though.
coryrc · 15m ago
I don't think any movement like that has worked yet.
josefritzishere · 35m ago
Were it my decision to make... I'd ban the UK. If they wants to live in the dark ages, let them.
Wikipedia is a product of the free internet. It is a product of a world that many politicians still don't understand. But those politicians still make laws that do not make sense, because they believe that something has to be done against those information crimes. And they also do it to score brownie points with their conservative voting base.
The internet has it's problems, no doubt about that. But what these laws do is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually, the water probably stays in, because it's not like those laws solve anything.
So, yes, I believe they both want tracking to exist, because they both benefit massively from it.
Care to remind me what side of the political spectrum was desperately trying to silence all health-related discourse that did not match the government's agenda just a few years ago?
No, if Wikipedia falls under it anything meaningful does. You have once again failed to understand the internet.
(I am a UK citizen).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174
> Definition of content recommender systems: Having any “algorithm” on the site that “affects” what content someone might “encounter”, is seemingly enough to qualify popular websites for Category 1. As written, this could even cover tools that are used to combat harmful content. We, and many other stakeholders, have failed to convince UK rulemakers to clarify that features that help keep services free of bad content — like the New Pages Feed used by Wikipedia article reviewers—should not trigger Category 1 status. Other rarely-used features, like Wikipedia’s Translation Recommendations, are also at risk.
> Content forwarding or sharing functionality: If a popular app or website also has content “forwarding or sharing” features, its chances of ending up in Category 1 are dramatically increased. The Regulations fail to define what they mean by “forwarding or sharing functionality”: features on Wikipedia (like the one allowing users to choose Wikipedia’s daily “Featured Picture”) could be caught.
Everybody including the judges seem to agree this is dumb but it's the current law.
So maybe yes, but maybe no, depending on how things pan out in subsequent rulings?
Some of us prefer civilization, though.