Wikipedia Challenges UK Laws it Claims Threaten Its “Operation and Viability”

The charity that operates Wikipedia is contesting the UK’s online safety legislation in the High Court, arguing that certain regulations put the site at risk of “operation and vandalism.”

This case could mark the first judicial review concerning online safety laws. The Wikimedia Foundation contends that it faces the danger of being subjected to the stringent Category 1 obligations that impose additional requirements on the largest websites and applications.

The Foundation has stated that enforcing a Category 1 obligation could jeopardize the safety and privacy of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors, potentially leading to the manipulation and destruction of entries, while diverting resources away from the site’s protection and enhancement.

Phil Bradley Schmieg, the Foundation’s lead attorney, announced plans to pursue a judicial review of the classification regulations.

The Foundation clarifies that it is not disputing the entire act or the existence of the requirements but is questioning the process that determines how a platform is designated as Category 1.

These regulations were established in secondary legislation by technical secretary Peter Kyle. The Foundation is challenging Kyle’s decision to implement these statutory measures through a judicial review that evaluates the legality of decisions in the High Court of England and Wales.

According to one interpretation of the Category 1 obligations, the Foundation noted that if it opts not to authenticate Wikipedia users and editors, anonymous users would need to grant other contributors the power to block modifications or deletions of content. This is part of the legal measures aimed at addressing online trolling.

Consequently, thousands of volunteer editors would be required to undergo identity verification, conflicting with the Foundation’s commitment to minimizing data collection about its readers and contributors.

Violations of this law could result in penalties such as an £18 million fine or 10% of the company’s global revenue, and potentially, in extreme cases, access to services could be restricted in the UK.

Bradley-Schmieg emphasized that the volunteer community, which operates in over 300 languages, could face “data breaches, stalking, troubling litigation, and even incarceration by authoritarian regimes.”

“Privacy is fundamental to keeping our users safe and empowered. Designed for social media, this is just one of many Category 1 obligations that could severely impact Wikipedia,” he stated.

The Foundation argues that the definition of Category 1 services is both broad and ambiguous, encompassing the ability to share or display content. It also refers to “popular” sites, focusing on usage patterns rather than the nature of the platform’s use.

“I regret that the circumstances have compelled me to request a judicial review of the OSA classification regulations,” Bradley-Schmieg remarked. “It is particularly unfortunate that we must safeguard the privacy and security of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors from flawed legislation when the intent of the OSA is to make the online environment in the UK safer.”

In response, a spokesperson for the UK government stated, “We are dedicated to implementing online safety laws to foster a secure online space for everyone. We cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings.”