Wikipedia could be forced to limit access in the UK unless crucial elements of Britain’s online safety rules are changed, the High Court has been told.
Lawyers for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation which helps run the online encyclopaedia, warned it could be required to introduce a “quota-based” system for UK visitors if it is classified as a “category one” service under the Online Safety Act.
Services falling under this designation are subject to the strictest duties under the digital laws, which are intended to stop children accessing harmful online material and prevent the spread of illegal posts.
To stay outside the scope of the regulation, Wikipedia could cap visitor numbers from the UK so it does not qualify as a “category one” site, which are defined as those with seven million users. This would make it harder for British users to access the site when they wanted.
The foundation has launched a legal challenge against Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, over the rules, warning they threaten to hit Wikipedia with strict regulations intended for social media giants such as Facebook and TikTok.
In a filing with the High Court, Wikimedia’s lawyers said such a designation would “cripple the vital exchange of encyclopaedic information on Wikipedia”, either by limiting the “availability and functionality of Wikipedia in the UK” or by “fundamentally changing the way in which the encyclopaedia works”.
Rupert Paines, a lawyer acting for the group, told the court the rules risked “very severe impacts” for Wikipedia and could reduce articles to “gibberish”.
The measures could also “render it unavailable to many who wish to use it”, he added, even though Wikipedia is a “world away” from being a social network that the laws were intended to regulate.
Under the category, Wikipedia has claimed it could be required to verify the identities of its anonymous volunteer moderators who edit entries.
Non-verified users would no longer be able to alter posts, creating a risk that articles with fake news remain online unchecked.
It also claimed the rules could also force Wikipedia to restrict access to UK users, in order to prevent the website from falling foul of the toughest measures.
Alongside having more than seven million users, the “category one” threshold says sites must also have algorithms which recommend content and allow posts to be shared or forwarded to others.
The foundation argued Wikipedia would fall under these restrictions even though Ofcom, the digital regulator, had initially failed to identify it as within the scope of the rules.
While Wikipedia is not a social network, its lawyers said it still used recommendation algorithms, such as a system that identifies new articles for editing. They added it also had systems that allowed its users to share or forward pages.
In order to avoid the rules, Wikimedia’s lawyers told the court the site could be forced to withhold access in the UK to some visitors.
Source; Wikipedia threatens to limit UK access to website
Lawyers for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation which helps run the online encyclopaedia, warned it could be required to introduce a “quota-based” system for UK visitors if it is classified as a “category one” service under the Online Safety Act.
Services falling under this designation are subject to the strictest duties under the digital laws, which are intended to stop children accessing harmful online material and prevent the spread of illegal posts.
To stay outside the scope of the regulation, Wikipedia could cap visitor numbers from the UK so it does not qualify as a “category one” site, which are defined as those with seven million users. This would make it harder for British users to access the site when they wanted.
The foundation has launched a legal challenge against Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, over the rules, warning they threaten to hit Wikipedia with strict regulations intended for social media giants such as Facebook and TikTok.
In a filing with the High Court, Wikimedia’s lawyers said such a designation would “cripple the vital exchange of encyclopaedic information on Wikipedia”, either by limiting the “availability and functionality of Wikipedia in the UK” or by “fundamentally changing the way in which the encyclopaedia works”.
Rupert Paines, a lawyer acting for the group, told the court the rules risked “very severe impacts” for Wikipedia and could reduce articles to “gibberish”.
The measures could also “render it unavailable to many who wish to use it”, he added, even though Wikipedia is a “world away” from being a social network that the laws were intended to regulate.
Under the category, Wikipedia has claimed it could be required to verify the identities of its anonymous volunteer moderators who edit entries.
Non-verified users would no longer be able to alter posts, creating a risk that articles with fake news remain online unchecked.
It also claimed the rules could also force Wikipedia to restrict access to UK users, in order to prevent the website from falling foul of the toughest measures.
Alongside having more than seven million users, the “category one” threshold says sites must also have algorithms which recommend content and allow posts to be shared or forwarded to others.
The foundation argued Wikipedia would fall under these restrictions even though Ofcom, the digital regulator, had initially failed to identify it as within the scope of the rules.
While Wikipedia is not a social network, its lawyers said it still used recommendation algorithms, such as a system that identifies new articles for editing. They added it also had systems that allowed its users to share or forward pages.
In order to avoid the rules, Wikimedia’s lawyers told the court the site could be forced to withhold access in the UK to some visitors.
Source; Wikipedia threatens to limit UK access to website
