Online Safety laws could flood our site with fake news, claims Wikipedia
Wikipedia is launching a legal challenge against the Online Safety Act over fears that new requirements could allow false information to appear on its site.
The Wikimedia Foundation will challenge legislation that could define Wikipedia as a category one service under the Act.
Services in this category will be subject to the most stringent duties to protect users from harmful content online, which would require Wikipedia to carry out user verification – a filter that would damage the way volunteers and communities edit and review content on the site.
The foundation said the duties meant it would have to allow any user to block other unverified users from editing or removing content they post, upsetting the delicate hierarchy the site currently has in place.
The platform warned this change could mean malicious users could easily post harmful, false and misinformation content, and block Wikipedia's volunteer editors from then removing it.
The Wikimedia Foundation said in a blog post: 'Wikipedia is kept free of bad content because of the important work of thousands of members of the public, who can review and improve the content on the website to ensure it is neutral, fact-based and well-sourced.'
Sophisticated volunteer communities, working in more than 300 languages, collectively govern almost every aspect of day-to-day life on Wikipedia.
Their ability to set and enforce policies, and to review, improve or remove what other volunteers post, is central to Wikipedia's success, notably in resisting vandalism, abuse and misinformation.
The blog post said: 'For example, volunteer users worked day and night to ensure that Wikipedia presented neutral and reliable information about the Southport murders at the same time as misinformation and race-baiting spread unchecked on social media.
'However, if Wikipedia is designated as category one, the Wikimedia Foundation will need to verify the identity of Wikipedia users.
'That rule does not itself force every user to undergo verification – but under a linked rule, the foundation would also need to allow other (potentially malicious) users to block all unverified users from fixing or removing any content they post.
'This could mean significant amounts of vandalism, disinformation or abuse going unchecked on Wikipedia, unless volunteers of all ages, all over the world, undergo identity verification.'
'Overregulated'
The Online Safety Act is steadily coming into force this year, with social media and other platforms hosting user-generated content becoming subject to a range of duties that require them to protect users, and in particular children, from seeing harmful or illegal content.
Firms who breach the new rules face fines of up to £18 million or 10 per cent of global revenue – whichever is greater.
The Wikimedia Foundation said it did not oppose online safety regulation, or even the use of a categories system, but said it felt it would be 'overregulated' if designated as a category one service and felt compelled to act.
It added: 'Although the UK Government felt this category one duty (which is just one of many) would usefully support police powers 'to tackle criminal anonymous abuse' on social media, Wikipedia is not like social media.
'Wikipedia relies on empowered volunteer users working together to decide what appears on the website. This new duty would be exceptionally burdensome (especially for users with no easy access to digital ID).
'Worse still, it could expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes. Privacy is central to how we keep users safe and empowered.
'Designed for social media, this is just one of several category one duties that could seriously harm Wikipedia.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
The Documentary Podcast The tyre scandal
Every year the UK produces around 50 million tyres for disposal. They are supposed to be sent for recycling. Instead, big money is being made by diverting tyres to illegal and dangerous 'pyrolysis' plants where they are melted down to extract oil and steel. Together with a team of journalists from Source Material, a not-for-profit group specialising in climate and corruption, we follow the tyres from the UK to India using tracking devices. The team discovers just how large scale this largely illicit business has become. Earlier this year, a makeshift pyrolysis plant exploded near Mumbai, killing four people. It had been processing tyres from abroad. Reporter Paul Kenyon confronts a tyre trader in the north of England who admits to shipping his waste tyres to India for pyrolysis.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Firm linked to Baroness Bra 'must pay back £122m for faulty PPE': Government suing over Covid contract 'initiated' by Tory peer
A firm linked to Michelle Mone must repay £122million for allegedly breaching a Covid PPE contract, a court heard yesterday. The bra tycoon had recommended PPE Medpro, which went on to provide 25 million 'faulty' surgical gowns. The consortium, led by the Tory peer's husband Doug Barrowman, was awarded contracts by the former Conservative administration during the pandemic. PPE Medpro is now being sued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), with Government lawyers claiming the gowns couldn't be used because they were not sterile. Baroness Mone and the firm both deny any wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, plus an additional £8,648,691 for transporting and storing the items. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, with its lawyers claiming the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with contract discussions then going through one of the firm's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' negotiations, he said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he said Baroness Mone's communications were not part of this case, which was 'simply about compliance'. He added: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with almost £122million paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the firm it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage. Mr Stanley said 99.9999 per cent of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract. The DHSC claims the deal also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise them using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', and that of 140 gowns tested for sterility, 103 failed. He added that the DHSC 'was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs'. Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject' after delivery. He said testing was done several months after the gowns were rejected, and that the samples were not 'representative of the whole population'. Mr Samek described the DHSC's claim as 'contrived and opportunistic', with PPE Medpro 'made the fall guy for a catalogue of failures... and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence during the five-week trial. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Company boss, 72, 'throttled his neighbour and damaged his Jaguar in 'very messy' dispute over shared driveway of his £540,000 home', court hears
A company boss throttled his neighbour and damaged his expensive Jaguar car during an altercation over a 'very messy' long-running shared driveway dispute, a court has heard. Trevor Hollisey, 72, who owns a kitchen fitting business with his wife Jennifer, 79, is accused of grabbing Neil Ford by the throat 'for ten to 15 seconds' and assaulting his wife, Michelle. He is also charged with causing more than £1,300 of damage to a Jaguar F-PACE belonging to his next-door neighbours. Mrs Hollisey, is accused of assaulting Mr Ford and his 20-year-old daughter, Sophie, as well as causing £3.99 damage to Sophie's phone screen protector. The Holliseys bought their detached home, Highfield House, in the Norfolk village of Bressingham for £540,000 in March 2021, while the Fords moved into their £672,000 home, Copper Dene, six months later. Prosecutor Katherine Newson said the couples had subsequently fallen out in a 'dispute over access to their driveway'. She told magistrates in Norwich that the disagreement centred around the alleged victims opening the gate onto the defendants' section of the driveway. Previously, there had been complaints to the police about the 'paving being smashed'. Matters allegedly came to a head on December 30 last year when Hollisey grabbed Mr Ford by the throat 'for ten to 15 seconds' and assaulted his wife. He is also accused of deliberately damaging the luxury Jaguar, causing £1,363 of damage. Hollisey denies the criminal damage charge and a count of assault by beating against Mrs Ford. No plea was entered for the charge of intentional strangulation during the hearing on Friday. His wife denied two assault by beating charges involving Mr Ford and his daughter and the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew a count of common assault against the pair. She also pleaded not guilty to damaging the screen protector on Sophie's phone. Declan Gallagher, defending the Holliseys, said the 'confrontation' was the result of a 'long-term dispute' and that 'there is a very messy history to this'. When magistrates starting looking for dates to hold a trial, Mr Hollisey interjected and said he and his wife 'have several holidays booked this year and next'. The Bench eventually decided that the case would be heard at Ipswich Magistrates Court on March 10 and 11 next year. The Holliseys were released on conditional bail and told they must have no contact with their neighbours. Mr Hollisey set up Ultimate Choice Bathrooms and Kitchens in Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, in 1987, where there is still a showroom. The company's website says he now works alongside his son Lee. It adds: 'The driving force behind our success for the last 36 years is Trevor's and Lee's high standards and demand for excellent workmanship on every installation.'
