Wikipedia – the online, volunteer-supported encyclopedia – has said it would not comply with age verifications required by the new Online Safety Bill.

Currently, the Online Safety Bill has several requirements around age gating and verification. The Wikimedia Foundation have stated that these measures are incompatible with the open source nature of the Wikipedia platform and that they will not be age gating their content.

Of the Wikimedia Foundation, Rebecca MacKinnon also said the bill would “violate our commitment to collect minimal data about readers and contributors.” Currently, users of Wikipedia do not need to provide any information to access content, and do not have to create profiles or verify any information surrounding their identity.

The Online Safety Bill may change this, as users would potentially have to provide age verification to access some of the portal’s contents.

This would also confound regulators, as Wikipedia content often appears on Google Search results without users directly clicking on a link to the website – begging the question on if Google users would have to verify their age to search certain topics.

While the government has assured that only high risk services will require age verification, Wikimedia figures are concerned the website could be blocked as a result of non-compliance.

Websites that do not comply with the new bill will be dealt with by Ofcom, and could risk hefty fines for breaking the new rules.

To combat this, Wikipedia is fighting for an ‘encyclopedia exemption’ – whereby services created for the public good and for public knowledge would not be subject to the same laws and content platforms with centralised moderation and user bases.

This would follow the current EU Digital Services Act which gives special consideration to community and volunteer run information websites like Wikipedia.

Government continues to assure that only the highest-risk content will be moderated and may require age verification to access, which only brings up further concern. As Wikipedia is community run and all content is accessible, it is not as readily at the whims of large corporations or government regulation of information.

Recommended

• Q1 VC Funding at Lowest Level Since Pre-Pandemic
• Scots Investors Archangels Make Senior Appointment
• CMA Blocks £55bn Microsoft-Activision Merger

As the UK continues to grapple with different laws surrounding gender identity, migration, and the right to strike, it brings up further concerns about ‘who’ or ‘what’ would be deciding on what information is high risk.

Online Safety Bill: The Latest

Wikipedia is the latest major platform to come after the Online Safety Bill – WhatsApp, Signal, and other messaging services have threatened to leave the UK market altogether if the new bill infringes on encrypted messaging services.

Recently, campaigners for the protection of women and girls have said the bill does not go far enough to make the internet a safer place.

In a letter signed by many survivors of abuse, read:

“Technology companies have failed to recognise the risks posed by their platforms, designed systems exposing us to significant harm, and made it unsafe for us to report our abuse.

“They have never seen our perspective or experiences as something to learn from, listen to, and act on, but instead operate independently of the women and girls who face violence on their platforms.”

Specifically, the letter is calling for government to add a violence against women and girls (VAWG) code to the Bill to give this issue specific consideration.

Continuing, the letter said: “A Code of Practice will guide online services in how to tackle VAWG online, ensuring the prevention of harm is built into platforms.

“If companies are not required to do this, the specific risks women and girls face will continue to go unaddressed. We must be able to assess the steps companies are taking and hold them accountable for implementing meaningful changes that offer their users better protection.”