Wikipedia Loses Court Battle Over Controversial Online Safety Act Rules
In a ruling that could reshape the way Wikipedia operates in the UK, the High Court has dismissed a legal challenge brought by the Wikimedia Foundation against provisions in the country’s Online Safety Act. At the heart of the dispute is a requirement that certain high-traffic platforms verify the identities of their users—something Wikipedia warns could endanger the privacy and safety of its volunteer editors worldwide.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees the online encyclopaedia, sought a judicial review arguing that the rules were overly broad and risked lumping Wikipedia into the same category as massive social media companies. Such a classification, they claimed, ignores Wikipedia’s unique, non-commercial structure and its reliance on anonymous contributions to maintain editorial independence.
What the Category 1 Classification Means
Under the Online Safety Act, platforms designated as “Category 1” face the strictest compliance requirements. If Wikipedia were to fall under this classification, it could be forced to implement identity verification systems for all contributors—a move critics say would undermine the open, collaborative nature of the platform. The only alternatives would be to drastically reduce UK user access by up to 75% or disable core editing functions altogether.
Government lawyers countered that ministers had already considered exempting Wikipedia but ultimately decided against it, concluding the rules should apply consistently to all large platforms hosting user-generated content. The High Court agreed, rejecting Wikimedia’s challenge while noting that future legal actions could still be possible depending on Ofcom’s enforcement decisions.
Privacy and Safety Concerns for Volunteer Editors
Wikimedia’s legal team warned that forcing editors to disclose their identities could have far-reaching consequences, particularly in countries where political expression is restricted or dangerous. For many contributors, anonymity is not just a preference—it’s a shield against harassment, doxxing, and even government persecution.
Phil Bradley-Schmieg, Lead Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, stressed that the ruling does not give Ofcom “a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations,” pointing out that the court explicitly left room for further challenges if the platform is officially classified as Category 1.
Expert Opinions and Industry Impact
Legal experts say the case underscores the growing tension between online safety regulations and the principles of open collaboration on the internet. “Wikipedia has been caught up in stricter regulations due to its size and user-created content, even though it differs significantly from other user-to-user platforms,” noted Mona Schroedel, a data protection litigation specialist at Freeths. She added that the judgment still leaves the door open for exemptions upon review.
Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator tasked with enforcing the Act, confirmed it will continue developing its categorisation framework and extra safety rules for platforms falling under each category. For now, the future of Wikipedia’s operations in the UK hinges on whether regulators decide to treat it like a social media giant—or acknowledge its distinct role as a public knowledge resource.