Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules

Summary

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rulesChris VallanceSenior technology reporterGetty ImagesWikipedia has lost a legal challenge to new Online Safety Act rules which it says could threaten the human rights and safety of its volunteer editors.The Wikimedia Foundation - the non-profit which supports the online encyclopaedia - wanted a judicial review of regulations which could mean Wikipedia has to verify the identities of its users.But it said despite the loss, the judgement "emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected".The government told the BBC it welcomed the High Court's judgment, "which will help us continue our work implementing the Online Safety Act to create a safer online world for everyone".Judicial reviews challenge the lawfulness of the way in which a decision has been made by a public body.In this case the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikipedia editor tried to challenge the way in which the government decided to make regulations covering which sites should be classed "Category 1" under the Online Safety Act - the strictest rules sites must follow.It argued the rules were logically flawed and too broad, meaning a policy intended to impose extra rules on large social media companies would instead apply to Wikipedia.In particular the foundation is concerned the extra duties required - if Wikipedia was classed as Category 1 - would mean it would have to verify the identity of its contributors, undermining their privacy and safety.The only way it could avoid being classed as Category 1 would be to cut the number of people in the UK who could access the online encyclopaedia by about three-quarters, or disable key functions on the site. The government's lawyers argued that ministers had considered whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations but had reasonably rejected the idea.'Left the door open'In the end, the court rejected Wikimedia's arguments.But Phil Bradley-Schmie...