The Wikimedia Foundation's legal challenge to the UK's new Online Safety Act rules has been dismissed. The Foundation had asked for a judicial review of regulations which could mean Wikipedia has to verify the identities of its users. This, the Foundation argued, would be burdensome and "could expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes".

The news isn't all bad, however. As Techdirt pointed out, there are two ways one can look at the result. They are reflected in different headlines – while the BBC titled its article "Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act verification rules", The Guardian went with the rather more optimistic "Wikipedia can challenge Online Safety Act if strictest rules apply to it, says judge".

This was also the view of the Wikimedia Foundation, which said that the ruling "does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for", but welcomed the court's comments emphasising what it said was "the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected".

The judge recognized the "significant value" of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling "does not give Ofcom [the regulator tasked with enforcing the OSA] and the Secretary of State [Labour politician Peter Kyle] a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations", and indicated they could face legal repercussions if they fail to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users. In order to achieve that outcome, he suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules in question, or that the rules themselves may need amendment in Parliament.

If the ruling stands, the first categorization decisions from Ofcom are expected this summer. The Foundation will continue to seek solutions to protect Wikipedia and the rights of its users as the OSA continues to be implemented.

The Foundation's post also notes that it was joined as claimant in the lawsuit by UK-based longtime English Wikipedia editor User:Zzuuzz (whose personal identity "remain[s] confidential and protected by the law and the Foundation"). As summarized in the court's judgment,

[Zzuuzz gave] detailed and compelling reasons for wishing to remain anonymous as a Wikipedia user. They provide[d] extensive evidence of threats that are made to Wikipedia administrators, including to [Zzuuzz] personally, on websites that target Wikipedia administrators. [...] None of the evidence of Mr Bradley-Schmieg or [Zzuuzz] was challenged.

Phil Bradley-Schmieg, the Foundation's lead counsel, also provided various updates about the lawsuit on Meta-wiki, as well as further explanations why the OSA's rules "are written so broadly that Wikipedia could be lumped in as a 'Category 1 service'":

We have said [in the lawsuit] that there is a risk that (for instance, but without limitation) the inherent ability to embed images (or other content; maybe even user-generated templates) into Wiki pages may be deemed "forwarding or sharing functionality".

The Foundation's lawsuit, thought to be the first judicial review brought against the OSA regulations, had been described as difficult to win from the beginning (e.g. by a legal expert quoted by the BBC, see previous Signpost coverage).

Many other outlets reported on the matter, among them Reuters, Ars Technica, Courthouse News Service and Forbes. Several mentioned other recent controversies around the Online Safety Act. E.g. Reuters noted that "Free-speech campaigners and content creators have complained its rules had been implemented too broadly, resulting in the censorship of legal content." A Politico article titled "The UK’s new tech law triggers upheaval reported that "Reddit, X, Discord and BlueSky have all [already] implemented age verification checks and other measures to abide by the safety act", while clarifying that the Wikipedia lawsuit "regards a different provision that would require it to identify many of its contributors."

For background, see also the Foundation's Diff post or the more detailed version of the post on Medium; for the risk of imprisonment by authoritarian regimes around the world, see previous Signpost coverage and List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. – AK, H

Mayree Clark is the newest member of the WMF Board of Trustees. She is also on the the Board of the Wikimedia Endowment and since 2024 is Chair of its Finance Committee. Since 2018 she's been a member of the Supervisory Board of Deutsche Bank AG. Her career in finance has included a position as Managing Director of Morgan Stanley, founding her own firm Eachwin Capital, and service as a director of the Stanford University Endowment. She earned an MBA from Stanford in 1981 and has also served on the faculty.

Kevin Bonebrake and Ike Kier were appointed trustees of the Wikimedia Endowment at the July board meeting.

Bonebreak is the Chief Financial Officer at Quaise Energy, which is developing geothermal drilling technology. Previously he was a Managing Director at Lazard, specializing in energy sector finance. He has earned B.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Economics from Duke University, a Master's in Engineering from Duke and an MBA from Columbia University.

Kier founded KG Funds Management in 2008 after managing four special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). He earned a B.A. in Economics from Cornell University and a J.D. from George Washington University.

Voting for two community seats on the WMF board will be held from October 8 – 23. Six candidates give three-minute video statements here. – AK, S

• No new administrators: There were no successful requests for adminship in August.