By Lucy Crompton-Reid |
With a decision on whether or not Wikipedia will be considered a category 1 service under the UK Online Safety Act 2023 expected in 2026, it seems like a timely moment to reflect on the journey to this point; including Wikimedia UK’s work to ensure that measures to improve online safety do not have detrimental consequences for public interest platforms like Wikipedia.
Overview of the Online Safety Act
The UK Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a set of laws that aims to protect children and adults online by establishing a regulatory framework for certain online services, including user-to-user services (such as Facebook) and search services (such as Google). The Act gives providers new duties to create and implement systems to reduce the risk of their services being used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content that does appear. There are specific duties related to child safety, with providers required to prevent children from accessing harmful or age-inappropriate content. The 2023 Act established Ofcom (the Office of Communications) as the regulator of online services, and gives it a broad range of powers to assess and enforce compliance with the framework.
Background and history to the creation of the Act
The backdrop to the creation of the Online Safety Act was one of mounting concern about the risks children and young people face online, with calls for more regulation of online platforms becoming increasingly urgent following the tragic death of Molly Russell in 2017. The inquest concluded that Molly died from an act of self-harm whilst suffering from depression and the negative effects of online content, and a Prevention of Future Deaths report was sent by the Coroner to the government, Pinterest and Meta recommending the introduction of platform regulation. This led to an Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper, published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in Autumn 2017, followed by the Online Harms White Paper in April 2019.
Wikimedia’s concerns in relation to online safety regulation
Wikimedia UK strongly supports efforts to keep people safe online. Our charity has a strong focus on information literacy, with projects and programmes designed to equip young people with the skills needed to successfully navigate the online environment. However, the Online Safety Act was simply not designed for public interest, non profit and educational projects like Wikipedia. The Act has provisions around content moderation, age-gating, and user verification that are incompatible with the way in which information on Wikipedia is created and curated, as well as the website’s commitment to user privacy and freedom of speech.
Advocating for changes to the proposed legislation
Wikimedia UK provided detailed responses to successive government consultations relating to Online Safety, stressing the need to balance safety with access. In particular, we emphasised that online providers should not be forced to take down content that would be legally protected as free speech in other contexts (an aspect of the proposed legislation that didn’t make it into the final Act). We argued that Wikipedia and other projects within the open internet movement should be outside the scope of the legislation, sharing our concerns in meetings with Ofcom and DCMS, alongside colleagues from the Wikimedia Foundation.
How we tried to influence the Bill in Parliament
The Online Safety Bill was introduced to the House of Lords in January 2023, at which point Wikimedia UK’s advocacy efforts moved up a gear as we started communicating directly with Parliamentarians in a bid to make changes to the draft legislation. Working in partnership with staff from the Global Advocacy, Legal and Communications teams at the Wikimedia Foundation (the legal host of Wikipedia), our actions included:
- Scrutinising the draft text to identify key areas that risked our movement and model
- Drafting a series of amendments to the Bill that addressed these problematic areas
- Briefing peers (members of the House of Lords) about the unintended consequences of the Bill and our suggested amendments
- Meetings with Parliamentarians, Ministers and the regulator to explain our position
- Drafting speeches for the Peers who sponsored our amendments in the House
- Working with civil society partners, including supporting joint briefings and campaigns
The response from Peers
As a result of this work we were able to ensure that our proposed amendments were debated during both the Committee and Reports stages of the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords. Ultimately, we focused on just one amendment, which was to introduce an exemption for public interest projects. Many members of the House of Lords shared our concern that access to open knowledge could be threatened if the Bill became law without such an exemption. The following quotes are all taken from the formal Parliamentary record:
Baroness Harding (Conservative): “There is unanimity of desire here to make sure that organisations such as Wikipedia and Streetmap are not captured.”
Baroness Kidron (Crossbench, Chair of the 5Rights Foundation): “I too am concerned at the answer that has been given. I can see the headline now, “Online Safety Bill Age-Gates Wikipedia”…there are some services that are inherently in a child’s best interests”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour, frontbench): “Why is it that we are still worried about Wikipedia, a service for public good, which clearly has risks in it…but is definitely a good thing that should not be threatened by having to conform with a structure and a system which we think is capable of dealing with some of the biggest and most egregious companies that are pushing stuff at us in the way that we have talked about?”
Lord Clement-Jones (Lib Dem, Spokesperson for Digital Economy): “All of us are Wikipedia users; we all value the service. I particularly appreciated what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: Wikipedia does not push its content at us—it is not algorithmically based.”
Baroness Stowell (Conservative, frontbench): “I have been very much persuaded by the various correspondence that I have received, which often uses Wikipedia as the example to illustrate the problem…(we must make sure) that there is a way of appropriately excluding organisations that should not be subject to these various regulations because they are not designed for them.”
The Open Letter
In June 2023 we also launched an open letter inviting knowledge institutions, Wikimedians, civil society and concerned members of the public to join us in calling on the UK Government and Parliament to exempt public interest projects from the Bill. The initial coalition of signatories included the Arcadia Foundation (one of the largest funders of open access world-wide), Creative Commons, Liberty (the UK’s foremost charity for human rights and civil liberties), Open Rights Group and The Heritage Alliance (England’s national umbrella body for heritage), among many others, with additional signatures added by over 800 individuals and organisations. You can read the open letter and see the signatories here.
The Act is passed, and the work on implementation begins
Unfortunately, despite cross party support for some sort of exemption from the Bill for public interest projects, there was no softening of position from the government and the Act became law in October 2023, without any consideration for charities, educational or public interest projects. After this, the regulator Ofcom started developing and introducing secondary legislation to enforce the Act and in December 2024 the categorisation thresholds were published. Sadly, despite the many verbal assurances to the contrary, once the proposed thresholds were published it became clear that Wikipedia could be treated as a Category 1 service, and subject to the most stringent requirements of the Act which are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia’s community-led model of content generation, curation and governance.
The Motion to Regret the Regulations is won
Working quickly before the Regulations were debated in the House of Lords, it was agreed with our colleagues at the Wikimedia Foundation that Wikimedia UK should write to a number of peers to highlight Wikimedia’s concerns, with Lord Clement-Jones subsequently tabling a ‘motion to regret’ in which he called on the Government ‘to withdraw the Regulations and establish a revised definition of Category 1 services. Introducing the motion, Lord Clement-Jones highlighted the importance of protecting Wikipedia: “Many sites with over 7 million users a month – including Wikipedia, a vital source of open knowledge and information in the UK – might be treated as a category 1 service, regardless of actual safety considerations….This makes it doubly important for the Government and Ofcom to examine, and make use of, powers to more appropriately tailor the scope and reach of the Act and the categorisations, to ensure that the UK does not put low-risk, low-resource, socially beneficial platforms in untenable positions.” Conservative peer Lord Moylan added, “I come back to the same question that I have been asking to no real effect now for two years. Perhaps when she comes to reply, the Minister can give me a definitive answer. Is Wikipedia in scope of this regulation? Is it covered by Section 3 or not? We would like to know.”
Lord Clement-Jones won the motion against the government by 86 to 55 votes. However a “motion to regret” is not legally binding, and despite heavy criticism from within and outside of Parliament – including from child safety organisations – the Categorisation Regulations became law on 26th February 2025.
The legal challenge
If enforced on Wikipedia, Category 1 demands would undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia, one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods. Given the seriousness of the threat posed by Category 1 status, in May 2025 the Wikimedia Foundation announced that it was challenging the lawfulness of the OSA’s Categorisation Regulations, arguing that the regulations endanger Wikipedia and the global community of volunteer contributors who create the information on the site. The case was heard in the UK’s High Court in July, and was dismissed on 11th August.
While this decision did not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that were hoped for, the Court’s ruling emphasised the responsibility of Ofcom and the government to ensure Wikipedia is protected; acknowledging 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 volunteer contributors. The Court stressed that this ruling “does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State 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.
The current situation and next steps
In November 2025, Ofcom published an update on the implementation of the Online Safety Act, noting the legal challenge to the Government’s secondary legislation setting the categorisation thresholds. Having considered the implications of the judgment, Ofcom has adjusted their plans for the categorisation register and the consultation on the additional duties that will apply to categorised services. There is a “representations process” planned for early 2026, giving services that Ofcom believe meet the threshold conditions an opportunity to comment on provisional decisions before the register is finalised. It’s worth noting that regardless of the secondary legislation passed, it is in the gift of both Ofcom and the Secretary of State to exercise their burden reduction powers under the Act, allowing low risk platforms such as Wikipedia to focus on ensuring every single person on the planet – including those living in the UK – has free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
Personal reflections
Having worked on this issue since 2019, I believe that the value of Wikipedia and other public interest projects to UK society must be recognised and protected in law, not subject to shifts in the political agendas of future governments and regulators. The central paradigm of the UK Online Safety Act is that people are kept safe by denial of access to harmful content. But the notion of what is harmful is neither globally homogenous, nor apolitical. The current UK government may be most concerned about limiting access to pornography, and protecting children from sites that promote self-harm. But it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to see future governments shifting the focus to “public order offences” or using the law to impose similarly repressive tactics which would be detrimental to free expression and civic life. We need to take a more holistic approach to user and societal wellbeing, with adequate safeguards for human rights and an emphasis on empowering people with the media and information literacy skills to become active curators of the knowledge they seek out, not passive consumers of information with no regard to the agenda or ideology of their sources.