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.

The post Wikimedia UK and the Online Safety Act: A deep dive into the story so far appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Update: On Monday 11 August, the UK High Court dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation’s legal challenge of the Online Safety Act’s categorisation thresholds, which could see Wikipedia designated as a category 1 service.

Whilst this could be interpreted as a step backwards for free expression, privacy rights, and open access to knowledge, it’s clear that the judge recognised the value of Wikipedia and the need to protect public interest websites from the most damaging requirements of the law.

Our entire community in the UK remains firm in our commitment to keep Wikipedia open, accessible, and free. We will continue to advocate for a regulatory framework that recognises public interest knowledge platforms as distinct and vital contributors to democracy and free expression.

You can read the Wikimedia Foundation’s full statement here.

Potential legal challenge of the UK Online Safety Act Categorisation Regulations by the Wikimedia Foundation

8 May 2025 – Wikimedia UK is not a party to this claim as we are not the legal hosts of Wikipedia.

Wikimedia UK is an independent charity based in the UK. As the national chapter for the global Wikimedia movement, we are committed to open knowledge and free access to information. Wikimedia Foundation is a key funder of our work. We also receive project-based funding from other organisations such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Big Lottery Fund and Swire Charitable Trust in the UK, as well as donations from individuals. 

As an independent educational charity, Wikimedia UK has been an active advocate for public interest projects like Wikipedia to be exempt from the UK Online Safety Act. We have participated in a wide number of consultations, debates, discussions with ministers, parliamentarians, civil servants, academics, educationalists, child rights organisations, the regulator and those working to promote free expression to express our concerns about the Online Safety Act and its implications for access to information in the UK. We have clearly articulated our view that Wikipedia should not be subject to the most onerous requirements of the UK’s regulatory framework for online safety, which has been designed principally for profit-making, algorithmically driven social media platforms. 

We share Wikimedia Foundation’s concerns about the recently announced categorisation thresholds for the Online Safety Act, and their implications for Wikipedia.

You can read the Wikimedia Foundation’s blog post on their legal challenge here. Media enquiries can be directed to press@wikimedia.org at the Wikimedia Foundation.

The post Wikimedia UK Statement: Online Safety Act Categorisation Regulations appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

The policy document proposes that cultural heritage organisations and funding bodies come together to pursue a critical goal: the development of an inclusive, unified, accessible, interoperable and sustainable UK digital collection. It has been developed through extensive consultation across sector organisations, funders, large collection institutions and the programme’s research teams. In total 50 organisations contributed their knowledge and expertise, of which Wikimedia UK was one.

The researchers are part of the Towards a National Collection (TaNC) programme, which is a five-year, £18.9 million UK-wide research and development programme. It’s funded through the UK Research and Innovation’s Strategic Priorities Fund and delivered by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The programme was set up to explore ways of connecting separate collections, dissolving barriers and unifying data in a digital network across the UK’s museums, galleries, libraries and archives. A key objective of the programme has been to inform the future of UK digital collection development through a series of policy recommendations aimed at decision-makers and funders.

Daria Cybulska, Director of Programmes and Evaluation at Wikimedia UK says:

“Wikimedia UK collaborates with the heritage sector in the UK to facilitate their engagement with linked open data (Wikidata especially), and so we were pleased to be able to contribute to the TaNC programme over its lifecycle. It is encouraging to see the emphasis on open data standards in the policy recommendations. It is indeed through open knowledge that we can realise the programme’s ambition of dissolving barriers between separate collections. An open approach also means that agency is given to potential users of the linked collection, fostering a democratic model of knowledge consumption and creation. We look forward to supporting the implementation of the recommendations.”

Towards a National Collection Policy Recommendations

The call to action consists of ten recommendations to build a UK digital collection. They are supported by case studies and sample training materials, plus an appendix with information on all of the research that has been grant-funded or commissioned by the Towards a National Collection programme.

1. Selection – how to select materials from which to build digital collections
2. Production – how to make the data for a UK digital collection
3. Skills – the skills we have and the skills we need for a UK digital collection
4. Reuse and rights management – how to create sharable collections data
5. Access and engagement – how to make data accessible to everyone
6. Security – how to protect our collections from harm
7. Preservation – how to ensure digital collections survive change
8. Impact – how to understand the usage of digital collections
9. Models and frameworks – how to help digital collections evolve
10. Experimentation – research, development and innovation for digital collections

English and Welsh language versions of the Unlocking the potential of digital collections – a call to action are published under an open Creative Commons licence. If you would like to order free print copies for yourself and your organisation, please contact: sophie.dietrich@hes.scot.

The post Unlocking the potential of digital collections – a call to action appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Across the UK people are working to change things for the better. Campaigners, activists, and changemakers of all types are stepping up to address injustices, improve conditions in their communities, and draw attention to neglected issues. From the Post Office Horizon scandal, housing issues such as mouldy homes, and fighting the closure of local libraries, changemakers are grafting away on many vital issues, and are often at the forefront of holding those in power to account. 

Change is possible, but it is not easy work. It requires extraordinary courage, resilience and persistence. Changemaking is made tougher still because of the lack of good quality, freely available knowledge on how to go about it. From our many years of working with changemakers we know that it can be a struggle to know where to start. Today, we launch a toolkit to address these challenges and support those at the forefront of making change happen.

Through this unique collaboration, SMK and Wikimedia UK are committed to making knowledge open and freely available so it can help people campaign effectively. That’s why we’ve launched the Changemaker’s Toolkit, a free online training resource for campaigners, activists, and changemakers.  

The three introductory modules; Introduction to changemaking, Analysing the problem and planning for Change, and Communicating for Change, will enable you to develop your understanding of campaigning and changemaking, providing the  tools to allow you to reflect and plan. Our aim is to support you to campaign more confidently straight away, and to provide a framework to build your knowledge in the future. 

The Toolkit is based on SMK’s Campaign Carousel which draws on nearly two decades of experience training hundreds of campaigners and activists. 

‘SMK’s Campaign Carousel is a cutting-edge training programme shaped by expert campaigners. We provide practical tools and approaches that allow new campaigners to hit the ground running. Our training supports these new campaigners to make powerful, impactful change by giving them the guidance they need across all of the different aspects of campaigning. From social media, to understanding social change, to working with the legal system, and much more- our Campaign Carousel supports campaigners to become powerful forces for change.’ – Kathleen Christie, Head of Programmes, SMK

At Wikimedia UK we pride ourselves on being experts on knowledge equity, committed to the ideal of a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. With thousands of contributors to open knowledge through Wikipedia and its sister projects, we have a network of supporters who will benefit from a better understanding on how to campaign on the wide variety of issues that are important to them.

‘Within the Wikimedia movement sits a great potential for making change in the world, across a huge range of societal issues: misinformation, shrinking civic space, decolonisation and knowledge equity. Members of the Wikimedia movement are, or have the capacity and aptitude to become changemakers  if supported with the right tools and knowledge. This project brings together two communities – Wikimedians and changemakers – so they can benefit from each other’s expertise. Wikimedians get access to social change knowledge to increase their effectiveness, SMK is able to support changemakers with the tools, knowledge, and confidence to work effectively and create change.’ Daria Cybulska, Director of Programmes and Evaluation

The overlapping interests between our organisations are clear, and we’re grateful for Wikimedia Foundation’s grant to help make  a long-standing ambition a reality. It’s a modest start, but an important one and a foundation we intend to build on.

‘Working with Wikimedia UK on these new resources has been a fantastic experience and fascinating to combine our different perspectives on social change and develop this Toolkit. It’s never been more important to find new ways to support those who are working to create change in our communities, and we are thrilled to share our tools and approaches with a wider audience. It’s the first step towards a long-held ambition for SMK.’ Shaan Sangha, Knowledge and Insight Manager, SMK

The ambition is to add to the Toolkit over time, providing changemakers with a comprehensive library of free campaigning resources. We’d love your feedback on how the Toolkit works for you and what else you would like to see added. You can email us at volunteering@wikimedia.org.uk

Further information

The Changemakers Toolkit includes:

Introduction to Changemaking – Provides an introduction to how change happens and the many routes through which campaigning and activism can have an impact. Covers foundational tools including the Social Change Grid, 12 habits, and introduces the topic of social power.

Analysing the Problem and Planning for change – Digs further into how to understand the problem you want to address and your solution, using the Problem Tree tool. Introduces approaches to planning campaigns, and identifying your allies and people you need to influence.

Communication for Change – How to achieve an impact with your communications by understanding who you’re speaking to, what you need to say to connect with them, and how you can reach them.

There is a version tailored for Wikimedians available on metawiki. Modules are Introduction to changemaking, Analysing the Problem and Planning for Change, and Communicating for Change. 

Rob Abercrombie, Deputy Chief Executive, SMK

Daria Cybulska, Director of Programmes and Evaluation, Wikimedia UK

The post Announcing the Changemakers’ Toolkit: your go-to, free training resource for campaigners, activists, and changemakers of all kinds appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Aim of the session

Wikimedia UK works on a three year strategic planning cycle, and we are now developing our new strategy for 2022 to 2025. I gave a brief overview of the process that the organisation is currently engaged in and what’s happened so far. Our schedule is aligned with our application deadline for funding from the Wikimedia Foundation, for which we’ll be applying for multi-year funding for the first time.

Introductions

As part of the introductions, everyone shared their aspirations for the meeting, with key themes being to make connections, understand Wikimedia UK’s priorities and engage with the wider community. The meeting was also another opportunity (following our AGM in July) to introduce our new Chair of Trustees, Monisha Shah. Monisha shared a little of her own background, and why access to knowledge is so important to her. She explained that she has a portfolio career focused on board roles within the arts, culture and media sectors, following high level roles at the BBC. Monisha emphasised her interest in hearing from the community. She noted that she is not active on social media but that volunteers were welcome to contact her via LinkedIn or the Wikimedia UK team. 

Blue Sky Thinking

After this introduction, we split into three breakout groups to finish the statement “wouldn’t it be fantastic if…” for what we’d like Wikimedia UK to achieve in the next three years. This generated lots of great ideas and objectives which coalesced into some key themes, as follows:

EQUITY

A high proportion of responses to the prompt question above were focused on equitable participation and representation. This ranged from diversifying the UK’s editors, administrators and membership, through to working with small language Wikipedias, delivering diaspora outreach, and supporting initiatives to repatriate knowledge as a form of decolonisation.  

CLIMATE

There were several responses focused on the climate crisis, with an aspiration for us to be able to offer wide-ranging and trusted information about the climate crisis across multiple languages. There was a question over whether Wikimedia UK should be applying pressure on the government regarding the crisis. On a practical level, it was felt that in the first instance Wikimedia UK needs to identify what we can do to support editors documenting and sharing information about climate change (including those involved with WikiProject Climate Change)

OPEN KNOWLEDGE

Many responses to the prompt statement “wouldn’t it be fantastic if” involved the opening up of knowledge and information. Under this general umbrella was an aspiration that all publicly funded institutions should commit to ethical open access as their default position; and that we are able to address copyright law to ensure that publicly funded research has to be made available under an open licence. Other responses included more partnerships with heritage organisations, local history initiatives and archives; more Wikimedians in Residence; and more work with diverse communities and collections. A number of responses were specifically about images – such as every notable structure in the UK having a photo and Wikidata item, and working with external partners to ensure an image for every UK article. 

EDUCATION

It’s clear that the Wikimedia UK community remains deeply concerned about misinformation and disinformation. There is a strong commitment to helping young people understand how knowledge is created and shared, and develop information literacy skills. There is also a clear ambition to have an impact on the school curriculum – particularly in England (following our success in Wales) – and to have more residencies in Universities. 

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND AWARENESS

A number of responses were focused on the public’s understanding of Wikimedia. In particular, it was felt that there needs to be more understanding that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, and greater awareness and use of the sister projects, such as Wikisource. It was noted that Wikimedia UK should have sufficient technical development capacity to be actively contributing to MediaWiki development for Wikimedia’s sister projects. The perennial issue of the distinction between Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation was also raised.

COMMUNITY/MOVEMENT

Two out of the three breakout groups identified an objective to diversify Wikimedia UK’s funding base so as to be less reliant on our core grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. It was also suggested that the role of affiliates will be under more scrutiny with the creation of the Movement Charter and Global Council; and that within that context, Wikimedia UK needs to be clear about its purpose and relevance. Other comments were more focused on community engagement, with a number of responses around a theme of developing closer relationships between the affiliate and online communities, and enabling people who engage with our programmes to become more involved with the work of the organisation, contributing to the movement in broader ways.

Emerging Strategic Themes

After this very productive session, I introduced participants to the key themes which have emerged from the board and staff away days held earlier in the autumn. Once these are finalised, they will form the basis of our programme development and delivery over the next three years:

• Knowledge Equity
• Information Literacy
• Climate Crisis

A number of other areas have been identified, which we believe are essential to delivering an effective programme. These are still in draft form, but include community, advocacy, communications, equity, diversity and inclusion, and organisational resilience and sustainability.

It was encouraging to see the extent of the overlap between the themes that emerged from the board and staff away days, and the priorities identified through this community session. 

Engaging Volunteers

At this point I handed over to Daria Cybulska, Wikimedia UK’s Director of Programmes and Evaluation, to lead the final session of the meeting. This was focused explicitly on community, and asked participants to respond to the following questions, in a plenary discussion:

1. As a community member, where do you see an opportunity to get involved in the emerging strategy, and what would you need from WMUK to support that?
2. How could the Wikimedia UK community deliver the ideas generated so far?

These prompted a wide range of responses, contributions and further questions. I’ve summarised the key discussion areas below, all of which have given the team food for thought in terms of volunteer engagement and support:

• Do we have communities of interest or communities of place? Do volunteers see themselves as aligned with a particular project – e.g. English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons – or the chapter? And does this matter?
• People’s journey into Wikipedia is often through competitions such as Wiki Loves Monuments. How can we use this knowledge to galvanise more participation? Other entry points are vandalism and correcting typos. How can we use this knowledge to support editor recruitment? There’s something important about small, accessible tasks as a way to start. It could be correcting typos, or adding categories and references to articles.
• This led to an interesting discussion about the use of the word ‘editathon’ which might suggest something that’s a slog, requiring stamina and discipline. Should we change the language to focus more on words like workshops, training, introductory sessions etc. It was noted that increasingly, work lists for online editing events have tasks across a broad range of activities, reflecting different levels of digital confidence and time constraints.

Wrapping up and next steps

I wrapped up the session by explaining that I would be sharing the draft strategic framework for 2022 – 2025 later this month (November) and welcome feedback on it. Please watch this space for that! And thanks again to everyone who attended. It was wonderful to see people (even if it was over Zoom) and to hear from our community about what’s important to them in the creation of Wikimedia UK’s next three year strategy. 

The post Talking strategy with Wikimedia UK’s community appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

By John Lubbock, Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

There are currently 1144 admins on the English language Wikipedia, of whom 501 are active as editors, though not all of those do a lot of admin-specific tasks. When you talk to people who have worked as admins on Wikipedia, they usually tell you that back in the early days of Wikipedia, a lot of people became admins quite easily, but that after spring 2008, it became a lot harder to become one.

What exactly do admins do? Well, according to the Wikipedia page about them, “Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. These include the ability to block and unblock user accounts, IP addresses, and IP ranges from editing, edit fully protected pages, protect and unprotect pages from editing, delete and undelete pages, rename pages without restriction, and use certain other tools.”

User:WereSpielChequers has done some excellent analysis of the number of new admins being created on English Wikipedia, and the number of new admins has been in almost uninterrupted decline from early 2008 for over a decade. In an essay about the process of Requests for Adminship (RfA), WereSpielChequers says that it “is widely but not universally considered to be broken for various reasons.” but he also says “And yet, the great majority of those few who do pass do so almost unanimously.”

One issue of concern seems to be whether at some point there will simply not be enough admins to do all of the work necessary on the site, leading to a potential crisis. Another issue according to WereSpielChequers is that it creates a generational divide “between an active editing community – many of whom have been with us for less than two years and a large majority for less than four – and an admin community, none of whom have been here less than a year, fewer than 1% have been editing for one to two years and the vast majority have been editing for more than five years.”

I interviewed administrator User:WormThatTurned about how you become an admin and whether the process is currently too hard:

“Administrators on the English Wikipedia are promoted after a process called “Request for Adminship”. That generally either starts with a nomination from a long standing editor or a self-nomination, and answering three simple questions, which are roughly “Why do you want to be an admin, what’s your best work and what’s gone wrong for you on wikipedia?”. After that, the page is transcluded onto the requests page, and a week long process of scrutiny begins.

“Unfortunately, the community has very high standards for administrators.They require thousands (generally tens of thousands) of edits, and years of tenure. In addition, they look for evidence of article creation and evidence that the nominee has some idea what they’re getting themselves in for (that might be looking at why they need the tools, or how they’ve handled conflict in the past). I’ve written up a “Magic Formula” on how to become an admin, but it’s really not a simple task.

“The scrutiny period does involve many users taking a deep dive into your history, as well as any individuals who have previously had disagreements with you emerging to have a say. In addition, how you handle yourself during the process is taken into account. The entire process is so stressful that it is often referred to as “the gauntlet”, and while many users pass through with little or no comment, many others have a very hard time there.

“As to whether I feel the process is insufficient, well, yes. Editors who are eligible will regularly refuse to run, because they are fearful of the unpleasant experience that they will have to go through, and the benefits are small. Personally, I believe that the difficulty in removing administrators leads people to have higher standards than they should and the encyclopedia needs to go through the pain of not having enough admins for a bit to lower its standards. I also feel that fixed term adminship (rather than “for life”) would be a massive improvement in the long run.”

User:WormThatTurned suggests that people who are interested in becoming admins check out a page he created about the process: Request an RfA Nomination.

One aspect of the RfA process which should be considered in light of discussion around the gender gap in the content of, and contributors to, Wikipedia, is that the reputation of the RfA process could put women off applying to be admins. WereSpielChequers has noted that the reputation of the process is worse than the reality, and points out that women made up a sizeable minority (8/28) of RFA candidates with over 200 supporters. It may also be true that women are more likely to be successful in applying for adminship because they tend to be overqualified at the point that they apply. Male editors may also be more likely to have red flags raised in their RfA discussions due to past behaviour which could lead to an unsuccessful application.

It’s certainly true that women make up a minority of admins on English Wikipedia, but then they also make up a minority of Wikipedia editors, so the problem with the lack of diversity in Wikipedia admins can’t really be separated from the problem of lack of diversity on the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Redesigning the whole process to encourage more editors to get involved is something that may need looking at in the future. It is certainly important to consider how the process could be improved to encourage more people from underrepresented groups to apply for adminship.

Despite the problems we have listed above, I would encourage more people to apply to be admins, and Wikimedia UK is here to support and advise you on who to talk to about doing this if you need help. Like the gender gap issue, we can only change the way that admins are created if more people get involved and help change the processes that lead to undesirable outcomes.

The post Does Wikipedia have enough administrators? appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Last week there were two  letters to The Times newspaper on the issue of copyright reform and freedom of panorama. These were published on Friday 26 June. One was signed by Michael Maggs as Wikimedia UK Chair, the was signed by several organisations supporting the protection of freedom of panorama. The letters are published below.

*****

Sir, The freedom to take a photograph in a public place, and to do you what like with your own image without having to seek permission from the building’s owner or other rights holder, has been a fundamental part of UK law for more than a century.

It has been suggested that restricting “commercial use” would be acceptable, as that would affect only professional photographers and film makers, but that is not the case. Any private individual who uploads personal photographs to a social media website will be affected, as most sites require users to warrant that their uploads do not not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. Anybody using social media to share even private photographs that include a modern building or streetscape within the view will be at significant legal risk.

Before this recent negative proposal, Julia Reda, MEP, had sought to persuade the European Parliament to retain existing freedom of panorama, and to extend it to those European countries that do not currently enjoy those rights. Her original proposal is to be applauded and should be restored.

Michael Maggs
Chairman, Wikimedia UK

*****

Sir, We agree that moves to restrict the freedom to photograph buildings and artworks in public places, currently permitted under section 62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, should give rise to the greatest concern (leader, June 24).

If such a measure is adopted in the future, most websites and most photographers would instantly become copyright infringers with any photo of any public space which features at least one structure designed by a person that is either alive, or died fewer than 70 years ago.

The prohibition would dramatically affect the way we share knowledge, culture and current events, as well as our everyday lives. Tourists would not be able to promote our country with their photographs on commercial websites such as Facebook or Flickr; Wikipedia, which is designed to be free for any use, would not be able to describe our landmarks; and professional photographers would need to contact dozens of rightsholders for any photo they shoot in public spaces, spending more money on paperwork than they can possibly earn with the outcome. Even blogs which have advertising would be affected.

We urge all UK MEPs to vote not to let the current paragraph 16 go through unamended during the vote in the plenary session in Strasbourg on July 9, and to defend our right to make and use photos of public spaces.

Paul Herrmann, chairman, British Photographic Council; Jeff Moore, chairman, British Press Photographers’ Association; Denise Swanson, British Institute of Professional Photographers; Jimmy Wales, founder, Wikipedia; Nigel Atherton, editor, Amateur Photographer; Stewart Gibson, Bureau of Freelance Photographers; Dominic Cooper, general secretary, Chartered Institute of Journalists; Alastair McCapra, chief executive, Chartered Institute of Public Relations; Jim Killock, executive director, Open Rights Group

The post The Freedom to Photograph must be upheld – letters to The Times appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

Every day, millions of Europeans are breaking copyright law. Due to an obscure rule known as Freedom of Panorama, those innocent snapshots of modern buildings you’ve taken in countries such as France and Belgium are breaches of copyright. While the UK has this freedom, we are at risk of losing it in the ongoing copyright reform negotiations taking place in the European Parliament.

A report on copyright reform by Julia Reda MEP is attempting to harmonise EU copyright laws and to introduce UK-style freedom of panorama across the EU. In a statement in favour of common sense, the report calls for the Parliament to: “ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places are permitted.”

However, there are a number of MEPs attempting to introduce a non-commercial clause into the freedom of panorama rules which would mean that freedom of panorama is useless. In some cases it would mean that posting your holiday snaps on Facebook or using them to illustrate Wikipedia articles is illegal.

“Many of us have cameras and computers built into our phones,” said Michael Maggs, Chair of Wikimedia UK. “Digital photography and technological improvements make it easy to share our images online. This non-commercial exception to freedom of panorama not only prevents Europeans from sharing their content, it removes existing freedoms from UK citizens.”

In the UK and other countries, such as Germany, the right of freedom of panorama is protected, so those photos you’ve taken in public spaces are fine. But other countries such as tourist hotspots France and Greece, do not have an equivalent right. There, any unapproved photograph of a modern public building is an automatic infringement of the architect’s copyright in the building design. Taking and uploading your own photos of those buildings is unlawful unless approved in writing by the copyright holder.

It becomes even stranger in some cases. For example, you can share a photo of the Eiffel Tower because of its age – but only if it is taken during the day. If the photo is at night, the lighting is considered a separate installation and falls foul of Freedom of Panorama.

Worryingly, it’s not just holiday snaps where this becomes an issue. Wikipedia, a website many of us use every day, cannot even use these images for free educational purposes.

“The problem we have today is that many Wikipedia articles about buildings and monuments cannot be appropriately illustrated when the structure is located in a country without Freedom of Panorama,” Maggs said. “It’s important that the European Parliament takes care of freedom of panorama. We support the very long-standing right of UK citizens and visitors to these shores to take photographs of buildings in public places and to do what they want with their own photos without having to seek permission from any third party commercial rights holder.”

The current European Parliament review of copyright is ongoing, with reforms expected to follow soon.

The post UK at risk of losing Freedom of Panorama appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

This post was written by Stevie Benton, Head of External Relations

This morning I attended the launch of Open Up! – Report of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy. Having been involved in the work of the Commission I was very interested to hear its recommendations.

The report is a substantial document (PDF) which I need to read in more detail, but there are five key targets and recommendations highlighted in the summary (P3 of the report). Some of these appear to be significant wins for the open knowledge movement. These are quoted below:

• By 2020, the House of Commons should ensure that everyone can understand what it does
• By 2020, Parliament should be fully interactive and digital
• The 2015 newly elected House of Commons should create immediately a new forum for public participation in the debating function of the House of Commons
• By 2020 secure online voting should be an option for all voters
• By 2016 all published information and broadcast footage produced by Parliament should be freely available online in formats suitable for re-use. Hansard should be available as open data by the end of 2015.

It is the final recommendation that is of most interest here, and I’ll address this first. I very much welcome this step to make more of Parliament’s information freely available, especially as this is already paid for from the public purse, although the choice of open license is crucial to the impact this move will have. I encourage Parliament to use the most open license possible. For example, the use of the Open Government Licence would allow for footage of parliamentary debates to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted into appropriate Wikipedia articles. I find this quite exciting and it would enhance Wikipedia as a learning and teaching tool for those interested in Parliament.

The other key recommendation I find particularly noteworthy is the third, the new forum for debate which is tentatively dubbed the “Cyber Chamber”. This is to be created as soon as the 2015-16 session of Parliament opens and will provide the public with opportunities to digitally participate in debates that take place at Westminster Hall. If this experiment is successful, the scheme will extend to include debates in both Houses. If Parliament can find a way to make this workable, with a high “signal to noise” ratio it could be an effective way of increasing engagement between the electorate and those they elect.

Among the other recommendations from the full report there are proposals to simplify parliamentary language (recommendation 4 in the report) and, to my mind more importantly, an encouragement to the Department of Education to improve the provision of political education within schools using digital means (recommendation 3).

The key test will be to see how these recommendations are implemented but so far, the signs are very promising. The desire of Parliament to move the digital democracy agenda onward is laudable and could lead to great progress.

I would be very interested to know what others think of the report so please do share your thoughts, either as comments here or via email – stevie.benton(at)wikimedia.org.uk

The post Report from the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy appeared first on Wikimedia UK.

The UK’s Intellectual Property Office last week announced the launch of a new orphan works licensing scheme.

This allows individuals and institutions wishing to use a work of intellectual property where the rights holder cannot be identified to apply for a licence from the IPO. Licences are awarded where the IPO is satisfied that the applicant conducted a “diligent” search for the rights holder, and they have paid a licensing and administration fee.

This scheme brings forward little that is new. The rule allowing re-use after diligent search has been part of copyright law in the UK for many years. The primary purpose of the new licences seems to be to provide greater certainty to re-users that the searches they have undertaken are sufficiently extensive to guarantee legal protection should the copyright owner come forward.

Searches have to be exceptionally comprehensive before the Intellectual Property Office will certify them as ‘diligent’ and although there are new guidelines which will provide greater clarity for cultural institutions, the imposition of an official fee is concerning.

Even with this new scheme in place orphan works can still not be easily used by the Wikimedia projects and the volunteers who write and curate them.

A real solution to the orphan works problem must await a more radical approach that goes beyond both this and the existing EU Orphan Works Directive.

We believe that this should be addressed as part of a more far-reaching review of copyright as a whole, at a national and European level. For example, a simple reduction in copyright terms would instantly make many works which are currently orphaned available for reuse.

You can see the recent Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU position paper on copyright reform – of which we are a signatory – here.

The post Response to the new IPO orphan works licensing scheme appeared first on Wikimedia UK.