Judge tossed claim but said UK must not “significantly impede” Wikipedia operations.
    • Anas@lemmy.world
      2·
      16 days ago

      On the one hand, this is obviously a terrible authoritarian law and it should be repealed, but on the other hand, I’m not sure I like companies having the power or the influence to affect laws. TikTok telling its users to protest its ban in the US back in January comes to mind.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        2·
        15 days ago

        Wtf are you being downvoted, you’re absolutely right.

        The fact that people are so powerless that only corps can fight this shit is maddening.

        I’ve said it before, the UK populace has lost all privileges to make fun of Americans, they are as batshit as the trumpets here.

      • drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        15 days ago

        Wikipedia is basically a charity that gives people free knowledge. No one profits off of it. What you describe is called civil society, where interest groups attempt to convince the government to take certain actions, and (only without profit motive, in my opinion) it’s one of a few indicators of democracy.

      • curious_dolphin@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        Yes and no. Sometimes a company or organization can serve as a force for good. That said, absolutely a double edged sword. It’s not fair to expect private businesses and organizations to be held hostage by scummy legislators. At the end of the day, no one is entitled to a business’s or organization’s services, so… Don’t want to chase businesses and organizations away? Don’t pass shitty legislation.

      • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.todayEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        I would replace “companies” with “non-profits”. Cause it’s pretty clear that companies do hold that kind of power. Let me broadly gesture to the companies paying off these hack politicians to pass these laws i.e.; apple, alphabet, meta, and so on.

        • Anas@lemmy.world
          0·
          16 days ago

          If “stubborn” is what you read from my comment, I’m not sure what to tell you.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      The only rational decision, given the cost associated with a poorly defined and maliciously enforced legislative code. I wouldn’t trust the UK courts to fairly adjudicate an alleged breach of the law, particularly if Reform Party gets into office and decides to punish Wikipedia’s management for “Wokeness” or whatever.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    3·
    17 days ago

    Here’s one way to fix this that might even overturn the law. Turn off Wikipedia in the UK. Put a big banner up on the homepage that says, we have turned off Wikipedia in your country because of your government. Here’s how to use a VPN to access our content.

    Edit: Make it apologetic and conciliatory. Like, we’re sorry, we’ve had to disable Wikipedia in your region because of your government’s draconian policies. If you would like to visit our content, please use a VPN. If you need help learning to use a VPN and then link to a here’s how page

    • Tenderizer78@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      17 days ago

      It’s illegal to recommend using a VPN or teach people how to use a VPN in order to get around these age-check laws.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        17 days ago

        “It is illegal for us to recommend using services like a VPN to bypass these limits. We do recommend you ask your government why they don’t want you to know about these services or have access to free educational content”.

      • brrt@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        16 days ago

        “We do not condone using a VPN to circumvent these restrictions. To make sure you will not accidentally use a VPN we’ve decided to make our article about VPN‘s the only one available in this country.“

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        2·
        16 days ago

        The wording on ofcom is “should not” not" must not". It’s not illegal, they just don’t want people to do it and want people to think that it is illegal.

    • MrSoup@lemmy.zip
      0·
      17 days ago

      Imagine what will happen next, will they just ignore that a stupid law have broken wikipedia in the entire UK? Lol, I think at least someone would be concerned.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      16 days ago

      They can’t recommend using a VPN, but they can say “some users are illegally subverting the ban using a VPN. For more information on this subject see: [link to VPN guide].”

  • estutweh@aussie.zone
    2·
    16 days ago

    Will libraries be requiring age verification to access encyclopaedias and other non-fiction material? Because of the children, of course!

      • iglou@programming.dev
        0·
        16 days ago

        I don’t know where you live, but I have never seen a library having age verification for consulting anything.

        Only age verification was for a membership card, which is rarely mandatory to consult.

  • als@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1·
    17 days ago

    Currently I cannot edit using my VPN as that is blocked by Wikipedia, so I guess if that remains the case and they are forced to implement ID to edit articles, then I will no longer be able to contribute

      • errer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        Ironically you probably have to identify yourself to Wikipedia to get such an exception…

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          16 days ago

          I don’t know what you mean by “identify yourself”. You need an account with a trustworthy history of editing, at which point you can request the exemption.

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              16 days ago

              Correct, as it has to. In addition to behavior, CheckUsers use IP addresses to help identify sockpuppets. If you could bypass the exemption by just saying “here’s a new account; pls exempt”, it would quickly become common knowledge among sockmasters that all they need is to quickly ask and be accepted days later.

              At that point, the block on proxy editing near-completely fails at one of its main functions.

              • lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world
                1·
                14 days ago

                I’d disagree with the notion “it has to”. The chilling effect on a large number of new wiki contributors could be considered more detrimental than weakening sock puppet protection. (IE if a huge country suddenly started jailing people who make edits not considered state-approved)

                I suspect there are plenty of ways to allow new accounts to make edits on a smaller subset of articles until they have passed some threshold of trust which could minimize the sock puppet abuse.

                Point is everything is a give and take.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    0·
    16 days ago

    Coincidentally Wikipedia is the only website I can think of that I’d actually be remotely comfortable with having my identity.

    • CrowyTech@feddit.ukEnglish
      0·
      16 days ago

      Isn’t the issue that for any economical solution websites enlist 3rd parties to do the verification? It’s those (usually US) companies holding my ID that is the problem.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      16 days ago

      Then you’re not thinking like someone who lives under authoritarians. Have you never gone on a Wikipedia journey following links and ended up on “gunpowder” or “list of dictators in the 21st century” or anything else that could get you painted as a “revolutionary” and locked away?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        16 days ago

        I’m generally more annoyed at how the early enthusiasm of participation on the site has died out in the face of paranoia and moderator mania. There are so many gaps in both the modern and historical backlog of citations and categorizations. But do I want to invest dozens of hours contributing to a site where a few admins are just going to tear all my work back out again on a bureaucratic technicality?

        It is a site that’s alternatively being strangled to death by admins fearful of malicious actors and tore apart by wave after wave of sinister propagandists and hostile agents.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          16 days ago

          And yet I’m sure you read it pretty regularly, and it’s a net good in your life. It’s easy to focus on the negatives and miss what an absolute treasure it still is.

          Edit: and it seems it’s been a while since you were a young student and have forgotten what that experience is like. You know many things now, but you didn’t start that way.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            16 days ago

            I’m sure you read it pretty regularly

            I’ve found it less and less capable of keeping up with current events. Enshittification truly comes for us all.

            It’s easy to focus on the negatives and miss what an absolute treasure it still is.

            As a historical artifact and a demonstration of the potential for open-sourced editing, it’s a milestone. But we’re clearly in the twilight of the Wikipedia era.

            • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
              0·
              16 days ago

              It’s never really been all that great about current events. That’s the cost of being “neutral” and letting everything settle into hindsight. However the vast majority of human knowledge isn’t current events. Even if Wikipedia were to never get updated again it is still extremely useful.

  • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
    0·
    16 days ago

    Wikipedia will never block the UK because they value accessible information, however obstructed it may be, more.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
      1·
      15 days ago

      You mean Wikipedia will bow down to a Western government and obey their every command?

      Do you think Wikipedia would make special exceptions for China or Russia?

      • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
        0·
        15 days ago

        Retaining truthful information with obstructed access is not the same as offering redacted or altered information to a specific region.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          2·
          15 days ago

          The UK is demanding that Wikipedia redacts information for users which refuse to identify themselves, and users under 18. It’s far worse than simply not showing certain articles.