From a member of the board:
Jimbo has signed it, as has the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK.
But why on earth not? What else are they going to do with the buckets of money they collect every year. (See WP:WIKIPEDIAHASCANCER Note: This does not cover the endowment fund or the other fund, Knowledge Equity Fund )
Kind of walking in at the middle, also it’s written in UK-ese, but here is some kind of explanation: https://www.theverge.com/23708180/united-kingdom-online-safety-bill-explainer-legal-pornography-age-checks
That could put even a relatively safe and educational service like Wikipedia under pressure to ask for the ages of its users, which the Wikimedia Foundation’s Rebecca MacKinnon says would “violate [its] commitment to collect minimal data about readers and contributors.”
“The Wikimedia Foundation will not be verifying the age of UK readers or contributors,” MacKinnon wrote.
also this
“Ofcom will need to decide what services pose a high enough risk to be covered by the bill’s strictest rules and develop codes of practice for platforms to abide by, including tackling thorny issues like how to introduce age verification for pornography sites.”
So, did Wikipedia just admit to being a porn site?
~~~~
Someone posted this link: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/06/27/dont-blink-public-policy-snapshot-for-may-2023/
No TLDR, but I suppose I will read it eventually.
“The post shows the various ways in which the Foundation and, especially, the Wikimedia movement already work to offer reasonable safety to volunteers and readers.”
Wonder how Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani are doing these days.
~~~~
Oh looky, there’s an article…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_imprisoned_for_editing_Wikipedia
Gender Desk 