Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

bbc.com

51–60 of 887 posts

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#51
post #44
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the age of AI chatbots having consumed all of Wikipedia, its relevance has waned. So I don't think they have the same pull as they did before.

In the recent ChatGPT 5 launch presentation, ChatGPT 5 answered a question about how airplane wings produce uplift incorrectly, despite the corresponding Wikipedia page providing the correct explanation and pointing out ChatGPT’s explanation as a common misconception. AI chatbots are only capable of outputting “vibe knowledge”.

What is this corresponding Wikipedia page?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did do that once, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3477966 ( "Wikipedia blackout page (wikipedia.org)" (2012)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative

Yet this looks nothing like their reaction to SOPA and PIPA. They even explicitly state that Wikimedia is not against the legislation on the whole. > The Wikimedia Foundation shares the UK government’s commitment to promoting online environments where everyone can safely participate. The organization is not bringing a general challenge to the OSA as a whole, nor to the existence of the Category 1 duties themselves. R…

The old generation of idealists grew up and we raised no one to replace them. I know because I'm in that emotionally and ideologically stunted generation.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite having consumed all of Wikipedia, it still can't accurately answer many questions so I don't think it's relevance or value has waned. AI has not got anywhere near becoming an encyclopedia and it never will whilst it can't say I don't know something (which Wikipedia can do) and filter the fact from the fiction, which Wikipedia does uses volunteers.

Doesn't AI essentially use the concept of volunteers as well with RLHF?

Good point, it's similar to some extent. Although clearly the quality of the work that the people doing RLHF on the major LLMs is rather low in comparison with those volunteering at Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#54
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone in the UK: Ofcom is a censor, that by leaving these things unclear are further having a massive chilling effect that is absolutely already being felt. The issue here is not parental oversight. It's the massively overly broad assault on speech. The UK PAYG block is a good example of a solution that would have had far less severe impact if extended.

Pretty sure the PAYG block is circumvented by simply changing the APN in the carrier settings using freely available information online - that's how 3Ireland works and VodafoneIRL IIRC. It also had the annoying consequence of blocking all 'adult' sites - which included sites of historic interest and things like the internet archive. The problem with 'child safety' in the UK has almost nothing to do with pornographers…

Normalizing those mosquito devices and trying to drive teenagers out of public life, banning kitchen knives in some attempt to keep kids from getting used to blades...

the UK strategy on kids is very very strange to me. I can't follow the logic at all. Do they expect them to silently sit at home, not using the Internet, not going anywhere with friends, and end up well adjusted adults anyway?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#55
post #48
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought people here didn’t like when American companies tried to strongarm democratic governments abroad?

Not to dismiss bee_rider's sibling comment, like at all , but: Wikimedia's nature and purpose might be distinguished from your generic "American" tech "company".

one of the good ones right

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#56

> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. S…

> Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors.

No, it should remove servers, employees and legal presence from the UK. It's not their job to block UK people from accessing it just because the UK regime want them to. Let the regime censors actually put an effort to block them. Let them make a Great Firewall of the UK, why make it easy for them?

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#57
post #4

More HN comments here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44721403 ( "Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations (wikimediafoundation.org)" —189 comments)

Worth noting that was before the High Court's further judgments today, and the article has been updated. The full judgment is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...

To me, that judgment reads like a fairly strong warning to Ofcom. The outcome section makes it clear that although the request for judicial review has been refused at present, that refusal is predicated on the fact that Ofcom has currently not ruled that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service. If Ofcom were to rule that Wikipedia is a C1 service, the Wikimedia foundation would have grounds to request a review again -- and, between the lines, that request might well succeed.

So, is Wikipedia really a Category 1 service? From https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2025/9780348267174, it seems to come down to whether Wikipedia is a site which uses a "content recommender system", where that term is defined as:

> a system, used by the provider of a regulated user-to-user service in respect of the user-to-user part of that service, that uses algorithms which by means of machine learning or other techniques determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service

There's plenty of flexibility in that definition for Ofcom to interpret "content recommender system" in a way that catches Facebook without catching Wikipedia. For instance, Ofcom could simply take the viewpoint that any content recommendation that Wikipedia engages in is not "in respect of the user-to-user part of that service."

After today's judgement, and perhaps even before, my own bet is that this is exactly the route Ofcom will take.

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#58
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the recent ChatGPT 5 launch presentation, ChatGPT 5 answered a question about how airplane wings produce uplift incorrectly, despite the corresponding Wikipedia page providing the correct explanation and pointing out ChatGPT’s explanation as a common misconception. AI chatbots are only capable of outputting “vibe knowledge”.

What is this corresponding Wikipedia page?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

Under the Misconceptions header

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#59
Just leaving this here, in case things really start going south and people realize they need to stack up on knowledge supplies (note: I am not affiliated with them, I just think that Wikipedia, among other resources, is too valuable to let it fall through the cracks):

> When there is No Internet, there is Kiwix Access vital information anywhere. Use our apps for offline reading on the go or the Hotspot in every place you want to call home. Ideal for remote areas, emergencies, or independent knowledge access.

https://kiwix.org/en/

Re: Wikipedia loses challenge against Online Safety Act

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking. It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation. It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control. It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b... But it operates within industry as the industry's re…

Your claim that Ofcom is in any way a "self-regulation body" is untrue. And frankly also a straight-up insane thing to say, sorry. Ofcom was created by the UK government for the sole purpose of enforcing laws passed by the UK government [and sometimes interpreting those laws]. It acts on behalf of the State at all times, and is not empowered to do otherwise under any circumstances EVER. You appear to be confused abou…

While you're correct about Ofcom, the real distinction isn't really to the objective, but to the classification of its employees.

Ofcom, Gambling Commission, and the rest of the quangos are independent statutory bodies, and (this is a big distinction!) their employees are not civil servants.

Quangos include judicial tribunals and places like the BBC, or the Committee on Climate Change- it is a broad umbrella.

Post reply on HN