According to Wikipedia, the Online Safety Bill is "intended to improve internet safety" in the United Kingdom. The WMF, and many others, have a dim view of it. For more, see this issue's special report.

See prior Signpost coverage, and this issue's Section 230 report.

Media articles on the topic of the US Communication Decency Act's famous Section 230 include reactions to an anti-terrorism lawsuit, Gonzalez v. Google LLC, where plaintiffs blame YouTube for the Islamic State's 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris.

The Verge tells us: "A number of internet services – including ... the Wikimedia Foundation – filed briefs last week ... encouraging the [United States Supreme Court] not to narrow its definition of Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act]." But – as pointed out by The Verge – it also comes at a time where the Supreme Court might curtail the Section 230 in the separate NetChoice lawsuits against new state laws in Texas and Florida to restrict online moderation that is defined by these states as viewpoint discrimination. An argument against these state laws is that they essentially compel speech by online hosts such as Wikimedia – what Eugene Volokh writing in Texas Law Review calls "compelled hosting" – which is likely a First Amendment violation. We don't know yet whether it is a violation, and this is what the Supreme Court case will sort out, maybe.

Additional media coverage includes Gizmodo sorting out the views of several participants in Gonzalez, and a number of legal scholars providing opinions and analysis around Section 230 in both cases:

• The United States Supreme Court's linked list of relevant documents about Gonzalez v. Google
• The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a Cato Institute research fellow concerning Section 230 and compelled speech.
• The Cornell Law Review has an analysis that states "requiring tech companies to maintain politically neutral content moderation algorithms is a form of compelled speech and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment."
• The MIT Technology Review reported on the potential impact the Supreme Court decision could have on Reddit and Wikipedia.
• WMF's own amicus brief in Gonzalez references several Wikipedia articles, like Tiger Woods, and asks whether "the arrangement of content in a way that could (and sometimes does) highlight important controversies [is] now open season for litigation".

– B

The story of the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of sixteen administrators and editors in the Middle-East/North Africa region and the two Saudi Wikimedians, Osama Khalid and Ziyad Alsufyani, who have been jailed in a Saudi Arabian maximum-security prison since 2020 (see previous Signpost coverage) has been attracting further press attention over the past two weeks.

Democracy Now! featured an interview with DAWN executive director Sarah Leah Whitson on 17 January.

On 18 January, a number of human rights organisations (Access Now, ALQST, Article 19, Global Voices, GCHR and IFEX) published a report that called for Osama's and Ziyad's release and also included a short WMF statement:

"We are saddened and deeply concerned about these arrests and the harm they have caused to the freedom and safety of Osama Khalid and Ziad Al-Sufyani. The Foundation shares a common belief with Wikimedia volunteer communities around the world that access to knowledge is a human right."

On 26/27 January, a Reuters story titled "Wikipedia Middle East editors ban shows risks for creators" was carried by outlets including the Bangkok Post, Jakarta Post, Deccan Herald, Jerusalem Post and CNBC Africa.

The report included quotes from the recent Signpost coverage as well as a statement from Raed Jarrar, DAWN's Advocacy Director, who questioned Wikimedia's "business model" which he said had created "two classes of humans" – those paid to manage Wikimedia, and the volunteers who produce and edit Wikipedia's content for free:

"The biggest question here is about Wikimedia's model of relying on volunteers who are operating in authoritarian countries, and putting them in danger, and not advocating for their release when they are in trouble."

Pat de Brún, head of artificial intelligence and big data at rights group Amnesty International, commented on the political dimension driving government interest in Wikipedia:

"A huge amount is at stake. Knowledge is power, and the power to rewrite history and do propaganda is valuable for governments who have a lot to hide and have a shameful human rights record."

– AK

A few articles have been written around the web about the allegedly uncontroversial implementation of Vector 2022. Meanwhile, an RfC regarding the update, created on January 21, has a whopping million bytes of discussion on it. The main question – whether the WMF should roll back the new skin as the default – currently stands at 289 in support, 207 in opposition, and 17 neutral. Further down the page, a side RfC on unlimited text width has 79 in support and 57 in opposition.

• "Wikipedia has spent years on a barely noticeable redesign": by Annie Rauwerda for Slate.
• "Wikipedia's first desktop design update in a decade doesn't rock the boat", Engadget
• "Wikipedia gets its first makeover in over a decade…and it’s fairly subtle", TechCrunch
• "It's not just you — Wikipedia looks different", Business Insider

– J

• Mystery billionaire didn't have a Wikipedia page: Alex Gerko, a non-oligarch Russian-born algorithmic trader, paid more taxes (£487.4 million) than anybody else in the UK this year. The lack of a Wikipedia article surprised the Mirror, but the article was created within 10 hours. An article on Gerko's firm, XTX Markets, had been created in 2018.
• The good, the bad, and the ugly: Poynter together with a PBS Newshour Student Reporting Project video teaches about the good – the solid foundations of Wikipedia's work; the bad – vandalism, the special markup language, and the difficulty of editing on a mobile device; and the ugly – hoaxes. It also gives some tips on using Wikipedia such as "explore the footnotes", and look for locks or tags at the top of the page. It gives a rating as well – "Mostly Legit". View the video here. The real good, bad and ugly are here.
• Italian TV report: An episode of Italian TV series Report, which airs on the Rai 3 channel of Italy's national broadcaster, took an hour-long critical look at Wikimedia finances as well as paid editing and POV pushing on Wikipedia. Among the interviewees featured in the programme were Ethan Zuckerman, Wil540 art, Bluerasberry, Pete Forsyth and representatives of Wikimedia Italy. Rai also posted links to WMF responses to the programme makers' questions: 1, 2. These documents are bilingual, showing the original English questions and answers followed by an Italian translation.
• Wikipedia "not completely dependable", says Supreme Court: "The Supreme Court [of India] cautioned the courts and adjudicating authorities against use of 'wikipedia' for legal dispute resolution". Fair enough.
• Quiet progress: Noam Cohen in The Atlantic writes that "The Culture Wars Look Different on Wikipedia" (paywalled).
• Is everybody skeptical?: Paranormal Daily News is skeptical about how the paranormal is covered in this encyclopedia. They believe that a secret conspiracy is working to suppress the scientific presentation of the paranormal here.
• Igbo Wikimedians: Digital safety challenges for activists preserving their language through open knowledge (Global Voices' RisingVoices blog).
• Software turns Wiki pages into videos for education: Article by EdSurge, a journalism project of the International Society for Technology in Education.
• Annie Rauwerda, again!: For the second time this month, Rauwerda's work on her Instagram account @depthsofwikipedia has been recognized by the press, this time on Bustle. For the second time this month, the article has featured a photo of my dog! – Sb
• Freely licensed oral knowledge: Peoples Gazette reports that Wikimedia User Group Nigeria and the Yoruba Wikimedians User Group donated 100 Nigerian oral histories and 20 audiovisual recordings of Yoruba Indigenous work to the Department of Linguistics and African Languages at the University of Ibadan. – AK
• Pakistan state telecom "degrades", then blocks Wikipedia access due to sacrilegious content: Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, the state telecom regulator, threatened to block Wikipedia on 1 February, as reported by TechCrunch and Daily Times. Neither these two media sources nor the PTA English language press release mentioned what was the offending material, nor how the PTA notified "Wikipedia" of its order. Bloomberg then reported on 3 February that the PTA had indeed gone ahead and blocked Wikipedia. For a more comprehensive report and a WMF statement on this development, see News and notes in this issue of The Signpost.
• Congressman edits: Controversial U.S. congressman George Santos may have edited English Wikipedia a decade before his election this past November. Reported by The New Republic in the United States, The Independent in the UK and Politico published in the U.S. with German ownership. See also the Disinformation report in this issue of The Signpost.
• Indigenous history in Wikipedia: Slate has published an article titled "How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History. Native editors are fighting back." as part of its "future tense" partnership with New America and Arizona State University. The article focuses on editing disputes around Wikipedia's coverage of early U.S. presidents, in particular Andrew Jackson, and indigenous history topics like the 1830 Indian Removal Act. – AK