AC-2025-LON-001365 - [2025] EWHC 2086 (Admin)

Mr Bradley-Schmieg explains how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia is a free, public interest, non-profit, collaboratively edited encyclopaedia that is available to anyone with access to the internet anywhere in the world, save for a small number of countries or institutions that block access. There are over 300 different language versions. It is said to be the largest and most-read reference work in history. Over 5 billion pages on the English language version of Wikipedia are viewed by users each month. That includes 789 million pages that are viewed by users in the United Kingdom. It is accessed by around 26 million people in the United Kingdom each month.

Wikipedia was founded in January 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. It is hosted by the first claimant, which provides the software for it to function as well as the necessary technical, administrative and legal infrastructure. It operates in a highly transparent and democratic manner. The underlying computer code is open-source and can be freely inspected on the internet. Its policies and guidelines are developed by its users and are, again, published. Wikipedia runs on software that enables visitors to its website to create and edit content. That in turn enables content to be modified, curated or deleted by users. The result is that with very limited exceptions (for example, removal of content required by a court order, and automatic removal of child sexual exploitation and abuse material) the content is entirely self-regulated by users.

Any user can add an article or amend an existing article. As soon as they do so, the new or amended article is (usually) instantly available to all other users, who can then, in turn, edit that new article. This also means that any one article may be the product of the work of many different users. For example, an article relating to Queen Elizabeth II has been edited over 18,000 times, and the first sentence alone is the product of edits made by 11 separate authors. Mr Bradley-Schmieg says this means that the user verification duties in the Act (under which users can choose only to encounter content from other users whose identity has been verified) are incompatible with the nature of Wikipedia as a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia. Content that has been generated by users whose identity has been verified cannot sensibly be isolated from content generated by anonymous users without rendering the service unusable: articles would, generally, not make sense.

The community of users sets the principles and policies that are applied to content on Wikipedia. They include neutrality of viewpoint and an obligation to provide references to reliable and publicly verifiable sources. If a user does not comply with Wikipedia’s principles and policies, then their edits are likely to be deleted by other users. This process of user-moderation works. Content that does not comply with Wikipedia’s principles and policies is rapidly removed. An independent study has shown that the median time for such content to be taken down is just 61 seconds. Harmful content is not typically encountered. In 2024, the first claimant received 664 requests to take down material (across all of its projects, not just Wikipedia), and it was required to do so in only 4 cases. By contrast, TikTok received 375,899 reports of illegal content in the same period and removed 63,723 items.

Mr Bradley-Schmieg explains that Wikipedia is different from large social media companies in respect of its legal governance (as a non-profit charity), its (lack of a) business model, the fact that its users typically only encounter content that they seek out, the first claimant’s very limited role in moderation, and (partly as a result of those features) its low risk profile. Ofcom’s research indicates that of users who experienced online harm, 56% was due to social media, 9% was due to sites that host videos posted by other users, and 8% was due to webmail. Only 2% was due to a general “other” category (which includes Wikipedia).

Mr Bradley-Schmieg sets out the practical implications if Wikipedia is subject to the Category 1 conditions. Because of the way in which Wikipedia operates, it has little spare resource and it is already over-stretched because of existing regulatory burdens. The user verification duties alone would require Wikipedia to build new systems, data handling processes, functionality and tools. It would face huge challenges to meet the large technological and staffing needs that would have to be deployed to meet these statutory requirements. Other Category 1 duties would also have a significant impact. Mr Bradley-Schmieg “do[es] not see how the… duties could be reasonably manageable for [Wikipedia].” In practice, it is likely that Wikipedia would have to consider taking steps to ensure that it does not fall within the scope of a Category 1 service. That might involve preventing access once a monthly limit has been reached (in effect restricting access to just one quarter of those who currently use Wikipedia in the United Kingdom) or removing functionalities and characteristics that are important to the way that Wikipedia functions.

BLN is a user of Wikipedia. Initially, they used it to browse articles of interest. Eventually, they started editing articles by correcting the occasional typing error. With time and experience they began to make more substantial edits. BLN has now become a regular editor, to the point that they have made almost 140,000 edits, from correcting typing errors to adding references, contributing additional information and updating content. They also help other users. In 2007, BLN was elected by other Wikipedia editors to the role of administrator. There are currently 847 administrators. They are able, in accordance with detailed policies, to block users and IP addresses, delete pages that do not comply with Wikipedia’s policies, and protect pages from editing where there is a risk that edits will not comply with those policies. In 2017, BLN was selected by other users to act as a “checkuser”. There are currently 54 checkusers. They can access (subject to a non-disclosure agreement) technical data from Wikipedia’s servers that relate to individual users or IP addresses. The checkusers can establish if two or more accounts are being operated by a single person or group for malicious or forbidden reasons and can protect Wikipedia against disruptive or abusive behaviour.

BLN gives a practical example of the way in which users self-regulate Wikipedia’s content. Following the attack perpetrated by (as it turned out) Axel Radukubana in Southport on 29 July 2024, there was much speculation on social media as to the identity of the perpetrator. That is said to have contributed to subsequent public disorder. Some Wikipedia users edited a page about the attack to include what was (often wrongly) said to be information about the attack, including the perpetrator’s name, but without any cited authoritative source. When this happened, other Wikipedia users rapidly removed material that was not authoritatively sourced. After some instances of this, BLN temporarily applied “page protection” to the article to prevent it from being edited by inexperienced users. This was done on 30 July 2024. The page was then closely monitored by several editors to ensure the reliability of any changes. Also, a warning was applied to explain that it contained breaking news and should be approached with caution.

BLN says:

“Wikipedia [has always had] a bold and valuable ambition, to let members of the public come together to create a high-quality free global repository of knowledge. I firmly believe that more access to information allows individuals and societies to make better decisions. It also empowers individuals to pursue their goals and interests, whether that is through research in an educational or career setting, by sharing random facts with friends, or plain curiosity. Wikipedia also has an essential feature, which is that it is published under a free copyright licence, meaning that third parties are lawfully permitted to reuse both Wikipedia content and software, for free, under permissive intellectual property licenses. This prevents contributions and knowledge being restricted or monopolised, and allows maximum opportunity for content to develop, and then to be shared with others. Wikipedia is not only a free resource for facts. Through its policies of open participation and presenting multiple points of view, it is a gateway to learning and being critical about knowledge and different ways of thinking - both as a reader or as an active contributor.”

BLN gives detailed and compelling reasons for wishing to remain anonymous as a Wikipedia user. They provide extensive evidence of threats that are made to Wikipedia administrators, including to BLN personally, on websites that target Wikipedia administrators. They also explain the significant and detrimental effect on Wikipedia if Category 1 conditions applied. If a quota system were introduced to avoid the conditions then that would limit their (or others) ability to access an excellent source of information, reduce the quality of the information they could access, limit their ability to help with editing, moderation and administration, and effectively prevent them from participating in the life of the Wikipedia community to which they have invested so much time and energy over many years. If editors were required to verify their identity, then they would be faced with an invidious choice between providing their identity to Wikipedia (and thereby compromising their privacy and, potentially, safety in the event of a hack or data leak) or ceasing some of the important activities they perform to ensure that Wikipedia’s content complies with its policies.

None of the evidence of Mr Bradley-Schmieg or BLN was challenged. Nor was any evidence advanced that Wikipedia poses any form of threat to freedom of expression or informed public discourse or, specifically, the public interests that are protected by article 10(2) of the Convention (which can, in principle, justify a proportionate interference with free expression rights). The unchallenged evidence, therefore, is that Wikipedia is a tool that provides significant value for freedom of speech and expression, particularly the right “to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers” (to use the language of article 10(1) of the Convention) and that it does so without giving rise to any substantial threat to the public interests that are protected by article 10(2) of the Convention.

It follows that any decision by a public authority (including a decision to make (or not to amend) secondary legislation) that has a significant impact on Wikipedia’s ability to operate would, in the absence of justification, likely be unlawful as being contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 read with article 10 of the Convention.