The EU thinks Wikipedia is the same kind of platform as Facebook or Amazon. This is disastrous for knowledge, and a demonstration of pure ignorance in Europe's regulatory infrastructure. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413
@dangillmor It seems most of those rules are irrelevant to a site that has no ads and no personalized recommendations and no tracking, but some of the demands make no sense and seem confused.
@not2b @dangillmor This is a classic case of "think it through before you do". It would be interesting to see if, for instance, the risk management strategy building will bankrupt the Wikimedia foundation; or if the lawyers needed to fight a far right government like Austria or Italy's interpretation of "safe for minors" will bankrupt the organization.
It'd be sad to see Europeans lose access to Wikipedia.
@Wikisteff @not2b @dangillmor given you cannot take anything on Wiki as being factually correct I’m not sure we’d miss it. Anyone who uses Wiki as a source of reference is not taken seriously.
@Lassielmr @Wikisteff @dangillmor How does that differ from everything else on the Internet? At least on Wikipedia most (alleged) statements of fact have a link to a source, so it's a good starting point for further research. Teachers have been telling students not to use Wikipedia and the consequence of that is that students find some random site with a Google search that is usually much worse.
@Lassielmr @not2b @dangillmor I mean, that take was plausibly defensible in 2012-2015 or so, but a decade later, it's pretty clear that Wikipedia's army of crowdsourcing volunteers have done a heck of a job in authoring a reliable online encyclopedia.
@Wikisteff @Lassielmr @not2b @dangillmor it really depends on the content for particular fields, geology, minerals and botany to name some. I use it almost daily.
@cobalt @Lassielmr @not2b @dangillmor Wikipedia absolutely is uneven. It's an essential resource in many sciences. For some social science fields, the quality ranges widely from excellent to marketing copy.
@Lassielmr It is a superb reference source, and often the best place to start -- but rarely the best place to stop. The links editors are required to post -- to authoritative (as much as anything is authoritative) sources -- are essential parts of the articles.
@Wikisteff @not2b
@dangillmor @Lassielmr @not2b 100% in agreement here.
@not2b
@dangillmor Well:
"Following their designation, the companies will now have to comply…"
Interpreting strictly, yes, Wikipedia might be designated as "Very Large Online Platform" but since it us foundation (not company), it does not need to "comply"?
@not2b
@dangillmor It will be also interesting to watch, how will @EU_Commission interpret (good) stuff which Wikipedia, compared to other VLOPs, already has or (bad) stuff which Wikipedia, unlike others, does not have. And how then the enforcement will be applied to Wikipedia vs. other VLOPs.
(E.g. we will be able to observe either EC correcting its understanding of stuff. Or we see some dumbness in action. Or some unfair preferential treatment of some VLOPs. Etc.)
@not2b
@dangillmor @EU_Commission Example:
"Users will get clear information on why they are recommended certain information"
So of I get:
"Well, we do not know exactly, nobody does. It's some weird massive machine-learning black box. But we're making more money thanks to that. You'kay with that?"
Would that be OK for EC?
@dangillmor It makes absolutely no sense that Wikipedia is on that list. Wikipedia is the only non-profit platform, and very few of the DSA obligations even apply to it or are already inherently present due to the nature of the platform. It's just ridiculous. @EU_Commission what were the reasons to put WIkipedia on that list? Is it just the fact that they have at least 45 million MAU?
@patrickv @dangillmor @EU_Commission I imagine that it is scale. Perhaps the Commission never thought that a voluntary non-profit platform could reach that kind of scale.
On the one hand I agree with @not2b that most of the demands are irrelevant, and that this will probably not do much.
On the other hand I imagine that the stuff related to "minors" /could/ serve as a foot in the door, to demand identification for age verification or something,
(judging from the #Chatcontrol disaster that's unfolding in parallel ...)
I wonder if wikimedia foundation will seek to fight this designation in court? That would make sense, I think ...
this seems like a stupid mistake, but I also sense more than a faint whiff of illiberal mischief there.
attempts to "regulate wikipedia" - what countries come to mind? not liberal democracies.
@quincy @dangillmor @not2b I'm expect that needing "adult enforcement" for access to articles like the article on anilingus could be an interpretation that some European member states would endorse. If US states were in the EU, of course, there would immediate takedown requests for all the LGTBQ content.
I guess that it's time to make another local copy of Wikipedia again.
And maybe move it to some kind of properly distributed infrastructure ...
@quincy @dangillmor @not2b I mean, the right thing is to fix the laws so they aren't stupid or unworkable. The second best thing is make a robust distributed architecture. In any event, wikipedia is going to have to contend with thousand of articles written by lying generative AI, so Wikipedia now has two problems. I'm a bit scared that they will make edit pages protected behind a login-wall with age verification because that way kids won't see bad words in chat pages. /c @doctorow .
@Wikisteff @dangillmor @not2b @doctorow
Oh, I hadn't even thought of that, but it does strike me as a very plausible vision of what could happen :-(
Yes, let's try to fix the laws, by all means! (And develop technical countermeasures just in case).
@dangillmor@mastodon.social That is odd. Especially considering that most of these laws either can’t apply to wikipedia, or wikipedia is already abiding by.
@dangillmor Knock knock @ombudsman @EU_Commission anybody home?
@dangillmor I don’t think Margrethe Vestager is on Mastodon yet, but she is on Saudi funded Twitter, maybe you could tag her there?
@dangillmor or maybe she is? @EC_Commissioner_Vestager - no toots so far though 
@dangillmor
Is it because of the protection for minors, maybe? Because if that is the big concern then imposing that requirement on sites that go over the 45M visitors threshold is an arbitrary bit of nonsense. Imagine restricting access to sensitive topics on Wikipedia because it works quite well whilst the far less visited thought silo over at Conservapedia remains unregulated. Bonkers.
^ cc @wikipedia Danger!
cc @fiete
-> https://mastodon.social/@fiete/110259728546569806
The @EU_Commission promised the opposite.
There must be a reason why @EC_Commissioner_Vestager puts the knowledge of the world at risk.
cc @aral
@sl007 @dangillmor @wikipedia @fiete @EU_Commission @EC_Commissioner_Vestager @aral Even if arcane, there's always a reason, or they'll come up with one as they go ;-)
@dangillmor Are they that ignorant?
@dangillmor I don't think it said that at all. All it is saying is that Wikipedia is a very large online platform. And therefore a digital service that deserves extra scrutiny because of its possible impact on society.
@dangillmor I can hear a BigCorp lobbyist saying "just sneak Wikipedia in there so that we have some backlash from the good guys that'll spill over to us, and leave the rest to me"
@dangillmor @donmelton That "disseminate illegal content" is really going to ding Wikipedia in some countries isn't it?
@dangillmor not ignorance. Attacking means of education is the point. The conservative oligarchy wants dumb slaves to grovel at their feet. Its 100% intentional. Thinking they aren’t is ignorance. Its plain as day they are trying to take over by any means.