438
1000% Wikipedia needs to blackout in the UK and tell users to call their MPs
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
438 points (99.8% liked)
Privacy
40898 readers
831 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The only rational decision, given the cost associated with a poorly defined and maliciously enforced legislative code. I wouldn't trust the UK courts to fairly adjudicate an alleged breach of the law, particularly if Reform Party gets into office and decides to punish Wikipedia's management for "Wokeness" or whatever.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Here's one way to fix this that might even overturn the law. Turn off Wikipedia in the UK. Put a big banner up on the homepage that says, we have turned off Wikipedia in your country because of your government. Here's how to use a VPN to access our content.
Edit: Make it apologetic and conciliatory. Like, we're sorry, we've had to disable Wikipedia in your region because of your government's draconian policies. If you would like to visit our content, please use a VPN. If you need help learning to use a VPN and then link to a here's how page
It's illegal to recommend using a VPN or teach people how to use a VPN in order to get around these age-check laws.
"It is illegal for us to recommend using services like a VPN to bypass these limits. We do recommend you ask your government why they don't want you to know about these services or have access to free educational content".
“We do not condone using a VPN to circumvent these restrictions. To make sure you will not accidentally use a VPN we’ve decided to make our article about VPN‘s the only one available in this country.“
The wording on ofcom is "should not" not" must not". It's not illegal, they just don't want people to do it and want people to think that it is illegal.
👆They just need to add this as a disclaimer instead.
Have a banner with information on why it is blocked, and have the only accessible page be of the Online Safety Act. Then, make that page list what counts as "(teaching) circumvention methods" and say that teaching others how to do those things is illegal. If anyone is truly interested in seeking knowledge and learning, they will be able to figure it out elsewhere
They can't recommend using a VPN, but they can say "some users are illegally subverting the ban using a VPN. For more information on this subject see: [link to VPN guide]."
load more comments
(3 replies)
Imagine what will happen next, will they just ignore that a stupid law have broken wikipedia in the entire UK? Lol, I think at least someone would be concerned.
when Wikipedia is suing you, you might be the bad guy
Wikipedia need to cut off access to the UK except through VPNs.
Will libraries be requiring age verification to access encyclopaedias and other non-fiction material? Because of the children, of course!
load more comments
(10 replies)
Wikipedia doesn't have to do shit.
Let them break their internet until they fix it.
You got a loicense for that desiring knowledge, bruv?
I wonder if now is a good time to download all Wikipedia and put it on a spare offline drive...
Kiwix is wonderful for the job. It's surprising how much of Wikipedia can fit on 128 GB when larger media files are stripped out.
I do kind of relish the images, though. Picture's worth a thousand words and all. But it's great to have that choice.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Currently I cannot edit using my VPN as that is blocked by Wikipedia, so I guess if that remains the case and they are forced to implement ID to edit articles, then I will no longer be able to contribute
Ironically you probably have to identify yourself to Wikipedia to get such an exception…
I don't know what you mean by "identify yourself". You need an account with a trustworthy history of editing, at which point you can request the exemption.
That's a catch-22 for good faith new contributors, of course
Correct, as it has to. In addition to behavior, CheckUsers use IP addresses to help identify sockpuppets. If you could bypass the exemption by just saying "here's a new account; pls exempt", it would quickly become common knowledge among sockmasters that all they need is to quickly ask and be accepted days later.
At that point, the block on proxy editing near-completely fails at one of its main functions.
I'd disagree with the notion "it has to". The chilling effect on a large number of new wiki contributors could be considered more detrimental than weakening sock puppet protection. (IE if a huge country suddenly started jailing people who make edits not considered state-approved)
I suspect there are plenty of ways to allow new accounts to make edits on a smaller subset of articles until they have passed some threshold of trust which could minimize the sock puppet abuse.
Point is everything is a give and take.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Every time you would have made an edit, send a note to a representative in government
Better get a Kiwix server spun up.
Coincidentally Wikipedia is the only website I can think of that I'd actually be remotely comfortable with having my identity.
Isn't the issue that for any economical solution websites enlist 3rd parties to do the verification? It's those (usually US) companies holding my ID that is the problem.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Then you’re not thinking like someone who lives under authoritarians. Have you never gone on a Wikipedia journey following links and ended up on “gunpowder” or “list of dictators in the 21st century” or anything else that could get you painted as a “revolutionary” and locked away?
I'm generally more annoyed at how the early enthusiasm of participation on the site has died out in the face of paranoia and moderator mania. There are so many gaps in both the modern and historical backlog of citations and categorizations. But do I want to invest dozens of hours contributing to a site where a few admins are just going to tear all my work back out again on a bureaucratic technicality?
It is a site that's alternatively being strangled to death by admins fearful of malicious actors and tore apart by wave after wave of sinister propagandists and hostile agents.
load more comments
(5 replies)
On its face... maybe? Until the Foundation falls into the hands of malicious management, anyway.
But do I trust that a public website can't have their security breached by malicious actors? Of course not.
Wikipedia will never block the UK because they value accessible information, however obstructed it may be, more.
You mean Wikipedia will bow down to a Western government and obey their every command?
Do you think Wikipedia would make special exceptions for China or Russia?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Welp, time to invade the UK. They were overdue.
Let the French invade them.
they had it coming. they invaded countless other civilisations.
view more: next ›