Uncategorized

Open your social media feed. Within thirty seconds you will likely have seen something engineered to provoke you — a post calibrated by an algorithm to raise your cortisol, confirm your suspicions about the “other side”, or send you spiralling into an outrage loop that keeps you scrolling. This is not a bug. It is the business model. Platforms built on advertising revenue seem to have discovered, empirically, that anger and anxiety are among the most reliable engines of engagement. So their algorithms are optimised for both.

Now open Wikipedia. You land on an article. At the top, perhaps, a small notice: “This article’s neutrality is disputed.” Or: “This article needs additional citations.” Or nothing at all — just the text, the citations, the talk page quietly humming in the background where a numerous strangers are negotiating the phrasing of a single contested sentence. This, too, is not an accident. It is the result of deeply intentional architectural choices — choices that point in precisely the opposite direction from the attention-advertising economy.

The latest deliverable of the DEM-Debate project authored by the University of Amsterdam explores how the new EU legal framework on election disinformation applies to Wikipedia. The legal analysis evaluates, through critical lenses, the impact of the new rules on the functioning of community-governed platforms in addressing disinformation related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, drawing some preliminary conclusions on how to inform policy making: Wikipedia editorial rules together with its patrolling system are good examples from which future legislation on election disinformation can draw inspiration.

As elections across the EU face growing threats from disinformation, Wikipedia stands out as a unique case study in how community-governed platforms work to safeguard information integrity. A new mapping report, part of the DEM-Debate project, explores Wikipedia’s policies and risk-mitigation strategies for combating election disinformation

SLAPPs are “strategic lawsuits against public participation”: legal cases brought to the courts in order to threaten and/or silence journalists, activists, and academics, including Wikipedia volunteer contributors. This legal phenomenon risks causing a chilling effect, which may be particularly acute in the case of those people who contribute voluntarily to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects.

Wikimedia Europe is keen to share that Wikipedia has been recognised as a digital public good. It is an important recognition for community-led free knowledge projects, which will help our advocacy efforts. In these troublesome times for the information ecosystem, it is of utmost importance defending free knowledge and access to information through the safeguard of alternative platform models, like distributed and community-led online encyclopedias, that proved their resilience.

This post was originally published on the Wikimedia Foundation website and can be accessed here.