I can't see any language in the statutory instrument suggesting anyone had any intention of applying it to Wikimedia? The most likely outcome is the court will reassure them of that. This might help other people running similar websites by citing the case rather than having to pay for all the experts but isn't going to magically stop it applying to Meta as intended.
It's in the Medium article.
Scroll to "Who falls under Category 1"
https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/wikipedias-nonprofit-hos...
Wikimedia hosts what UK puritans consider pornographic content.
A lot of it. Often in high quality and with a permissible license.
I would link to relevant meta pages but I want to be able travel through LHR.
Musea of fine arts also host what puritans could consider 'pornographic content'. I believe 'Birth of Venus' is the standard go-to example.
To be fair, Wikimedia/Wikipedia also hosts a full copy of "Debbie Does Dallas" does to a fluke of copyright. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Does_Dallas
I do kind of wonder if it benefits Wikipedia for them to allow so much on commons.
I get it’s hard to distinguish between pornography and something that might have educational merit at the edges, and have a workable policy.
But still I can’t help but think this is not really helping.
I don’t think we disagree.
A kid can go to Wikipedia and read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
They can also go to the library and read the encyclopedia.