{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicakts6stpu5oxbvgvfb6tx775c346zmpxzus2z6xyfzujxn4vs4u",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:jo3wjj2gx46alocis4wubmwr/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnlqh5valbu2"
  },
  "path": "/how-the-wikipedia-model-can-help-improve-platform-regulation-recommendations-for-future-policy-making-from-the-dem-debate-project/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-05T15:01:53.000Z",
  "site": "https://wikimedia.brussels",
  "tags": [
    "Recent Changes Patrol",
    "full final report",
    "executive summary"
  ],
  "textContent": "___The DEM-Debate project spent almost two years investigating how Wikipedia addressed disinformation during the 2024 European elections through legal and computational analyses. This final report, produced by researchers from the University of Amsterdam and Eurecat – Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya_ , _delivers two sets of recommendations: one specifically targeting the upcoming revision of the Digital Services Act (DSA), and one drawing on Wikipedia’s governance model as a blueprint for the broader online information ecosystem. These recommendations are aimed to inform future regulation on platform regulation to strengthen the resilience of the information ecosystem.___\n\n#  **Recommendations for DSA revision**\n\n## **A clear definition of disinformation**\n\nThe DSA – and EU legislation more in general – does not contain a legal definition of disinformation or of election disinformation nor does it include a specific provision on the removal of disinformation. While the recent European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) refers to disinformation as content that is legal, but harmful, several Member States introduced laws criminalising disinformation. This means that under the DSA, disinformation could be qualified as “illegal content” and ordered to be removed. This could bring about some friction with the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the European Court of Human rights jurisprudence on Article 10 ECHR. The Commission should address this tension in the next revision due by November 2027.\n\n## **The DSA should not treat Wikipedia as commercial online platforms**\n\nThe definition of online platform in the DSA is rather broad and includes Wikipedia. Narrowing its scope by excluding platforms that do not operate “on the basis of personal-data collection and -monetisation, algorithmic systems, advertising, and personalisation” would mean to “better capture meaningful differences in platform risk profiles”.\n\nThe Commission should therefore rethink the criteria according to which online platforms are designated as VLOPs and introduce a “more risk-sensitive designation model”, and to consider “whether an encyclopaedia exception should be included”. Furthermore, it should also consider “the development of a methodology for de-designating VLOPs”.\n\n## **The DSA compliance burdens must be proportionate – especially for non-profits**\n\nWith regard to the application of the DSA to Wikipedia, researchers pointed out that the Commission should make more clear, through future legislation or guidance, “how responsibility is allocated between service providers and decentralised user communities”. Furthermore, the EU executive should evaluate the burden of the obligations prescribing “the yearly risk assessment and auditing, and the audit implementation mechanism”. Indeed, there could be a risk that those obligations “could disproportionately affect Wikipedia’s arguably low-risk, community-governed platform model”.\n\nAs of the supervisory fee, the Commission should continue to follow the principle of “the ability to pay [the supervisory fee] of the provider” and “explicitly recognise non-profit and non-governmental organisations in how it approaches the DSA’s supervisory fee”.\n\n## **The Wikimedia Foundation was right not to join the Code of Conduct on Disinformation & electoral integrity guidelines**\n\nWhen assessing the Wikimedia Foundation’s choice of not being a signatory of the Code of Conduct, researchers concluded that the “arguments for Wikipedia joining the Code of Conduct on Disinformation may not outweigh the arguments against, especially given Wikipedia’s transparent systems”. They have therefore confirmed the validity of such a choice.\n\nFinally, specific recommendations were made concerning the “guidelines on the mitigation of systemic risks for electoral processes”. In particular, researchers suggested that in the next iteration “consideration should be given to Wikipedia’s governance model” and that “the Guidelines should be written with Wikipedia in mind”.\n\n## Recommended Wikimedia transferable practices against disinformation\n\n## **Reliable online sources**\n\nThe rules on deprecated sources and their transparent implementation are quite effective in guaranteeing the reliability of the used sources. Therefore, “the model of Wikipedia’s deprecated and non-deprecated sources could be an important tool to implement in the broader ecosystem to “help users assess the trustworthiness of information sources”.\n\n## **Wikipedia as the go-to for election information**\n\n“Wikipedia articles on politicians and political figures could be categorised as “authoritative information on the electoral process” and made prominent and easily accessible across the online election-related ecosystem, thereby building on the Commission’s Election Guidelines”. Indeed, Wikipedia’s editorial rules “demonstrate how treating information about politicians and political figures with heightened care can prevent election-related disinformation and provide insights for broader regulation of the online environment”.\n\n## **Real-time content patrolling, beyond Wikipedia**\n\n“Wikipedia’s patrolling system is a notable example of how, through community-based oversight, accountability and transparency can be operationalised”. In this sense, the patrolling system that Wikipedia has in place, including the \nRecent Changes Patrol, could be extended to the broader online information ecosystem as it can help to prevent the dissemination of election-related disinformation.\n\n##  **Disclosure rules for social media influencers inspired by Wikipedia**\n\n“Wikipedia’s approach to paid editing and conflict-of-interest disclosure can offer a useful point of reference, particularly in relation to informing regulation of political social media influencers”, as it proved particularly effective in preventing and solving this sort of situation.\n\nRead all policy recommendations in the \nfull final report and its \nexecutive summary.",
  "title": "How the Wikipedia model can help improve platform regulation:\nRecommendations for future policy-making from the DEM-DEBATE\nProject"
}