Wikipedia

Wikimedia Foundation

Reporting period
1 July 2025 – 31 December 2025
Published
28 February 2026
EU average monthly active recipients
155,663,000
Service category
Knowledge
Designated
25 April 2023
Established in
US

Government orders to act against illegal content

Article 15(1)(a)

No government orders reported, or all categories reported zero.

Notices received from users and flaggers

Article 16

Right to be forgotten28
Defamation14
Missing processing ground for data9
Suicide8
Misinformation, disinformation, foreign information manipulation and interference7
Not captured by any other sub-category5
Not captured by any other sub-category5
General calls or incitement to violence and/or hatred5

Own-initiative moderation

Article 15(1)(c) and (d)

0Actions under terms & conditions
0Actions against illegal content
Share taken solely by automated means (ToS)

Account-level actions

Article 15(1)(d)

Account suspensions0
Account terminations0
Total account actions0

In Wikipedia's words

Wikipedia's long-form answers to the standard qualitative questions every platform must answer (Article 42 of the DSA). How it moderates content, how it measures accuracy, how its teams are resourced. Its own words. Expand each to read. (Short notes pinned to individual figures are under "Footnotes from Wikipedia" below.)

High-level description of the content moderation governance structure
The neutral, well-sourced information on the Wikimedia projects is added, organized, and edited by a decentralized community of nearly 260,000 volunteers who engage in open debate to reach consensus around content decisions and policies. Volunteers with specific expertise and local knowledge and language skills address most everyday content issues on the Wikimedia projects, such as intentional vandalism or edits that do not meet Wikipedia’s reliability and neutrality standards, without interference from the Wikimedia Foundation. These same qualities allow these communities to monitor Wikipedia pages for disinformation and to rapidly remove content that may range from common vandalism to artifacts of coordinated disinformation campaigns. All of this work adding, editing, and verifying content takes place in the open and is governed by policies developed and implemented democratically by these volunteer communities themselves. Rather than moderating content, WMF’s main Trust & Safety activity is focused on behavioural moderation: conduct, not content. For instance, WMF Trust & Safety helps to investigate and sanction abusive users, geopolitical disinformation, etc, in the rare cases where the community itself is not able to do so itself.
Meaningful and comprehensible information regarding content moderation engaged in at the providers' own initiative
In order to limit exposure to content such as CSAM, all images uploaded to Wikipedia are scanned using PhotoDNA within an hour of their upload to Wikipedia. This is not an EU-specific measure, so no DSA-specific figures (e.g., for number of images removed) are provided in this report. Refer to our global transparency report for further details.
Methodology used to compute the number of human resources dedicated to content moderation
We included a total count of Trust & Safety staff that work directly on content moderation issues and user conduct reports, which may result in Office Actions.
Qualifications of the human resources dedicated to content moderation
We indicated the language proficiencies of the relevant Trust & Safety staff on sheet 9. This is not based on any European qualifications/competencies framework, as we do not have this information. The team collectively provides linguistic capacity in multiple languages used on the Wikimedia projects. For EU purposes, the most relevant languages covered would be English, French, and Polish. In some cases, Trust & Safety staff may liaise with volunteer editors with competence in other languages, and/or use machine translation tools, in order to investigate and address challenges in additional languages.
Qualitative description of indicators of accuracy and possible rate of error of automated means
Being that PhotoDNA is proprietary to Microsoft, the Foundation does not have data on indicators of its accuracy and possible rate of error. However, PhotoDNA, is a widely-used industry-standard tool.
Qualitative description of the automated means
The Foundation's T&S staff utilize Microsoft's PhotoDNA to periodically scan image and video uploads for known CSAM. The Foundation uses the tool across all language versions of Wikipedia. When the Foundation is alerted to the content, we take down and report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and, when applicable, block the corresponding accounts. WMF conducts scans of all of WMF sites using this tool to automatically detect and remove images such as CSAM without needing to view the content manually.PhotoDNA uses a database of hashes to identify harmful illegal images particularly those that show child exploitation.
Safeguards applied to the use of automated means
There is human review prior to removal of content via the Media Moderation pipeline.
Specification of the precise purposes to apply automated means
WMF conducts scans of all of WMF sites using this tool to automatically detect and remove images such as CSAM without needing to view the content manually. PhotoDNA uses a database of hashes to identify harmful illegal images particularly those that show child exploitation. WMF uses PhotoDNA via its Media Moderation pipeline extension which checks images against PhotoDNA hashes. In the event that CSAM is identified, the extension flags the content to the relevant WMF personnel for reporting to NCMEC under applicable law. This extension does not automatically remove any content without human review by Foundation staff.
Summary of the content moderation engaged in at the providers’ own initiative
As reported on Sheets 6 and 7, during the reporting period, the Foundation took no content-moderation actions related to EU matters on its own initiative. As described below in Row 8, content moderation on Wikipedia is primarily conducted by a community of volunteer contributors. Following community-created policies that establish what content should appear on Wikipedia, these contributors, across all language Wikipedias, perform the vast majority of content moderation functions. The Foundation does use automatic tools to timely detect illegal images, especially those that depict child exploitation; we describe the use of these industry-standard tools below
Support given to human resources dedicated to content moderation
In addition to employee health insurance plans, the CompPsych Global Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers short-term counseling to eligible staff and theirhousehold members, including telehealth or in-person sessions. Foundation staff also receive a quarterly Wellness Benefit that can be used to support their physical and emotional wellbeing, including hobbies, classes, pets, gym and fitness club memberships.
Training given to human resources dedicated to content moderation
The team are provided with quality standard trainings to ensure that the conduct of investigations and risk assessment meet a baseline of quality and non-arbitrariness. They also work together to ensure that office processes such as intake, triaging, and response are streamlined. These processes are reviewed routinely and updated as needed so that staff adapt to the demands brought on by attending to the requests and keeping up with regulatory changes.

Raw data

Every figure on this page comes from Wikipedia's filing as loaded into RTFP's public database. You can query the underlying data directly via thepublic API. The original filing is linked from thesources page.

Footnotes from Wikipedia

Short notes Wikipedia pinned to specific figures in its filing. Definitions, clarifications and corrections written against individual numbers, shown verbatim. (For its longer descriptions of how it moderates, see "In Wikipedia's words" above.)

Show 8 notes

Article 16 notices

  • Actions on the basis of termsDuring this cycle, the Foundation implemented 1 Office Action from the notices received. The remaining notices were referred to the community.
  • Median time to actionNotices often relate to a much broader allegation of policy-violating behaviour that is carefully investigated by our Trust & Safety team. Thorough investigations into complex matters can require several weeks, particularly when ongoing monitoring of a situation and/or coordination with the volunteer community is required.
  • Notices receivedThere are a small number of notices brought to the Foundation's attention through official mechanisms, though they are more appropriately for and actioned by the community under their own policies (typically as an editorial or courtesy matter).

Complaints, appeals & disputes

  • Number of complaints submitted to the internal-complaints mechanismThere were zero eligible EU complaints submitted to the internal complaints-handling mechanism during this reporting period.
  • Number of disputes submitted to out-of-court dispute settlement bodiesThe dispute is pending as of this report's publication.

Government orders

  • Article 10: median time to give effectThis related to a court order in complex ongoing civil proceedings, leading to a skewed/ un-representative "median time"

Own-initiative (illegal content)

  • Measures (total)WMF removes CSAM (detected by PhotoDNA) at its own iitiative, and we treat this as a violation of our terms and conditions (reported on tab 6). Moreover, this is not an EU-specific measure, therefore it is not reported in this EU-specific transparency report.

Own-initiative (terms of service)

  • Measures (total)WMF removes CSAM (detected by PhotoDNA) at its own iitiative. However, as this is not an EU-specific measure, it is not reported in this EU-specific transparency report.

RTFP notes

RTFP's own observations about comparability and data gaps for Wikipedia, not statements from Wikipedia. Where Wikipedia itself commented, that appears under "Footnotes from Wikipedia" above.