Dear Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting any reports submitted by the Wikimedia Foundation regarding systemic risk assessment for Wikipedia as very large online platform under the Digital Services Act. This includes risk assessment reports on:

- illegal content
- fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, media freedom and pluralism, discrimination, consumer protection and children’s rights
- public security and electoral processes
- gender-based violence, public health, protection of minors, and mental and physical wellbeing

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles

Dear Communications Networks, Content and Technology,

I am submitting this confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, requesting a review of the decision communicated to me on 7 October 2024, regarding my initial request for access to documents registered under reference number EASE 2024/4492.

In your refusal, the decision was made to withhold access to the following documents:

Submission, DSA Systemic Risk Assessment Report, Wikipedia, 2023 (Ares(2024)6396956)
Submission, DSA Systemic Risk Assessment Report, Wikipedia, 2024 (Ares(2024)6125462)

The denial of access was based on the application of the exception laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, which aims to protect commercial interests. This reasoning appears to focus on the presumption that the disclosure of these documents could undermine the market position or commercial interests of the Wikimedia Foundation.

However, I respectfully challenge the application of this exception in the context of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia for the following reasons:

1. Wikipedia's Non-Commercial Nature

Wikipedia, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, is a well-known non-commercial platform. Its stated mission is to provide free and open knowledge to the public, without engaging in commercial activities aimed at generating profit. As a result, there is no traditional market competition that could be adversely affected by the disclosure of the systemic risk assessment reports under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

The justification provided in your response suggests that disclosing the requested documents would "seriously undermine its commercial interests" and "affect its position in the market." However, this reasoning appears inapplicable to Wikipedia, given its non-profit status and its lack of any competitive positioning in commercial markets. Wikipedia's operation does not rely on business competition, market positioning, or profit-generation, as is the case for commercial entities. While non-profit organizations can have commercial interests insofar I as they act on markets, I contend that the commercial interests exception provided under Article 4(2) cannot reasonably apply to this case.

Unlike other digital platforms or very large online platforms (VLOPs), Wikipedia does not sell advertising, charge users for its services, or compete for revenue or market share. Consequently, the disclosure of the documents in question could not harm Wikipedia’s market position, as it operates outside the realm of traditional market dynamics.

The systemic risk assessments mandated by the DSA are aimed at addressing risks related to public safety, illegal content, and other social concerns, all of which are essential to the platform's public mission. These issues have no direct bearing on any supposed commercial competition or market functioning. Hence, the Commission's rationale under Article 4(2) fails to apply logically to a non-commercial entity like Wikipedia.

2. No Sensitive Commercial Information

Given that Wikipedia does not engage in commercial activities, it is unlikely that the systemic risk assessments contain information that could be classified as commercially sensitive or that would reveal business strategies, costs, or competitive conduct. On the contrary, these reports likely contain assessments of public interest issues such as freedom of expression, public security, and consumer protection—all matters of significant public concern that should not be shielded from disclosure under a commercial interests exception.

3. Overriding Public Interest

Even if the Commission argues that some aspects of these documents could affect Wikipedia’s operations, the public’s right to know how Wikipedia assesses risks under the DSA, especially in areas such as media freedom, children’s rights, and public health, should take precedence over any hypothetical concerns about commercial sensitivity. The very nature of Wikipedia's public mission emphasizes transparency and accountability, both of which align with the principles of public access to documents.

Wikipedia is an important knowledge resource relied upon millions of Europeans, including public institutions. Even the European Commission on its website links to Wikipedia articles, for instance to explain technical concepts (see here: https://health.ec.europa.eu/other-pages/...). The public function of Wikipedia as knowledge base for a wide array of uses, including in education and training, makes it vulnerable to risks including disinformation by foreign actors and commercially motivated distortions .

How Wikipedia deals with such threats, how robust its safeguards are, is of vital importance for the public to understand. Wikipedia's risk assessment to the Commission may allow users, including public institutions, to adequately assess to whether information found on the platform us safe and advisable to rely upon. Depriving the public of knowledge over how Wikipedia assess its own risks hinders such an understanding, and therefore fosters vulnerabilities in the European public sphere.

Conclusion

In light of the non-commercial status of Wikipedia, the application of the exception under Article 4(2) to protect "commercial interests" is inappropriate. I respectfully request that the Commission reconsider its decision, and, at the very least, provide partial access to the documents in line with the principles of transparency and public interest. I believe that the overriding public interest in transparency should prevail in this case.

I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Fanta
Follow the Money
Rue Auguste Orts 2
1000 Bruxelles