It's mentioned in the very top of the article, in the green box: > In its order granting the Wikimedia Foundation's motion to dismiss, the court affirmed that

It's mentioned in the very top of the article, in the green box: > In its order granting the Wikimedia Foundation's motion to dismiss, the court affirmed that "interactive computer service providers" such as the Foundation generally cannot be held liable for third-party content like Wikipedia articles and photographs. ... the plaintiff argued that the Foundation should be treated like a traditional offline publisher and held responsible as though it were vetting all posts made to the sites it hosts, despite the fact that it does not write or curate any of the content found on the projects. The court rejected this argument because it directly conflicts with Section 230 ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 Wikipedia (nor Twitter, Facebook or YouTube) reviews content _before_ it's made available online, they only review content afterwards. That being one of the major differences between providing 3rd party content and "publishing".