Wikipedia censorship
Discussion
Anyone else not able to access wikipedia through their ISP ? My UK work one won't allow access at all now, I get a network error. The US proxy still works.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm
I can get on it ok... here's why you're having problems (probably).
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/1...
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/1...
Wikipedia said:
Internet censorship
In 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added Wikipedia's Virgin Killer article to its blacklist[15][16] due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. Although the controversial cover art is still provided on the deluxe boxed edition of the album sold worldwide,[17] the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK").[18][19] Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which had the side effects of degrading performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.[20][21]
In 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added Wikipedia's Virgin Killer article to its blacklist[15][16] due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. Although the controversial cover art is still provided on the deluxe boxed edition of the album sold worldwide,[17] the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK").[18][19] Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which had the side effects of degrading performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.[20][21]
Oakey said:
To be fair, having done a GIS for the album cover, I'd say it is rather questionable.
However, what next? Nirvana's Nevermind blacklisted?
I haven't seen the cover in question, but if it's available to buy in the shops, how questionable can it be?However, what next? Nirvana's Nevermind blacklisted?
Sounds like yet another pointless organisation trying to justify it's existance.
ytrebil said:
I just did the same. That's one effed up album cover. I didn't take too long a glance at it - is it a real image or a drawing/painting?
DOn't think they would get away with that nowadays ! pretty odd to say the least... aparently it is the photographers daughter or niece or something ?
Oh... thats fine then
Not on BT. Biggest consumer ISP and no censorship here.
Though I have to say that the image itself is really borderline tasteful and I think you would struggle to justify it in any way! I remember this from my childhood rock days and that particular album cover was a rare and expensive collectors item - little did I realise the significance at the time. I did wonder why shops at the time refused to stock it, in later years I now realise why!
Blame the ISP's if you want, but you might want to check the law first. Some bright spark thought it a good idea to hold the ISP's responsible for all of their traffic! The consumers to be responsible for their own actions? Nah, lets hold the ISP's...... lunacy.
Though I have to say that the image itself is really borderline tasteful and I think you would struggle to justify it in any way! I remember this from my childhood rock days and that particular album cover was a rare and expensive collectors item - little did I realise the significance at the time. I did wonder why shops at the time refused to stock it, in later years I now realise why!
Blame the ISP's if you want, but you might want to check the law first. Some bright spark thought it a good idea to hold the ISP's responsible for all of their traffic! The consumers to be responsible for their own actions? Nah, lets hold the ISP's...... lunacy.
16v of fury said:
i disagree with all this b
ks consorship of every form of entertainment, but i concede defeat with this one, that is out of order. What were they thinking?
+1ks consorship of every form of entertainment, but i concede defeat with this one, that is out of order. What were they thinking?Also, Wikipedia are quite happy to censor things when it suits them. Does seem like the easiest thing would be for them to remove/replace this particular image.
If it isn't kiddie porn then it shouldn't be being censored, this is pretty obvious. And it pretty obviously isn't kiddie porn either. And - even if it were - the person who was photographed in it has said she doesn't care, so no one would even be harmed it it was!
I'm far, far more worried about what else could be censored though... conservative party next week, non-bbc news next month, anything not approved by labour next year. At the very least this censorship stuff should say 'this is probably kiddie porn, click here to access at your own risk, and this will be logged'.
I'm far, far more worried about what else could be censored though... conservative party next week, non-bbc news next month, anything not approved by labour next year. At the very least this censorship stuff should say 'this is probably kiddie porn, click here to access at your own risk, and this will be logged'.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Monday 8th December 12:13
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff