Wikipedia Censorship

if you want to find certain pictures i think wiki would be the last place you would look..... especially a German Heavy Metal Band :S
 
I can view it but im at work...that might have not been a good idea.

I think the censorship is a bit harsh as it is effecting the running of Wiki (editors) but I can sort of understand where they are coming from.

How was this album cover released?

*edit: Zen connection BTW*
 
Last edited:
Oooh, I can't see it! So that would mean none of Hull can.

If the album cover was certified for publishing, I'd say it should be allowed on Wiki.

Mind you, it's hardly Google/Tianenmen Square.
 
I can see it. I agree with you - I don't think it's a particularly good picture but it's been on the album cover for years so why is it a problem now? Maybe we should ban this page as well!
 
I can see it with UKOnline ISP, it does seem a little inappropriate BUT i thoroughly condem censorship of the internet...
 
I can see it. Nothing wrong with it, her between leg privates are covered by some wires or or something. It has never been ruled illegal and as such should not be censored.

This country is turning to a pile of ****, even though it's still one of the best countrys in *** world. It is not heading in the right direction.
 
Maybe they should ban the wiki anatomy page for penis and vagina? *SHOCK* *Offending*!

Edit: I can't view it, I'm with Kingston Comms.
 
Problem is, now we have all looked at it and it's in our internet cache, if I took my computer in for repairs at ** *****, would I get reported to the police for child pornography?

When are photographs/paintings of naked children classed as child pornography or when are they just art?
 
Wiki said:
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.
Click to expand...
Haha, so this pretty much means no-one from Hull can edit Wikipedia articles about Hull?

Genius.
 
The band chose the cover specifically to be controversial [actually it may have even been the label]. The cover has since been revised.

If you go to Discogs.com they have most album covers there. There are some very offensive covers but Discogs is just a reference site. I hate how ISPs feel they have to shield us. Thankfully Virgin haven't gone down that route yet.

Greebo said:
Problem is, now we have all looked at it and it's in our internet cache, if I took my computer in for repairs at ** *****, would I get reported to the police for child pornography?
Click to expand...

Yes.

brb-fbi.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's not child porn obviously. Not exactly necessary either, in fact it was changed to a picture of the band. I guess people are worried that if a normal bloke sees it, they might turn into a pedo.
 
Technically for something to be child pornography it has to be produced for sexual purposes, so the child would need to be in a sexual pose or dressed provocatively etc. That image would go down as a category 0, which isn't chargeable but which might be of concern. Certainly if we knew it was just an album cover nothing would happen.
 
Can't see the page here, I did have to look it up to find out what the fuss is about. It is a little tasteless but given the album title I think it is an over-reaction to remove it, if the idea is that picture is going to be titillating to paedophiles then why hasn't it been an issue for the past 32 years?

I wonder how many more sales Scorpions will get from this little fuss.
 
Well the stupid thing is, I can google the name of the album and get 100s of correct, accessible responses, but an actual page describing the album? Oooh, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom