Wikipedia Censorship

Clocked for me also, Virgin Media

Strange really, as another album with banned cover art (Venetian Snares - "Horse and Goat") works fine yet is more dodgy IMO.
 
One asks oneself whether this is political correctness gone mad or a self promotion exercise by the so called protectors of the universe the IWF. :(
 
Not blocked for me, on Plusnet. However, if it does get blocked does that mean the thought police will be knocking my door down and removing my original copy of the offending album?
 
It's been perfectly fine for 32 years, yet now it's considered "dodgy". What's changed?

The UK block follows the May 2008 reporting of the cover image on Wikipedia by US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia."
 
Strange, im on virgin media too and when i tried to go to the page i dont get a 404 page like a normal missing page would give me, or any other type of error like could not connect to remote server or anything like that. Instead when i try to go to that page it just loads up a compleatly blank page, as if the page loaded correctly but there is just nothing on it.

I assume that if all blocked pages act the same as that then i haven't encountered one before.

I definately get the "This page cannot be displayed, yady yady yada..."
 
Not blocked for me, on Plusnet. However, if it does get blocked does that mean the thought police will be knocking my door down and removing my original copy of the offending album?

I'm on PlusNet and it's blocked for me (although the thumbnail works). This is atrocious, where in PlusNet's information does it say

We will check all your web traffic against a list that you can't see. If your destination IP is the same as for something on the list, we'll direct your traffic through a transparent proxy (which may or may not work properly). If what you're looking for is on the list, we'll just reset your TCP connection and not tell you why. We won't tell you because it's on the list, we won't tell you what's on the list or why. The only mention of anything like this on our website is a page you can only find by searching for "Internet Watch Foundation".

We get this list from a non-governmental organisation of which you have no oversight, there is no due process. If they don't like it, you don't get to see it. Anything they deem to be "racist" or "obscene" content can be blocked without your knowledge. This is anything "potentially illegal", not "illegal" because it's not necessarily been tried in a court of law.

I'm frankly disgusted.
 
Imagine if The Royal Mail opened all our letters and replaced the ones containing swearies with a blank sheet of paper, then delivering that.

I doubt they'd get away with it.
 
Thought this was a bit off. From here....

One unintentional side effect of the IWF ban is that many British visitors to Wikipedia are now unable to edit articles, as the proxy servers used by ISPs to filter the content make it appear that each visitor is using the same IP address.


The IWF spokesperson said the watchdog didn't take such consequences into account when deciding to ban the page containing the image. "The fact edits can't be done on other pages isn't something we considered. Wikipedia will need to find a way around."

Emphasis is my own.

So, the IWF didn't realise that their censorship of this page would have consequences far greater than they intended. And instead of holding their hands up and admitting that, you know, maybe they shouldn't ought to censor Wikipedia.....they instead say that Wikipedia ought to sort out the mess that the IWF created.

Genius. Pure genius.
 
Quite. :/

What the hell do they think Wikipedia can do about it? They do, after all, comply with the internet standards for how proxies are supposed to work.
 
Back
Top Bottom