Wikipedia Censorship

Wikipedia founder considers action against IWF over Scorpions image ban

The founder of Wikipedia has told Channel 4 News that he is considering challenging the decision to block access to part of Wikipedia in the UK.

Criticising the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) for blocking access in order to prevent UK users from viewing an image of a naked pre-pubescent girl taken in 1976, Jimmy Wales said IWF's actions have actually exposed more people to the image as it spreads throughout the web. The image in question was on the cover of an album by German rock band The Scorpions.

"The IWF was clearly over-reaching its remit when it blocked the text page on Wikipedia - there's nothing illegal about the description of the album. I'd also question its wisdom in trying to block the image itself," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...s-action-against-iwf-over-scorpions-image.htm
 
Erm has chld pornography not got something to do with sexualisation of a child, a naked girl with her breast showing isn't pornography or sexual (unless you make it).

There is a really grey area around this and IMO it's going too far, soon it may be illegal to allow children onto naturist beaches, wash your child or change in the same room as them...

I'm sure there used to be quite a clear line but recently that line has been moved further and further, then greyed.
 
Amp34 said:
Erm has chld pornography not got something to do with sexualisation of a child, a naked girl with her breast showing isn't pornography or sexual (unless you make it).

There is a really grey area around this and IMO it's going too far, soon it may be illegal to allow children onto naturist beaches, wash your child or change in the same room as them...

I'm sure there used to be quite a clear line but recently that line has been moved further and further, then greyed.
Click to expand...

Goalposts have moved in recent years. Naked photographs are now considered "child pornography".
 
Can't believe so many people are suprised by this. The UK net has been filtered for years, known child pornography sites are blacklisted.

Don't understand how you can be "outraged" or claim the country is "like zimbabwe"

This has just gained attention because its blocked something on a popular site for once.
 
Last edited:
Strife212 said:
Don't understand how you can be "outraged" or claim the country is "like zimbabwe"
Click to expand...
I think you missed the sarcasm.

Can't believe so many people are suprised by this. The UK net has been filtered for years, known child pornography sites are blacklisted.
Click to expand...
But Wikipedia is not a child pornography site. If the image on it is perfectly acceptable to publish on a CD cover, why should it be taken off the internet? Especially when a quick google search underneath the same ISPs shows the image up everywhere.

Also, did you miss the part about Wiki shutting down edits/accounts from the banning ISPs? Effectively stopping people from contributing to Wiki for an image they can just see elsewhere anyway.
 
The strange thing is, Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover is still there. If that's still available for viewing then so should 'Virgin Killer' be too.

Who exactly voted for these cretins to get the power to censor what we should and should not be allowed to view on the internet?
 
Azagoth said:
The strange thing is, Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album cover is still there. If that's still available for viewing then so should 'Virgin Killer' be too.

Who exactly voted for these cretins to get the power to censor what we should and should not be allowed to view on the internet?
Click to expand...

There's a difference imo. the girl on that cover is sat in what could be considered a sexual pose. its rather removed from the baby on the nevermind cover. if the baby on nevermind was sait on the floor with his legs open, you can bet (and bloody rightly so) it'd be blocked as well.

the image of that girl makes me uncomfortable, its just wrong. The boy on nevermind, i dont give it a second thought tbh.
 
Im sure its been covered already, havent the time to read through all the posts but this sums it up nicely, Cobains comments on the sexualisation of the image of a baby on Nevermind's cover:

Cobain made it clear that the only compromise he would accept was a sticker covering the penis that would say "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile.
Click to expand...
 
The IWF have overturned their own decision. How embarrassing.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm

Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.

Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures.

IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision.
Click to expand...
 
Greebo said:
Goalposts have moved in recent years. Naked photographs are now considered "child pornography".
Click to expand...

Even more of a grey area then.

That reminds me, they had a 16 year old with his penis out on embarassing bodies a few weeks ago, as I said a very grey area.

Weebull said:
I think you missed the sarcasm.


But Wikipedia is not a child pornography site. If the image on it is perfectly acceptable to publish on a CD cover, why should it be taken off the internet? Especially when a quick google search underneath the same ISPs shows the image up everywhere.

Also, did you miss the part about Wiki shutting down edits/accounts from the banning ISPs? Effectively stopping people from contributing to Wiki for an image they can just see elsewhere anyway.
Click to expand...

5 years ago there were "sweet 16" girls modelling topless in the Star and Sun, I think techincally you could be arrested if you still have those images. Oh and Kierea Knightly in "The Hole", she was 16 when she went topless, and I think that girl in American beauty who went topless was also only 16. Child porn and arrestable?
 
Being as Plusnet were mentioned as being one of the Providers that censored it.
I am confused..
I can see the pic, the description, basically the whole page. and I'm with Plusnet...

There is a note at the top about the page being locked from editing though..

I really can't see what all the fuss is about, just because she's posing for the shot in the nuddy, suddenly it is child porn....
Get a grip.
 
Amp34 said:
5 years ago there were "sweet 16" girls modelling topless in the Star and Sun, I think techincally you could be arrested if you still have those images. Oh and Kierea Knightly in "The Hole", she was 16 when she went topless, and I think that girl in American beauty who went topless was also only 16. Child porn and arrestable?
Click to expand...

They were old enough to legally "boff", so seeing them topless is nothing.
 
I get what the IWF is trying to do, and i am not opposed to their goal, but surely there are are sites that host child porn (by which i mean actual child porn, not images that some people say is porn some say is art) which they should be focused on blocking. Why are they even bothering to waste their time with stuff on wikipedia anyway?
 
That's pretty bad for a CD cover, i agree it should be taken down or censored but should be updated and people should be told about the edit (as per usual what wikipedia do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom