Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:44 PM
Original message
Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist
Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Wikipedia has been blacklisted by a British online child pornography watchdog, causing almost every internet user in Britain to be blocked from contributing to the site anonymously.

The British Government-backed Internet Watch Foundation blacklisted Wikipedia over an article on the 1976 album Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions. At issue was a screen shot of the album cover, published with the article, that featured a naked, young girl with her genitals obscured by a simulated tear in the photograph.

After hearing of the blacklisting, Britain's six main internet service providers blocked their users from accessing the article.

But the method they used means users of each provider now access Wikipedia as a whole through the same IP address. Usually all internet users have a unique IP address, allowing Wikipedia to block users who vandalise the site or otherwise break its rules.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-add...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. It seems like the proper thing to do would be to remove or further edit the photo, not block a
very valuable internet tool. Seems like this was ill-thought-out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No reason to remove the photo to appease a few zealots:
As the SMH story notes:

"We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world," said the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, Mike Godwin.

"We believe it's worth noting that the image is currently visible on Amazon, where the album can be freely purchased by UK residents. It is available on thousands of websites that are accessible to the UK public."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cstanleytech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Exactly, nudity does not automatically = pornography after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Typical British prudishness
Of all secular societies, it seems that the ones with a British lineage (that includes Canada, Australia and the U.S.) are the most screwed up when the topic of sexuality arises. They are little better than societies run by religious fanatics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. It is a question of the age of the child
so it's not just 'sexuality'. Everyone will have a limit as to what is OK in terms of sex and underage children. Having said that, the album has been around for years, and, as Wikipedia notes, is for sale on UK websites, with the picture displayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evilkumquat Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Ever Hear of a Page Three Girl?
I wouldn't call Britain "prudish".

In this situation, overly-zealous, yes... and stupid.

Can't leave out stupid.

But prudish? Never.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milspec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Well I have
you can be a topless model there at age 16.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. I say old bean
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 10:25 PM by DS1
Kindly know what the fuck you're talking about before you open your silly gob.

Good day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Prude, prude, prude
You silly English Ka-nighut. Your mother covered up hamster genitals and your father was embarrassed by dingleberries. I fart in your general direction. Now go away before I taunt you again. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Wikipedia has refused to edit it
on the grounds of freedom of expression.

There's a discussion of the case on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%2...

Some have said that only a subset of UK users are now prevented from (anonymous) editing, since teechnical details have been changed, but there's a lot on that page to look through, so I'm not sure that is correct.

In fact, I've had problems trying to edit Wikipedia before, even when logged in, and so have no given up trying to do so. They block ranges of IP addresses, even if you're logged in, and you have to apply to get them to limit the block, or to let your particular ID back in when logged in, if they can see you have no problems on your record. I did that once, and when I was blocked out again a few months later (my ISP uses dynamic IP addresses, and I may shared them with hundreds of thousands of others), and I can't be bothered to go begging them to let me back in every time I want to correct a minor error they've got. Wikipedia needs to change its model if it wants contributions from the average person. This latest episode is just another symptom of their inadequate setup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not to stir things up, but that IS a pretty edgy picture, even with the broken glass effect.
Of course, it's now in my browser cache...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veritas_et_Aequitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. And the authorities will be there shortly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yep, I'm blocked all right
The Nanny State strikes again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Are you blocked from the article or the entire site? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. I can get to any articles, but the edit function leads me to this disclaimer

"Wikipedia has been added to an Internet Watch Foundation UK website blacklist, and your Internet service provider has decided to block part of your access. Unfortunately, the method they are using makes it impossible for us to differentiate between legitimate users and those abusing the site. As a result, we have been forced to block several IP addresses from editing Wikipedia.

Registered users are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, use our account creation tool to request an account with details of your block as explained below. "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sigh. Like sweeping it under the rug will make it better.
This is what got the Catholic Church in trouble with all those pedophiles. They thought they could just pretend, and it would all go away. Humans are DEEPLY irrational about sex, and any strategy that works for managing human sex is going to have to be based on more than denial and ignorance and bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. But this girl is like 11
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 08:15 PM by Pharaoh
It is in kinda bad taste don't you think? :freak:


edited to add: Blacklisting wikipedia is nuts!

Like blacklisting Google...............

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. IOt's not that the whole of Wikipedia is blacklisted; just the Virgin Killers page
(though they could have targeted just the image itself, instead). But the problem is that the ISPs did this by redirecting all requests for Wikipedia from UK addresses through proxies - so that Wikipedia sees them all as the same address. Since Wikipedia wants to have some idea of who is trying to edit the pages, they don't allow editing through known proxies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. You are going to be in deep trouble if you try to eliminate bad taste.
Just saying ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
16. LOL, so that is why all the British vandals disappeared lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. If they are up in arms about this...
...then they should be going crazy over Jan Saudek. I was in Prague about 2 years ago and saw billboards for his exhibition. A lot of his work is enough to get him arrested in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. How old do you suppose this girl is?
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Faith/dp/B000F6YPNM/ref=pd_...

Viewable and available for purchase in the US with no problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I have no idea
but she does look a bit older than the cover in question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. My wife was 5' 9" when she was 12 and looked about 20
Where I was getting into the movies as under 12 until after I turned 18 and didn't start shaving until after 30.

My point being that it's extremely difficult to determine age from the way a person looks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACTION BASTARD Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. Holy Shit! It's been ages since anybody has give a shit about the Scorpions
Wow, a 30yr old album is causing so much of a lame ruckus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ITsec Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
22. Led Zeppelin Houses of the Holy...
Although no frontal nudity, it does show a nude pre-pubescent girl climbing the rocks in different poses with full buttocks in view.

That album has been around now since 73. I don't remember anyone blowing a gasket over that one, nor any homes raided and the occupants sent to prison because someone owns the album.

Oh, and it too is on Wikipedia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
26. Well, good to see some role reversal, sort of
When Blind Faith came out with their debut album, the cover, a shot of a topless prepubescent girl, cause enough of a stir in the US that an alternative cover was put on for US sales, as opposed to the British who, for the most part, just shrugged.

Now it's the Brits who are getting bent out of shape by a Scorpions cover :eyes:

Oh IWR, the Blind Faith cover is on Wiki too, are you going to get bent out of shape over that :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. Any geezers here remember Usenet newsgroups?
:rofl:

I don't know all the details, but I see the IWF lambasted regularly by system admins around the Internets.

Apparently, the IWF won some kind of British govt. remit to be the Official Usenet Watchdog. They seem to be very aggressive in pressuring premium Usenet providers to drop Usenet groups, based strictly on the group titles.

Usenet geezers will see the stupidity of this approach immediately.

Let's say someone creates a Usenet group with the title alt.binaries.kidporn. Major fun ensues. It will soon fill up with wanna-be cops pretending to be 11-yr-olds, trying to cyber-arrest other wanna-be cops posing as perverts/Catholic priests. In the meantime, the IWF demands the group be removed, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, you could create another group, alt.binaries.cute-fuzzy-kittens and fill it up with the raunchiest, most illegal porn imaginable. Based on what I've read, you'd get caught eventually, but probably not for a while.

(So other than porn, why is Usenet even still around? Try a couple of other acronyms--RIAA and MPAA.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. I remember dial-in bulletin boards.
Usenet used to be useful for other things than smut, but the spammers sort of overwhelmed it eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pam4water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
30. Wiki needs to become kid friendly so how. It is an encyclopedia and
getting more and more use by the younin's. I've seen some stuff on there I'd like to for get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Why must Wikipedia become "kid friendly"?
And given the possibility of legally "scraping" and
repurposing its content, if you think "Kidopedia"
should exist, why don't you just go ahead and
create your Bowdlerized encylopedia?

But leave mine alone.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. God no. Kids need to learn not to use Wiki for research
If I see one more kid I tutor cite Wiki as a "source" in a paper I'm going to lose my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Fuck that noise....
Its the parents responsibility to raise their children and regulate what they see or do on the internet or real life.

We need to stop dumbing down everything "for the children."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 28th 2014, 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC