Wikipedia article censored by UK ISPs!! !

Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

09 Dec 2008, 8:50 am

Quote:
Internet censorship
Main article: IWF block of Wikipedia
In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia 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." The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users." EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".

Wikinews has related news:
British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations
Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations
In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist 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. A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release. Nevertheless, 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"). In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "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." Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.


and that's why it's been censored, typical consertive christian groups :evil:

notice how religion is once again trying to blind us from what's in the world? they don't want to remove the picture, they want to remove the entire article! in my oppinion, they're idiots.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


Kajjie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 495
Location: Sometimes London, sometimes Coventry

09 Dec 2008, 10:23 am

familiar_stranger wrote:
i believe in freedom of speach and hate censorship, i also believe peadophiles don't deserve free eyecandy and naked children should be censored/covered up.


Most people who are going to look at that page are probably not paedophiles - they probably like the band that released the CD, and possibly have no idea that it has an album cover like that.
Secondly, as for 'paedophiles don't deserve free eyecandy' - what, so they should pay for child porn instead? Or sneak around finding terrible, illegal websites that are currently abusing/exploiting children? If a peadophile likes looking at that page, it's doing no harm. The album is old. The picture was taken a long time ago, and the damage done to the girl by taking it has been done. It doesn't matter who looks at it now.



DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

09 Dec 2008, 11:27 am

If its a CD cover then the damage has been done, the CD is in shops, if the cover is really that bad then it shouldnt have been put on the front of the CD in first place.

They should of at least just censored the image, as the technology they used to block the page could have very easily been used to censor the image.

f*****g idiots.



KBABZ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,012
Location: Middle Earth. Er, I mean Wellywood. Wait, Wellington.

09 Dec 2008, 5:52 pm

Not to mention that the image is probably thumbnail size, even on full-view. Kinda hard to erm, *unspeakable* to a small image.


And hey ho, whaddya know, my earlier post has been ignored.


_________________
I was sad when I found that she left
But then I found
That I could speak to her,
In a way
And sadness turned to comfort
We all go there


NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

09 Dec 2008, 6:01 pm

There is a section on the controversy over that image in the Wikipedia article it apperars in. According to Francis Buchhold (the bands bassist) the model was either the daughter or niece of Steffan Bohle who designed the cover. The band's rhythm guitarist Rudolf Schenker said that they met her fifteen years later and she "had no problem with the cover." So, if it was the girls father or uncle who cast her for it, and the model herself is cool with it; why in anybody else complaining?


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

10 Dec 2008, 7:40 am

NobelCynic wrote:
There is a section on the controversy over that image in the Wikipedia article it apperars in. According to Francis Buchhold (the bands bassist) the model was either the daughter or niece of Steffan Bohle who designed the cover. The band's rhythm guitarist Rudolf Schenker said that they met her fifteen years later and she "had no problem with the cover." So, if it was the girls father or uncle who cast her for it, and the model herself is cool with it; why in anybody else complaining?


if a twelve year old girl is 'in love' with a man in his late thirties is it alright for them to have a sexual relationship? no, the same as when a child is alright with being photographed in that nature.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

10 Dec 2008, 12:51 pm

familiar_stranger wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
There is a section on the controversy over that image in the Wikipedia article it apperars in. According to Francis Buchhold (the bands bassist) the model was either the daughter or niece of Steffan Bohle who designed the cover. The band's rhythm guitarist Rudolf Schenker said that they met her fifteen years later and she "had no problem with the cover." So, if it was the girls father or uncle who cast her for it, and the model herself is cool with it; why in anybody else complaining?


if a twelve year old girl is 'in love' with a man in his late thirties is it alright for them to have a sexual relationship? no, the same as when a child is alright with being photographed in that nature.


I personally dont see the problem with that, actually.

Anywho, they uncensored the Wikipedia page! :)