Wikipedia child image censored

[4me2]

Wikipedia child image censored


Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages


A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.
Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.
Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.
They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.
But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.
The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content. It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site


David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer


As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.
A spokeswoman for the IWF, which lists its members as including the BBC, AOL (UK), Ask and News International, suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.
Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.
Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.
"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said. The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list. Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm

[Pegasus]

Typical knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist, but it will keep the sheeple happy nonetheless.

What they should do is show some consistency if they are going to decide what is good for us, just take a look at the Nevermind album from Nirvana on Wiki (which isn't blocked)

[-AMO-]

And the page that's causing all the upset...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

[Pegasus]

I get a 404 on that Amo (I'm with Be), yet it displays fine if I use an anonymous proxy.

[Nibb]

Fine for me on Sky!

[4me2]

works fine on http://adsl24.co.uk/index.php

Internet censorship

In 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added Wikipedia's Virgin Killer article to its blacklist[15][16] 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. Although the controversial cover art is still provided on the deluxe boxed edition of the album sold worldwide,[17] 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").[18][19] 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.[20][21]

[ss30]

I dont know why they bothered it's all over google

[c0axial]

woop de dooo, go catch some f'n ped0's instead !

[Mule]

woop de dooo, go catch some f'n ped0's instead !

Who? The Internet Watch Foundation? I don't think that's their job...

The page doesn't load on Virgin Media but as ss30 pointed out it's all over google image search.

[evilsatan]

Doesn't load on BT. TBH a few months ago when I was modding the download feeds I had to ask other staff if it was ok to allow an album cover through which displayed what appeared to be an underaged girl topless. Suppose it's the world we live in. Can we hate paedos so much yet argue that underage nude photos are ok? I know it's an album cover and a harmless photo, I don't really have a stong opinion on this matter but there is certainly going to be a conflict of opinions.

[cosmicma]

i was listening to something on the radio about this and when a representative of the IWF was asked why they hadn't blocked the same content on amazons site they wouldn't give a straight answer
they went on to suggest they have only targeted wikkipedia because they know they havn't the funding to sue them unlike amazon

it will be interesting to see if they do block other more wealthy websites with the same or similar content

[CzarJunkie]

I didn't notice any ISP's blocking access to the websites hosting the video of those fuckers last week caving that poor cunts head in with a hammer. Yet, they go potty over a harmless album cover? It makes me wonder who heads these organisations and I wonder if guilt is more a motivating factor on their part?

[cronus71]

That picture has been here on DF years ago, along with the Album Cover Hall of Shame thread.

Here: http://www.digital-forums.com/showthread.php?t=218845 the picture is still there in the Top Ten Worst

[DejaVu]

If your in the UK it gets blocked...

It's the Scoprions Virgin Killer CD Cover...

I guess it is a little strong -
http://www.sleazeroxx.com/censored/virgin1.jpg

[burner1]

I didn't notice any ISP's blocking access to the websites hosting the video of those fuckers last week caving that poor cunts head in with a hammer. Yet, they go potty over a harmless album cover? It makes me wonder who heads these organisations and I wonder if guilt is more a motivating factor on their part?

That's quite true on occasion, like, seeing 'deviance' from the mind rather than unbiased rationale.

I've occasionally posted things on various sites that I thought were humerous for humours sake, and then had replies saying it looks a bit 'this or that' before.

[TwoPlAnKs]

All things aside their attempt at blocking it has been an epically monumental failure. I for one certainly wouldn't have seen it if they hadn't blocked it.

As usual its some stupid fudd creating a storm in a teacup over something they choose to be offended by. I'd be far more upset if I was browsing the internet and came across this(nsfw) picture for the simple reason that its actually sexual activity between wrinkly people - and even that isn't actually offensive in any way and totally natural.

They should make hobbies compulsory for people who complain about things.

[Over Carl]

They should make hobbies compulsory for people who complain about things.

:emot112:

Although in this particular case I can see why some would be offended/outraged/whatever. Shouldn't have been allowed in the first place really.

[cronus71]

Shouldn't have been allowed in the first place really.

Things were different then, back in the '70s

E.g. about Brooke Shields

Film career

Shields' first major film role was her 1978 appearance in Louis Malle's Pretty Baby, a movie in which she played a child living in a brothel (and in which there were numerous nude scenes). Because she was only 12 when the film was released, and possibly 11 when it was filmed, questions were raised about child pornography.

[Pegasus]

The stupidity isn't the banning of the image as such, it's the reason it was banned that defies belief.

The reason for banning it was because it was deemed "potentially" illegal under current obscenity laws.

Well if thats the case, then what about the 1000's of us that have snapped pics of our own kids taking a bath with mum (or dad), those of us who have snapped our kids at the beach, those of us who have filmed our kids at the school xmas play, etc.

Are we all now in possession of material that is "potentially" illegal as well?
Before you all respond with "it's all about context Peg" (which I know), just google for Julia Somerville (BBC newsreader).

[crashtestmac]

IS IT every parent's nightmare, or is it simply the best way to protect children? The arrest of newsreader Julia Somerville over allegedly indecent photographs of her seven-year-old daughter has opened the debate this weekend on the law relating to child pornography.

Ms Somerville, 48, and her architect boyfriend Jeremy Dixon, 56, were questioned by Scotland Yard's child-pornography unit on Thursday night, after Mr Dixon was met by detectives at a London chemist. He had gone to pick up what the couple insist were "family photographs".

Both Ms Somerville, who regained a top position in news broadcasting after a brain tumour operation, and Mr Dixon, who designed the extension to the Royal Opera House, strenuously denied the allegations. They said the pictures, which reportedly include a picture of Ms Somerville's daughter naked in the bath, were innocent. Ms Somerville also said she was "deeply distressed" that the arrests were made public, leading Scotland Yard to deny last night that it had leaked the news to the media.

Leading child-law experts said the case would renew the debate about the law surrounding child pornography. This has intensified over the decade, focusing in particular on whether society has become too sensitive to the possibility of child abuse - sometimes with traumatic results for innocent parties.

The most recent amendment to the law, outlawing the possession of pornographic photographs of children, was introduced seven years ago, amid intense lobbying from campaigners who included Mary Whitehouse. Although John Patten, then a Home Office minister, emphasised it was not the intention to catch innocent family snaps of naked children in the bath or on the beach, it was inevitable parents would come under more scrutiny.

"Clearly there is a risk innocent parents may be drawn in, and there is also a grey area here on what indecency means," said Alan Levy, QC, who specialises in child law. "This tests the law as to what we consider indecent. What it must really rely on is common sense. If you are taking naked pictures of a seven-year-old, which seems older than usual, you are playing with fire - not because you are necessarily doing anything indecent, but because it might be construed that way."

The pictures of Ms Somerville's daughter were reported to police by a member of staff at Boots. The chemist chain has a policy of reporting any photographs that staff believe may be obscene or pornographic.

The possession of child pornography carries a fine rather than a prison sentence, because according to the architects of the law the "shame of conviction. . . could be a greater punishment." However, under the 1978 Protection of Children Act it is also a crime to take pornographic pictures of children, or to permit them to be taken.

Ms Somerville and Mr Dixon were released early on Friday morning on police bail, pending further inquiries. Scotland Yard said that police had not removed anything yesterday during a search of the couple's north London home.

Campaigners who represent parents who have been wrongfully accused of child abuse said the system was letting parents and children down. "The problem is there are now so many investigations into various forms of child abuse and neglect that the system is being overloaded," said Sue Amphlett, director of Parents Against Injustice.

"Either children who are being abused are not being protected properly, or a whole new group of children who were never abused in the first place are being traumatised. Six out of seven of these investigations are dropped.

"The case depends on what these pictures are, but I would expect that in every family album there are photographs of children running round naked and getting out of the bath, and it is a question of interpretation."