Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia

Acathla · 07-12-2008, 12:34

Couldn't find a thread on this already so thought I would post one here to see what people think regarding a story run by TheReg today.

Quote:

Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia after the site was added to an Internet Watch Foundation child-pornography blacklist, according to Wikipedia administrators.

Quote:

On Friday, Wikipedia administrators noticed that Virgin Media, Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica, EasyNet/UK Online, PlusNet, Demon, and Opal were routing Wikipedia traffic through a small number of transparent proxy servers as a way of blocking access to the encyclopedia's article on Virgin Killer, a mid-1970s record album from German heavy band Scorpions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...sor_wikipedia/

The censored link is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer and all I get is a blank page. You can still view the unrestricted page if you use Google Cache but I won't link direct to it from here just in case anyone is unsure about it.

But what do you think? VM blocking access due to child-pornography or do you think this is taking things just a little too far? I can understand the sensitivities in the subject matter but this isn't some unknown website, its Wikipedia...

BenMcr · 07-12-2008, 12:37

Virgin are following the IWF blacklist.

It doesn't matter how big or well known the site is. If for some reason a BBC page/site was on the IWF list, all ISPs signed up would block it

Zhadnost · 07-12-2008, 12:39

I think that if VM got accused of propogating Child Pornography once they'd been informed of the content, it could be extremely damaging to them.

It's a shame, but true. (only with regards to censorship debates etc.)

Lets not forget we have a press in this country that is quite hostile towards WM.

BenMcr · 07-12-2008, 12:39

As I've not seen the page I can't comment on the image, but I'm trying to work out why that is banned, when the Nirvana album isn't

Zhadnost · 07-12-2008, 12:40

When I read the article on theregister this morning, it was the first thing that came to mind. :-)

**Stuart C** · 07-12-2008, 12:40

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...sor_wikipedia/

It seems that six UK ISPs (Virgin Media, O2/Be/Telefonica, Easynet/UKOnline, Plusnet, Demon and Opal) have blocked access to a page on Wikipedia covering an Album that originally included a picture of a naked pre pubescant child.

Now, that I don't have a problem with (quite the opposite, in fact).

What I do have a problem with is Wiki's reaction. Not only have they blocked edits from a lot of the customers of those ISPs (understandable due to the way the ISPs have blocked access to the page, but hardly in keeping with the Web 2.0 ethos), but the fact that Wiki are refusing to remove the image, because apparently, they don't censor.

**Kymmy** · 07-12-2008, 12:42

Stuart moved your post here

**Mick** · 07-12-2008, 12:42

From the cached page:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Cache

Virgin Killer is the fourth studio album by the German heavy metal band Scorpions. It was released in 1976, and was the first album of the band to attract attention outside Europe.[1] The original cover, featuring a naked prepubescent girl, stirred controversy in the United States and elsewhere. It was subsequently reissued with a different cover.

This same page shows a rather questionable image and if I had known what the fuss was about I wouldn't have viewed the cache - Now I can see why this page might get blocked ...

**Stuart C** · 07-12-2008, 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Stuart moved your post here

Yeah I noticed his thread after I posted mine. Then my DSL modem reset just after I junked it..

TheNorm · 07-12-2008, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

...Wiki are refusing to remove the image, because apparently, they don't censor.

That depends on your definition of "censor". Wiki continually change the content of pages, mostly because of spam, poorly written comments, and statements made without links. Blocking an image would not be difficult.

**Stuart C** · 07-12-2008, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

That depends on your definition of "censor". Wiki continually change the content of pages, mostly because of spam, poorly written comments, and statements made without links. Blocking an image would not be difficult.

That's what confuses me. They are happy to edit pages because they are poorly writtten, but if something is potentially illegal, that's fine.

jellybaby · 07-12-2008, 13:00

After looking at the cached page, I can certainly see why the page has been blocked

Horace · 07-12-2008, 13:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

That's what confuses me. They are happy to edit pages because they are poorly writtten, but if something is potentially illegal, that's fine.

Then you have to consider which country's laws to apply, the cover of the album was obviously legal in Germany where it was released.
However, Wikipedia should probably remove the image anyway just stop the possibility over-zealous network admins in schools and other institutions blocking the whole domain.

Sir John Luke · 07-12-2008, 13:16

Wiki haven't exactly helped their cause by replicating the image on the Wikinews page about the ban.

mr,m · 07-12-2008, 14:06

Personally I did'nt find the image offensive,but can well see why it's been blocked.For obvious reasons the easiest thing to do would be for wiki to remove the entry.People could take great offence to it.