Cable Forum - View Single Post - Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia

Matth · 08-12-2008, 00:36

Maybe it would be simpler if WP dropped the image, it was propsed for deletion and and immediately slapped down per WP:Notcensored. It is not proven that the image is illegal, it is not abuse, and while the decency is questionable, it would seem to be a mistake to judge a published major label record cover image in the same way as a grubby porn site. The defence of the "Notcensored" principle (other than according to legal requirements of the host country) by the Wikipedia community is always robust, otherwise it will be the thin end of the wedge, and a stick used to beat down anything that some parties may have a problem with.

The other thing, if the not so transparent proxy gave a forwarded_for then the collateral damage could be reduced.

In one stroke, the IWF have changed the perception of them from "protecting against abuse to "Interfering busybodies".

I have noted an obscure path to some other sites, passing through 62.30.249.131 - I think aboutus.org (another wiki) was one.

And now we KNOW what 62.30.249.131 is, it's the "Virginmedia IWF proxy" - a SINGLE ONE for both ex-NTL and ex-TW, and bringing back the same kind of issues as the general transparent proxies for any site unlucky enough to be passed through it for the sake of a single dubious piece of content.

08-12-2008, 00:36	#43
Matth cf.mega poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,973	Re: Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia Maybe it would be simpler if WP dropped the image, it was propsed for deletion and and immediately slapped down per WP:Notcensored. It is not proven that the image is illegal, it is not abuse, and while the decency is questionable, it would seem to be a mistake to judge a published major label record cover image in the same way as a grubby porn site. The defence of the "Notcensored" principle (other than according to legal requirements of the host country) by the Wikipedia community is always robust, otherwise it will be the thin end of the wedge, and a stick used to beat down anything that some parties may have a problem with. The other thing, if the not so transparent proxy gave a forwarded_for then the collateral damage could be reduced. In one stroke, the IWF have changed the perception of them from "protecting against abuse to "Interfering busybodies". I have noted an obscure path to some other sites, passing through 62.30.249.131 - I think aboutus.org (another wiki) was one. And now we KNOW what 62.30.249.131 is, it's the "Virginmedia IWF proxy" - a SINGLE ONE for both ex-NTL and ex-TW, and bringing back the same kind of issues as the general transparent proxies for any site unlucky enough to be passed through it for the sake of a single dubious piece of content.