Wikipedia blacklisted for child porn
The British Government-backed Internet Watch Foundation has blacklisted Wikipedia for distributing child porn.
As a result of the move almost every Internet user in Britain has been blocked from contributing to the site anonymously.
The problem was an article on the 1976 album Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions. The popular beat combo had an album cover that featured a naked young girl with her genitals obscured by a simulated tear in the photograph.
While that might have been considered acceptable in the 1970s -- the generation that spawned Gary Glitter -- we are all a bit more sensitive to such things these days.
The image was shown to the UK's kiddy porn police who said it broke UK law and wanted to go and arrest this Scorpion bloke immediately.
Britain's six main internet service providers blocked their users from accessing the article after hearing of the ruling.
But the web proxy systems used to block the page have the effect that Wikipedia sees everyone behind the proxy as having the same IP address.
It means that if the Wackypedia editors ban someone they don't like, the whole ISP will be banned too. It will only take six bans and nearly everyone in the UK will be unable to edit articles on Wikipedia.
In a bizarre move, Wikipedia administrators have emphatically refused to remove the album cover on the site, saying that they do not censor articles. However Wikipedia does censor articles. It has deleted articles on the Everywhere Girl, Mike Mageek, and anything else that Daily Tech readers do not like.
So it seems that Wackypedia editors are defending the publication of allegedly illegal child porn on the site, but delete valid references on a whim. µ
L'Inq
Sydney Morning Herald
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
God you're a retard. The Everywhere Girl is hardly a comparison of censorship; the article keeps being protected and forwarded to another page because she's not notable enough. The only source existing is The Inquirer and her personal MySpace and blogs. That hardly validates any reason for her to have an article other then being a lame fad by your stupid editorial, on top of the fact that the article (poorly written by anonymous users) only self-promoted The Inquirer the whole bloody time. As for Mike Mageek, he's on the encyclopedia, stop whining because you're too lazy to put any references on your crap.
As for child porn, the image is completely valid and not illegal under any law in the world; I have neither seen anyone try to bring it to court (so you don't need to lie about the police wanting to arrest 'this Scorpion bloke', because the police don't have the image among their own child pornography listing. Ask them yourself). The UK's IWF's decision was a sole act because they deemed it "potentially illegal". However, tell me under what bloody law is it "potentially illegal" before inventing this shit up.
This is another example of the world gone mad, another storm in a tea cup driven by fanatics who deem themselves able to judge what others should and should not see.
The trouble with designating almost everything like this as "child porn" is that it dilutes the meaning of the term, and since we will be awash with allegations against the most innocent of pictures, the real child porn will slip through under a radar soaked in false targets.
My advice to all those people who think this is child porn:
get yourself a life and a proper job so that you don't have to sit at home dreaming up reasons why fairly innocuous pictures should be classified as child porn.
Whether it be child porn, or regular porn... it destroys everything in it's path.
Now wikipedia will be destroyed.
I see this is a conspiracy. Someone has infiltrated wikipedia, and then working with the news papers to bring wikipedia to the courts with the most horrid of possible potential charges.
Then again, maybe wikipedia is working with the newspapers to promote child porn.
@FAR
The suggestion that porn destroys everything its path, could equally be applied to religion. However there is rather more proof that religion can be destructive than there is for porn.
Religion destroys a lot of things, and the sole cause of a considerable majority of wars the world has seen.
I don't seen the porn industry making people invade other countries, nor making people run around blowing each other up.
Therefore by the logic of your arguments porn is actually considerably less harmful than religion, and certainly resposnible for far less suffering and death.
You may questionably argue than porn causes suffering, but for 99.9999% of the porn industry out there its a job and the participants enjoy their work and they earn a living from it.
The fanatacism of religion is by contrast something that is often forced onto children by parents and families. The resulting programmed behaviour of those children when they grow up leads to many of the combative and aggressive behaviours we see today, which in turn leads to conflict.