Comments:Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations

I believe this should seriously concern us.

It is obvious that the image is not child pornography, but "someone" decides it is, and censors it. They know they are wrong (otherwise they would censor Amason, too, and not fear a litigation), but they still do it, whatever the real cause. This is a dangerous precedent, and if we leave it to slide, others, more serious, are sure to follow. Which effectively may destroy the very idea of Wikipedia.

I would suggest a strong, but necessary measure. Take the entire Wikipedia offline for the providers who blocked the Scorpions page. Redirect the users to a page explaining the reason. Put on this page the official contact info of the offending providers. Link there a page that lists, by proximity, UK providers who haven't blocked the page, and urge the users to switch to them. Some directions on how to organize a grassroots campain for luring every single subscriber away from these providers will be nice. :-)

This will probably prompt the providers to contact Wikimedia and try to negotiate, or threaten. If they try to negotiate, tell them they will be unblocked after presenting a written binding legal obligation to never anymore block Wikipedia contents, no matter the reason (if they cannot do this, it is their problem), and an apology for their unlawful action. If they threaten, take the entire Wikipedia offline for the entire world for a day, and replace it with a page describing the story, giving the contact info of the culprits, and saying that if the threats continue, Wikipedia will be taken offline for an indefinite period.

In short, they are now the example on what happens to those who try to censor or bully Wikipedia. Others will look to this example, and take the hint. Let's ensure that the hint says "don't try this, it will bruise you, not Wikipedia". Otherwise, we will be inviting every censor and bully around to dance on our heads.

I don't think that tactics of coercion are desirable to resolve this issue. The Wikipedia users in the UK who are currently unable to work on the encyclopedia however should and, I'm sure, will make it clear to the IWF that this kind of blanket sabotaging of Wikipedia is not an option. As for the hypocrisy of the block per se, it shows how much power is vested in a handful of moralists who, employing their rigid moral framework, appear to be unable to separate pornography from an artful depiction of nudity. Just because a tiny minority of the population is sick enough to be sexually aroused by child pornography, we are all to be prevented from using our own sensiblities in deciding whether we want to stare at a possibly offensive image or not. IMO it is this kind of repression that is responsible for exactly the kind of sexual aberration it is trying to prevent. Pushing all the socially undesirable urges into the subconscious certainly doesn't help. --boo (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

personally i would create a link to the picture at amazon.

We have to strike hard and fast to ensure that this issue is resolved. People only care about important things for a short amount of time, and we must act within that time if we are to be successful. It is clear by the fact that only Wikipedia was blocked that the motivation does not revolve around child pornography. I would posit that it is instead an attempt to limit a population to free information. It is information control, and it is the start of something much more insidious. Rekov (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when did unelected unaccountable individuals have the right to determine for me what I will be corrupted by. Did it corrupt them? I did not give consent at any stage to give up my freedom to a bunch of puritanical faschists with their knickers in a twist. Not only am I in the UK, but I can still see the image everywhere. It has also become the most viewed webpage. So far more people have seen it too. Like the church banning books it doesn't work and should be fought. They do not understand the power they wield nor have consent to wield it. Fuck off!

proxy causing issues with blocking
There seems to be a lot of fuss with the whole making it impossible to block people with this set up. I don't really understand why that neccesarily has to be true. Other proxies (such as aol's system) have workarrounds for this [AFAIK, don't quote me on this], using the x-forward-for http header. Why doesn't IWF provide this (although they might, and wmf servers may just not recognize it. i'm not too too familiar with the technical side of all this works). 24.65.82.136 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (user:Bawolff)

Serious violation of freedom of expression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.40.136 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the Above
The ISPs are stuck between a rock and hard place on this one, they were basically told that if they didn't they use the IWF to filter volentarily then the government would look at legally compelling them. Also the blacklist is downloaded automatically by the ISP, the ISP must then block every website in the blacklist. Staff at the ISP are also prohibited from editing the list - they arn't even allowed to look at it! -- enotayokel from Wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.104.155.39 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess what
I'm in the UK, using a UK ISP without a proxy, and... I can read this page and see the picture ! Yes! Finally I can be a pedo again ! This whole thing can only either be a test for their plan on getting rid of net neutrality or they just wanted free advertising to get financial support from religious organizations (goes along with the net neutrality thing) or, British ISPs belong to China and we don't know about it. Now whenever we'll tell them they shouldn't censor things they don't like on wikipedia, they'll tell us to do the same ! Ren Sydrick (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

virgin killer - points of view and power
I am sure these politically biased "protectors of children" do in some cases actually protect a minority of children from terrible abuse. And I applaud their well meaning motivation and successes. God knows children need protecting, and children have little respect in our society. But the irony is that they are part of a culture of repression, denial and fear that makes sexual child abuse more likely to happen, paradoxically. They tend to stigmatize child nudity and nascent adult sexuality in the process. Shame and guilt can be positive, protective emotions but authorities often direct them in a way so that children and adults feels unable to speak out, against abuse. And the abusers can avoid the real issues because of the absurdity and prudery of their most vocal/active opponents. Victims of abuse often have strong conflicting emotions and thoughts. In the same way an adult rape victims may have. Interpretation of these thoughts and feelings is crucial not the actual physical sensation in themselves. These "protectors of children" just use a scatter gun approach that says ALL naked sexualized pictures of children are the problem. Because it is easier than dealing with the real issues of: abuse of power, good parenting, self confidence and mutual personal sovereignty. These "protectors of children" demonstrate their ignorance of the issues by the targets they choose. Their reasoning is often that of the Taliban- the powerless should take responsibility for their abuse. That sexuality is an uncontrollable rabid beast, that is best caged by denial and fear. It may be for some people, but denial and fear, in my opinion causes this rabid beast in many cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.107.93 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NIRVANA

Nirvana published an album with a cover much like this. nirvana

I think its disgusting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.212.21 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)