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

WMF statement
WMF Responded: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008 -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Wikimedia Foundation has yet to make an official statement". Does the above press release count as an official statement?  If so we should delete that sentence. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks DragonFire1024. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't work for me:


 * ''according to Jay Walsh, the head of communications for Wikimedia, the foundation "opposes action by internet watchdog group to blacklist encyclopedia article"

The problem is that it quotes the headline of the press release, which makes the grammar very clumsy.

Is there a better way of citing WMF opposition?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this on the main page of the English Wikipedia?
A few hours ago, BBC's story was on the front page of news.google.com. Not only that, but it was one of the most-read BBC.com stories for several hours on Monday.

Now, Information Week's version is on news.google.com's front page.

So why isn't this story on the English Wikipedia's front page in the "in the news" section? It's certainly in the news. Davidwr (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been proposed, at w:Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --82.152.208.73 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a discussiont to have at en.wp --SVTCobra 18:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Goobal dee Glop
Read this paragraph from the article:

''The measures applied redirect Wikipedia-bound traffic from a significant portion of the UK's Internet population through a small number of servers which can log and filter the content that is available to the end user. A serious side-effect of this is the inability of administrators on Wikimedia sites to block vandals and other troublemakers without potentially impacting hundreds of thousands of innocent contributors who are working on the sites in good faith.''

Sheesh, I'm stupid, and still am, after reading that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.8.9 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what did you expect? A miracle education?  It makes perfect sense, so either read it slower or go back to your Ladybird books. 194.72.9.25 14:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I expected a remark like that. So, I'm supposed to read reported sentences like that and make sense of them for myself.


 * Sorry if I have a problem with that. Stupidly reported sentences of what the essence is I shall resort to as calling unable to capture the facts and translate into meaningful context that has any bearing on a perspective that relates to the story itself. Have I gone too far in making this remark?

Are you people reporting news, or spewing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.8.9 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The wikinews really has no foundation for news generation because it has refused to allow it. It wants sources.

News doesn't come from sources, it comes from people who experienced it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.8.9 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon Developments
Noticed this over on reddit earlier today:

Amazon has removed all user submitted photos of the cover of Virgin Killer, the image that got Wikipedia censored in Britain -- amazon link blacklisted, reddit link here. This appears to be a world-wide change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.186.61 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from IWF (9-dec-08)
A Wikipedia webpage was reported through the IWF’s online reporting mechanism on 4 December 2008. As with all potentially illegal online child sexual abuse reports we receive, the image was assessed according to current UK legislation and in accordance with the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council (page 109). The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18, hosted outside the UK. As such, in accordance with IWF procedures, the specific webpage was added to the IWF list. This list is provided to ISPs and other companies in the online sector to help protect their customers from inadvertent exposure to potentially illegal indecent images of children. Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures. IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm 62.24.251.240 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected
editprotected

There should be only one period, isn't it? Besides, this article is written in English (UK), but at one place "U.S." is written. The choice of language skills be uniform in the article. acagastya 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ for the period typo. ❌ for mixed US/UK English. --SVTCobra 21:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)