Online Watchdog Admits It Goofed On Wikipedia Ban; Reverses Decision
from the a-bit-late-for-that dept
After being subject to widespread ridicule for forcing Wikipedia in the UK to block a page for an album cover graphic from 32 years ago, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has withdrawn its block on the page and said it's fine. Apparently "given the age and availability of the image," the group no longer thinks it's appropriate to be on the list. Of course, the age and availability of the image was true before. Though, if anything, this attempt at blocking the image only made the image more available.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ban, wikipedia
Companies: internet watch foundation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ladies and Gentlemen; The great firewall of England
Who are they to tell me what is offensive or not?
Its just disguised censorship - sad way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ladies and Gentlemen; The great firewall of England
But this conflicts with the nature of the IWF; it shouldn't be banning questionable material, but illegal material. There shouldn't need to be a streisand-effect.
What you've got to remember is that the ISP's actually want this system in place; they fund the organisation. Through using an independent group that creates a blacklist in collaboration with the police they actually do the UK a favour by avoiding govermet regulation that might make them vulnerable to having responsibility over how people use the net (copyright infringer's, etc). The alternative could be the Australian system.
But what needs to happen is three things, I think. First the IWF needs to put a transparent appeals process in place. Second, the censorship should be displayed as such, rather then a 404 screen. Third, the responsibilities of the IWF should be defined by the Home Office to avoid ambiguity over these issues when its not clear if they've overstepped their remit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ladies and Gentlemen; The great firewall of England
'Great firewall of England' sucks as a title. I say we go with 'Hadrians Firewall'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IWF free to block other stuff
Like steveD mentions above this type of organisation needs transparency and easy appeals processes, which is why i was happy when the wikipedia people hinted at a lawsuit.
I just hope this doesn't disappear into the hidden back rooms again, I hate the idea of being secretly censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger over... for now
If the decision had stood then we would have been on a slippery slope to people having controversial content that could be interpreted as illegal at the far end of the law blocked. This (as always) would probably have lead to offencive content being removed and the Internet being a politically correct state in the UK.
I know this is an exaduration but i think the point I am making is clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger over... for now
If the decision had stood then we would have been on a slippery slope to people having controversial content that could be interpreted as illegal at the far end of the law blocked. This (as always) would probably have lead to offencive content being removed and the Internet being a politically correct state in the UK.
I know this is an exaggeration but i think the point I am making is clear.
If the IWF is to exist, the it needs to stick to policing content that is without question illegal rather then worrying about the borderline case.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the baby P case though. All agencies that deal with child protection in the UK have moved the line somewhat recently to cover themselves from the repercussions of making even the smallest error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]