On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Since wikipedians can rapidly generate very large numbers of thumbnail URLs and have just the "sod you" attitude to do it such an approach is unlikely to be effective. Blocking wikipedia by URL is unlikely to be effective.
We could sod-you rename the article too, but we haven't yet. Arguably the article is incorrectly named at the moment, as there are other notable things called the virgin killer.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors effected...
But in the midst of the news cycle, and with a bit of a PR backlash in progress, I'm not sure you want to get into "Wikipedia administrators, developers, work with ISPs to block access to images." It can wait a day or two, I think, to see if the IWF or the involved ISPs take action on their own.
A fair position. I just want to make sure we have the moral high ground on this: They are blocking the text when they could just as well block the image. They are censoring knowledge about the subject rather than just the objectionable image, they have had actual knowledge of this concern for going on 48 hours now and have not resolved it. I want it to be clear that there was and is no excuse for the continued blocking of the text.