Gregory Maxwell wrote: The poor woman clearly didn't know the difference between a URL and a web page. Most likely the same can be said about the IWF staff member who listed those two pages. -- Tim Starling

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: The colatteral damage will mostly go away if they block the image itself instead of the text. Perhaps we should send the the ~3 URLs they need for the images, and tell them that if they want the image to stay blocked they should block those. Then change the knams rr IP for text, and refuse to respond to en.wikipedia.org DNS requests from the proxy boxes, if we can.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Can we get a list of current thumbnails for the image that they would want to be blocking? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px… http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg Anything else?

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

2008/12/8 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>: Indeed - give it a couple of days and the public pressure might be enough to force a U-turn. The media seems to be largely on our side for a change, which is nice. Perhaps they are finally coming to see up as one of their own and are seeing this as the authorities censoring the media?

2008/12/8 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: The IWF put a statement on their website last night and sent a spokeswoman to the BBC Radio studios this morning, they have been presenting their side of the story.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, they really aren't. Any given web page will normally correspond to a practically unlimited number of URLs: append ?unused=meaningless to the end, or #nonexistent-id. (Although the latter doesn't travel across the network, so isn't relevant here.) Conversely, many -- possibly most -- URLs don't correspond to web pages, but rather to images, scripts, etc. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg?this_does_n… http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg?this_also_d… http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg?I_can_make_…

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Which is precisely why "didn't know the difference between a URL and a web page" accurately describes someone who doesn't have any significant technical knowledge of how the web works.