Just looking into this now: Do you know what template was vandalised?<div><br clear="all"><span>Richard Symonds</span><div>Wikimedia UK</div><div>0207 065 0992</div><div><font color="#999999" size="1">Disclaimer viewable at</font><font size="1"> <a href="http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer" target="_blank">http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer</a> </font><font color="#999999" size="1"><br>

<span>Visit </span><a href="http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/</a><span> and @wikimediauk</span></font>
</div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 June 2012 12:38, Andrew West <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:andrewcwest@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrewcwest@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class="im">On 7 June 2012 20:08, Andy Mabbett &lt;<a href="mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk">andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
</div><div class="im">&gt; There are a lot of popular websites listed - but Wikipedia isn&#39;t there!<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Maybe we could all check out our local libraries, for similar pages,<br>
&gt; and ask the staff to include Wikipedia, if they don&#39;t already?<br>
<br>
</div>After my experience on Saturday, when my daughter went to the featured<br>
article of the day (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II</a>) and was<br>
greeted by large pornographic images injected into the article through<br>
unprotected templates, if I were were in charge of a library or a<br>
school I would be very hesitant about linking to Wikipedia from my<br>
institute&#39;s main page.  I know that episodes like this are an<br>
unavoidable consequence of the Wikipedia editing model, and that you<br>
can never entirely eliminate the possibility of offensive vandalism<br>
reaching high profile pages, but it always makes me feel a little<br>
uneasy that we are so keen to promote Wikipedia that we sometimes<br>
forget that Wikipedia is a potentially risky site.<br>
<br>
Of the 200,000+ visitors to the Elizabeth II page on Saturday, when it<br>
was targetted with pornographic template vandalism multiple times, I<br>
wonder how many of those were accessing the site from public computers<br>
in libraries, and what the librarians thought about Wikipedia when<br>
library users notified them of the porn on the Elizabeth II page.  And<br>
if this had happened on a schoolday, I wonder how many schools (those<br>
which don&#39;t already block Wikipedia) would rethink their policy on<br>
allowing access to Wikipedia.  I&#39;m not sure that there is anything<br>
that WMUK can do to make Wikipedia a safer and more trustworthy place,<br>
but we should bear in mind that promoting or even linking to Wikipedia<br>
may not be an acceptable risk for some institutions.<br>
<br>
Andrew [[User:BabelStone]]<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Wikimedia UK mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org">wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l" target="_blank">http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l</a><br>
WMUK: <a href="http://uk.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">http://uk.wikimedia.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>