David is right, if they haven't a clue about techniques to manage a modern website - techniques that are over ten years old - then they are quite simply not fit to manage any sort of filtering blacklist.
I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 20 February 2009 19:47 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2009/2/20 geni geniice@gmail.com:
They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which one wikipedia uses.
You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? That seems pretty incompetent to me...
Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px- Virgin_Killer.jpg but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg.
Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place.