Talk about waffling - it's illegal, inappropriate and in bad taste, but,
what they hay - it's been there for 32 years so we're not going to do
anything about it. Leave it to the UK. I wonder what they would have
done if it had been a picture of Lady Di?
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
2008/12/9 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony
Right now the whole thing is under review.
Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed.
"See, proof that the IWF system works"
Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that
decision, though I doubt they will.
They have explained it on their website
). The relevant bit is:
"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals
Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved
in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the
image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of
Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008)
considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this
specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has
existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to
remove this webpage from our list."
Also interesting is:
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of
indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended
consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed
of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
If they'd asked, we could have told them that would happen... at least
they realise it now and will hopefully take that into account in
Wikipedia-l mailing list