2008/12/8 Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
One possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can exist on a site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd cover is pretty stupid in my books.
It's very wise - attacking Wikipedia and only Wikipedia is great method of promoting IWF itself.
I'm not sure that the IWF would want to be publicly recognised. They already wield a lot of power as gatekeepers for 95% of UK internet users, without any accountability or official standing. I'm not sure what publicity and public awareness could achieve for them except questions about their role and position. People tend not to like unaccountable censorship and the organisations which carry it out.
In blocking the Wikipedia article and the collateral damage this has caused, they haven't improved their standing, they have undermined themselves. All of the news stories I have read regarding this are either neutral or take an anti-censorship line (since this album is available to buy in the high street and on Amazon, it doesn't make much sense to blame Wikipedia, an objective encyclopedia documenting the album).
Surely the IWF is the kind of organisation that would prefer to be safely unknown, rather than publicised and questioned?