On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
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."
Wow, that's exactly the type of explanation I was looking for. I'm going to
hold off on deciding whether or not I agree with it.
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
I'm not sure if I disagree with their conclusion, or disagree with their
objective. I think this incident has at least had the potential to
encourage productive dialogue about this problem.
Of course, they probably see the issue in a completely different way than I
do anyway, especially if their goal is to minimize the availability of the
images, and not to minimize the actual victimization of children.