Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors 330
pnorth writes "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of the Australian regulator's own Wikipedia entry. The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content. The very same link motivated the regulator to serve Aussie broadband forum Whirlpool's hosting company with a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine. Last night, the link became the subject of 'warring' between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to its removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."
Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
>Last night, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
don't want to be used to prove a point? (Score:4, Funny)
i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for
Why they did it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:5, Funny)
how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public
We would be very much worse off! The breastfeeding rate would fall. Child abuse in the form of bottle feeding would become rife, with obvious negative effects on future economic and sporting performance as well as the rise in criminal acitivity among abused children. In cases when mothers resisted such bottlefeeding abuse, we would have an increase in the number of hungry babies crying in public. Worse still some mothers might take their babies into public toilets to feed them, the psychopathological effects of which don't bear contemplating!
But yeah, you're right ;)
Re:Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?
Why don't you get an account and then log in and say that, Jimmy Wales?
Re:You're Trolling... (Score:5, Funny)
That reminds me, who's up for veal?
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
You broke it.
Re:Links are there and locked, now (Score:4, Funny)
They enable?
Re:Most Nerds... (Score:3, Funny)
..... and that by loving browns and mud people they'll somehow get in the pants of "hip stylish urban women" who love to agonize over the supposed crimes of whites against "oppressed minorities."......
Sounds very much like you're agonising over the fact that those "hip stylish urban women" won't let you into their pants and you're blaming everyone else for it. Sad, man.
Re:Phirst Poast Tsarkon Reports YODA GREASE UP YOU (Score:5, Funny)
I concur it was rather obvious but still, it could at least get an 'informative'.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Wikileaks currently unavailable (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
Dang. And I think this had a shot at being a new Slashdot meme.
Free speech meme, we hardly knew ye.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:3, Funny)
and Travel agents for that matter
Computer says no ... *cough* ...
(For those of you in the dark, look up "Little Britain" on youtube).
Re:A history lesson (Score:5, Funny)
This article needs a cleanup to remove excessive negatives.
Re:There are some things we shouldn't see (Score:4, Funny)
Re:your sig (Score:2, Funny)
If you're a Muslim, please don't kill me.
I'm not a Muslim, so I take it this request doesn't apply to me.
Re:A history lesson (Score:3, Funny)
Oops I'm wrong, they left the link in there, my bad.