Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Censorship Your Rights Online

Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors 330

Posted by samzenpus
from the hole-in-the-net dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors

Comments Filter:
  • Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:07AM (#27251561)

    >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?

    • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:55AM (#27251837)

      Petty drama, on MY Wikipedia?

      Why don't you get an account and then log in and say that, Jimmy Wales?

    • A history lesson (Score:5, Informative)

      by RockMFR (1022315) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:19AM (#27251945)
      Censorship is one area where the behavior of Wikipedia as a whole is very predictable. Virgin Killer, AACS encryption key, Jyllands-Posten, etc... If you try to remove something controversial from Wikipedia and it gets publicized, it will get added back, usually with administrator support. If you make a really big fuss, the censorship effort will get its own article and it'll probably get mentioned in one of the articles about Wikipedia itself. WP:V + pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed.
      • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:51AM (#27252071)

        pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed

        On a forum like Wikipedia I would propose that it would be (next to) impossible not to have admins that are not anti-censorship (all things being equal), because working on an encyclopedia demonstrates in interest and love of knowledge, whose antithesis is censorship. That's why Librarians are often advocates for free speech. It's not very surprising.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by David Gerard (12369)
        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a platform for investigative reporting (that's Wikinews), it's not a place to publicise leaked information. So yeah, of course the link was removed. Every spamming activist claims administrator bias. This rubbish happens all the time.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:08AM (#27251569)
    As far as I understand, the site's hosted in the US. What can the Australian authority do about that?
  • As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

    I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cbrocious (764766)
      I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?
      • by Lieu21 (1218244) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:28AM (#27251683)

        I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have breast feeding in public and demeaning of social groups?

        • by Capsaicin (412918) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:44AM (#27251779)

          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 ;)

      • Not very worse off at all.
        But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be.
        Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list.
        Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded.
        Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State.
        I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it.
        Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them.
        Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cbrocious (764766)

          I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it. Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them. Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...

          I agree fully, and that's why my Troll moderation is nonsensical. Apparently I should've laid down the sarcasm a bit more thickly...

        • Already happened. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spaceturtle (687994) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:28AM (#27251985)
          The photos linked to in the article couldn't be really considered hate speech ... hate speech against whom? Not the fetuses, as the site is "pro-life". If publishing photos of dead fetuses is hate speech against pro-choicers then we may as well tear up free speech. (Technically the ACMA censors offensive images as well as hate speech, but still I don't consider the existance of such images offensive if they are not being waved in my face)
      • by Capsaicin (412918) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:37AM (#27251729)

        I think speech should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Nazi sympathizers and other hate mongers?

        ... or Christians, Dentists and Travel agents for that matter.

        It is arguable that there are some materials so objectionable that ThePeople(tm) in a democracy could ask their governments to ban or restrict general access to them. But that is not the case here! This was meant to be a secret list, which means we have a (supposedly democratically elected) government acting without public oversight. This is to be tolerated only in the rarest cases when it strictly necessary (such as on some issues of national security). What the Australian government is proposing here is intolerable.

        Hopefully the release of the list will serve to warn people about the potential scope of the secret list. And hopefully this will strengthen Sen. Xenophon's resolve (and perhaps pursuade some other cross benchers) to scuttle the enabling legislation in the Senate.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by daveime (1253762)

          and Travel agents for that matter

          Computer says no ... *cough* ...

          (For those of you in the dark, look up "Little Britain" on youtube).

      • by bitrex (859228) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:27AM (#27251981)

        Who decides what "hatemongering" is? As far as I have been able to tell, at least in the Western world, it currently works like this: Mock a Christian and it's comedy, mock a Muslim and it's free speech, mock a Jew and it's hate. So you think speech should be "free" and yet it should totally be confined to whatever speech the powers-that-be decide is offensive or isn't offensive to different racial or religious groups through obvious application of double standards? What's free about that?

        • by fractoid (1076465) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @03:17AM (#27252373) Homepage

          mock a Muslim and it's intolerance

          From my media-driven viewpoint, and as far as such groups can be generalised, Muslims are the first to jump on the "religious tolerance" bandwagon, which is odd for such an uncompromisingly intolerant religion.

      • Very, because the very worst of us at least have the function of testing how much freedom we really do have. Once society starts selecting which views can be public and which can't, then ALL of our heads are on the chopping block because that means we are only allowed to express thoughts society lets us express. Great if you're a huge conformist, not so great if you want to think independently. Do you really want to put yourself at the mercy of Leviathan?

        What's scary is, liberals tend to like that idea be

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Mr_eX9 (800448)
        Neo-Nazis are good things to have around when you need somebody to ridicule.
    • by Ashriel (1457949) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:51AM (#27251815)

      I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?

      • by Samah (729132) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:15AM (#27251927)

        I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have censorship groups and "think of the children" advocates?

        Well, Australia would have an R18+ video game classification, for one thing.

      • Well said and it implies the trial was maybe not a complete waste. Think how much funnier it is now the pet senator [wikipedia.org] of one of those groups, having bartered his senate chips for mandatory blacklists, is forced into the position of voting on a blacklist that has the nasty side effect of banning his most ardent supporters....oppps....mind your step on the way out senator...
    • by GrahamCox (741991) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:54AM (#27251829) Homepage
      ... aborted fetii...

      Your speech is certainly free - very free. Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word. I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).
    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square.

      That IS NOT what happened. It is just a TEXT link, clearly labelled and you proceed at your own risk if you want to see it.

    • Pornographic? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spaceturtle (687994)
      You find photos of dead fetuses remotely pornographic? How?
    • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @01:44AM (#27252053)

      Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

      Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

      Either learn to make a proper counter argument, or stop using the "For the CHILDRENZ" argument. Both will help you look less like a fool here on slashdot.

      Secondly, while I don't disagree that we wouldn't be worse off without the two sites you mentioned - I do STRONGLY disagree that sites that for example promote anti-abortion should be disallowed. (For the record I am pro-abortion). My point is if the law was passed to block child porn sites, okay, block child porn sites. Don't start using it to block anything you want on a secret list that you can't discuss.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

        I would presume that the fetuses are naked, and nudity is often equated with pornography by the religious right (when it suits their political needs). Showing dead naked fetuses presumably bring out necrophiliac impulses in people who are prone to have that "illness", so in order to stop fetus abuse we need to stop encouraging the demand by limiting the supply. That's the theory the Australian (et al) government uses against the purveyors of fetus abuse. Or at least that's the mindset as far as I can unders

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gnud (934243)

        Sorry, how can you possibly link an aborted fetus to pornography?

        It seems you don't know the meaning of the word pornographic. [merriam-webster.com]

        I quote the third meaning of the word:

        3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

    • by carlzum (832868)

      As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.

      My beef with abortion protesters isn't with their right to use graphic images to support their argument. I doubt they've received any form of consent to use the images. It's distasteful from the patient's perspective to abortion-rights advocates and from the child's perspective to pro-life advocates. I dislike the campaign's tactic for the same reason, a political site, or even pornography, would have been a better choice.

      Also, there's a difference between street corners and targeted communication like

    • by fractoid (1076465)

      I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx [goatse.cx], TubGirl [tubgirl.com] and other shock sites?

      I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have you?

      (This isn't a personal attack, I'm just trying to point out that one man's lols is another man's wtf, so to speak.)

    • by Skapare (16644) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @04:03AM (#27252585) Homepage

      If people didn't post those things, we would be no worse off. But the issue isn't about whether they are posted. It isn't even about what is posted. The real issue is that a government can make decisions about what gets blocked, with no transparency, no review, and no acceptance of responsibility. This is the most extreme danger, because it gives a government so much arbitrary power that cannot be challenged.

      So they say this is about protecting children. Yet the mechanism they use goes beyond that ... far, far beyond that. So clearly, "protecting children" is a mere excuse. This is about government trying to take control over people ... adult people.

      A proper system would provide for a means of review, including by anyone that chooses to be a reviewer. Clearly, anyone choosing to review this better not be squeamish. There also needs to be a process to challenge this. Anyone reviewing, or impacted, must have a means to have each entry reviewed, with a public openness of the challenge process.

      A proper system for protecting children would be focused on children. For example, parents could be required to restrict children to a special internet connection reserved for children, while as adults, they personally can choose to bypass that protection. Mandating these filters for schools is understandable. But for every adult, too? Something is very rotten down under.

  • "the lead up to it's removal"

    http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif [angryflower.com]

    • It's meta funny because the comic's claimed grammar rules actually make it sound like "it's" can be either "it is" or "its" (possessive)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:13AM (#27251597)
    Firehose story here [slashdot.org]
  • by liquidsin (398151) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:17AM (#27251611) Homepage

    i was pretty sure that's what wikipedia is for

    • No, they just want to be a record of all points.

      Well, all points that someone at Wikipedia takes a liking to.

    • So true. I remember one time, back in my WoW days, my guild was doing a joint raid with another guild. To help the time pass by we decided to have some fun with them. One of our guys had wikipedia account. I am not sure how it came up but we told them that piranhas are not fish and that they breastfeed their young. We had our guy go edit wikipedia so that when they looked it up, it was true.
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:23AM (#27251659) Journal
    Using wikipedia to prove this point might endanger their donations. Lack of donations equates to not as many expensive dinners out for the higher ups and that has to be avoided at all costs.
    • by Ashriel (1457949)

      I don't know about that. If the administration had taken a public stance that they weren't going to take down the link no matter what, I would've been motivated to donate to Wikipedia for the first time ever.

  • Error in story (Score:4, Informative)

    by spazzm (545624) <slashdot.org.spam.101@blog.no> on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:23AM (#27251663)
    The link has not been removed. It is at the bottom of WikiPedia's ACAM article as "Prohibited link".
    The story pretty much describes the opposite of what happened - the page was protected because a minority of users (many of them IP users without a login) kept on removing the link.
  • by serps (517783) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:25AM (#27251673) Homepage

    For those who are interested, the Sydney Morning herald reports [smh.com.au] that the full internet filter list has been leaked. It's pretty interesting - there's a lot of not-actually-illegal content on it (including a dentist's site?).

    It's interesting to note that this is the minimum that will be blocked in Australia; the gov may (and will) add to this. This sounds like much more of a test of the censors than what TFA writes about...

    • Wikileaks seems to, unfortunately, not be loading right now... Anyone have a mirror?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chuck Chunder (21021)

      Is that link Slashdotted or am I being blocked?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It won't surprise me if the list has been updated to include Wikileaks. It seems that the site is not responding, but that could be the slashdot effect kicking in.

      What really offends me about this mess is that (AFIK) images of aborted babies are not illegal to look at, even if they are gory and sickening to a lot of people. In fact, these very images can serve as educational material AGAINST abortion because most people don't really believe that there's a little person in there yet until the day they give

      • by bug1 (96678)

        None of those sites work for me. (im in aus btw)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Barny (103770)

        Nice, apparently all of /b/ is to be blocked...

        img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html

      • Re:mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

        by julesh (229690) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @05:25AM (#27252975)

        From the list:

        www.goat.cx, 2girls1cup.com

        So Australia's legislating for taste, then?

        (lots of IP addresses including some with reputable hosting providers like Verio)

        So hard luck if you got them after the original user whose content was blocked, then?

        partypoker.com, www.pacificpoker.com, pokerroom.com, coralpoker.com

        OK, the obnoxious advertising is more than a little annoying, but blacklisting them? Isn't that a little extreme?

        hogtied.com

        Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.

        encyclopediadramatica.com

        OK, I know they're blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia (with good reason), but blocking the entire site for an entire country -- a little extreme for being obnoxious, isn't it?

        biz

        Huh?? Not sure how their interpretation of this list works, but with a badly written filter this would probably block all .biz domains. With a well-written one it would achieve precisely nothing.

        myusenet.net

        A usenet service provider.

        churchofeuthanasia.org

        A site that seems to be intended to make a political statement about population control, although doing it in a rather crude fashion.

        satanservice.org

        A site of information about self-identified satanic religious groups.

        libchrist.com

        From the site: "Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Nonmonogamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others."

        18yopics.com

        So, they're not even pretending to have underage models, yet they get blocked anyway? Presumably on the off-chance that some of their models are younger than they claim?

        www.torrentspy.com/directory/1503/adult/videos+%2d+hardcore

        A list of hardcore movies, 99+% of which are totally legal (although, in most cases, copyright violations).

        http://xfreehosting.com/

        A hosting service provider's web site.

        pornspaces.com

        Another one.

        http://pornstarpasswords.com/

        A site with a collection of pictures of well-known US adult stars and a 18 USC 2257 compliance statement.

        www.bowwowlyrics.cn

        A site that, when it existed, probably contained lyrics and images relating to a vaguely-popular 80s New Wave pop group [wikipedia.org], and in a mirror of the Wikipedia/Scorpions debacle was probably blocked for hosting a copy of this album cover [wikipedia.org], which shows the naked back of the band's 15-year-old lead singer.

        torrentfive.com

        A generic bittorrent links site.

        legal-models.info

        A collection of non-pornographic images of children.

        pussy.org

        An average, run-of-the-mill hardcore porn site with US legal compliance statement.

        sensualgetaway.com

        A swingers' classified ads site.

        piratetourism.com

        "a full service travel agency, operating with the full license of the Ministry of Tourism and a member of the Association of Travel Agencies of Turkiye"

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n

        Two collections of somewhat-risque pictures that appear in wikipedia articles. None of these images appear to constitute child pornography.

    • As mentioned in the previous article, wikileaks is banned here in Australia.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224 [slashdot.org]
    • by antic (29198)

      Stephen Conroy has since said that the leaked list is not the actual/current ACMA blacklist.

      Either way, the blacklist is a fucking stupid idea and I'm ashamed that any mainstream group are pushing for it.

  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @12:29AM (#27251689)
    "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site ....

    You might hope that Slashdot editors would CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINKS THEY POST and see the story is wrong at the time of being published. The current version of the page does indeed include the links, and it's been locked. Of course, the part of it being the subject of an edit war was true, and the linked Discussion page is a warzone.

  • Remember is order to ban these sites public servants have to visit them and view the content. As a result the images are downloaded both to their local machines AND departmental AND isp proxy caches. This means that not only are public servants viewing child porn (in order to classify it) but actively distributing it to others servers. The administrators of these server are probably unaware that individuals on behalf of the Australian government are causing child porn to be placed in their servers. Further
  • Wikipedia is not located in Australia, and I fail to see where "double-standards" would come into it, as the wiki page is clearly not under control of the Aussie net censors. So what is the point that the activists are trying to prove [wikipedia.org]?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bakes (87194)

      They prove that forcing Australian servers to remove links to banned sites is pointless, as the links will just show up elsewhere. Wikipedia is a high-profile site and banning it would attract a great deal of attention to how stupid this whole thing is.

  • At least there I know I'm being censored and for what.

  • Civil disobedience (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm an Australian and I just downloaded the blacklist. Now what is ACMA going to do about it? I am tempted to start printing off the list and handing it out to strangers as a list of "all the good sites on the Internet". From a quick scan most of it looks to be random pron sites, they would have never gotten away with actually banning that many pron sites. Aussies love their porn. Though maybe they didn't ban the big pay ones as a thanks for all those anonymous donations.

    Oh, and they have all the *chans. /b

  • "There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist," he [the minister] said.

    Also, one of the ISPs involved in the testing confirmed that this list is not the ACMA list. More news coverage here on the ABC [abc.net.au]

    • No. It's real (Score:3, Insightful)

      by femto (459605)

      More likely the list is real, and it has been salted with additional sites. It is very much in Conroy's interest to try and make people believe that it is fake.

      Conroy's press release [dbcde.gov.au] does not say the list is fake. It says:

      "There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist."

      A huge difference. You can be sure that

  • From the summary: Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours

    So much for the claim (so often made by the WikiMafia and their fanboys) that trolling is caught and reverted within minutes.

  • Time to Karma-Whore (Score:4, Informative)

    by Quothz (683368) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @03:30AM (#27252429) Journal
    I have not, personally, checked any of these links out, but here y'go, folks. Visit at your own risk, and all like that: The ACMA blacklist March 19 2009 * http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 [wikileaks.org] * http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm [abortiontv.com] Aug 6 2008 * http://tgpme.com/ [tgpme.com] * http://newthumbs.net/ [newthumbs.net] * http://bbs12.mail15.su/ [mail15.su] * http://cybermovs.narod.ru/ [narod.ru] * http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439 [google.com] * http://hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html [paginas.sapo.pt] * http://imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5 [imgsrc.ru] * http://lolitacj.freepimphost.com/ [freepimphost.com] * http://mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189 [mclt-sites.net] * http://myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm [myusenet.net] * http://ourworldkids.info/ [ourworldkids.info] * http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in [rapidlibrary.com] * http://tinygev.com/ [tinygev.com] * http://trueincest.com/ [trueincest.com] * http://www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html [crazydumper.com] * http://fulltiltpoker.com/ [fulltiltpoker.com] * http://www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html [kackarhatila.com] * http://nasty-virgins.org/ [nasty-virgins.org] * http://pretty-pretty.info/ [pretty-pretty.info] * http://realcruelfamily.com/ [realcruelfamily.com] * http://www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php [sexologic.com] * http://vi5search.com/ [vi5search.com] * http://www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html [wetdump.com] * http://top.angels-list.com/index.html?97 [angels-list.com] * http://forced-news.com/ [forced-news.com] * http://ganja.vipzax.com/ [vipzax.com] * http://shave.vipzax.com/ [vipzax.com] July 30 2008 * http://forced-news.com/ [forced-news.com] * http://sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net [maximimage.com] * http://littlevirginstgp.com/ [littlevirginstgp.com] * http://cutiesveta.com/ [cutiesveta.com] * http://youngwetmodels.com/ [youngwetmodels.com] * http://preteenmasha.com/ [preteenmasha.com] * http://forbi-dreams2.info/ [forbi-dreams2.info] July 28 2008 *
  • WP:POINT (Score:4, Informative)

    by pfafrich (647460) <<gro.frusgnis> <ta> <hcir>> on Thursday March 19, 2009 @03:39AM (#27252467) Homepage
    This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT [wikipedia.org]: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by julesh (229690)

      This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.

      Being able to see the content that was blocked increases the encyclopedic value because it allows the reader to decide for themselves whether or not blocking it was appropriate.

  • by cronostitan (573676) on Thursday March 19, 2009 @06:14AM (#27253215)

    '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.'
    That seriously sounds like that what German people said when the Nazis deported the Jews.

    "I don't want to get involved."

    aka

    "It's their internet censorship, not ours".

    This attitude fails to see that once this censorship has established itself in other countries it will eventually come closer to being a global issue more and more.
    There is no point in having freedom and no censorship in your country when all others around you are already gagged and have censored content. The internet community has eventually to realize that they are sitting in the same boat.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...