Decision that blocked UK users from editing Wikipedia has already been repealed
Online rights groups have described the Internet Watch Foundation's decision to block a page on the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia as a "knee-jerk reaction" .
The IWF, a charity that works to minimise the availability of illegal content online, added one Wikipedia page to its watch list after it was reported to contain a picture of a naked young girl.
The watch list is used by all the major UK internet service providers, so most UK internet users were barred from viewing the page in question. However, the block accidentally left many UK users unable to edit any page on the online encyclopaedia.
Dr Yaman Akdeniz, director of the Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties group, said the IWF went a step too far in imposing the block.
“It was a knee jerk reaction and it was wrong to block access to a site that gives people so much information,” he said.
He pointed out that the image, the cover of an album called Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions, had been available on the internet for years.
Following representations from Wikipedia, the IWF reconsidered its decision. Although maintaining that the image “is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978”, it said that “in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this web page from our list.”
It added that it “regrets the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users” of the ban.
Ruth Hoy, partner at DLA Piper solicitors, said that new methods are likely to be needed to deal with illegal content on sites such as Wikipedia.
“As with many areas of internet regulation, the law has to tread a delicate balance: on the one hand safeguarding freedom of expression while on the other facilitating the removal of defamatory, illicit or other illegal content,” she said.
“As the internet diversifies and user-generated content abounds, it is clear that self-regulation may not be sufficient in the long term… some form of unified set of laws and global standards seems inevitable.”
Article tags
Related articles
Q.All updates have been downloaded, so why won't Windows...
Q.How do I stop Windows 7 search?
Q.How can I turn Autoplay back on?
We ask why ebooks readers have no embedded fonts or easily accessible footnotes and how typographical errors not in the original book appear
|
|
|
|
|
Nikon Coolpix S570 BlackPrice: £66.99 |
Computeractive Ultimate Guide - Storage, Sharing & BackupPrice: £5.99 |
Back Issue CD-Rom 13 (2010)Price: £9.99 |
Hallmark Card Studio DeluxePrice: £15.31 |
Marine AquariumPrice: £15.41 |
Censorship begins on Wikipedia
Why, in this whole affair, is the fact lost that Wikipedia discovered that IP traffic was being funneled, only because it was messing with their totalitarian system of blocking and banning IP addresses who contribute content that is "unwelcome" by the ruling admin class? The censorship continues daily on Wikipedia, but nobody's up in arms about that. Here's a challenge, much tougher than the Virgin Killer incident. Try to launch a new article about Carolyn Doran. Go ahead. Get going.
Posted by Gregory Kohs, 18 Dec 2008
Cyper rights vs Child Pron
The sexual abuse of children for (mostly) men's gratification is not a "right" and must be eliminated. Abuseres have absolutely no idea how much they destroy an individuals emotions - hate - hate - hate! In my book, those who defend this particular right are mere perverts fearing to loose their entertainment.
Posted by Anja, 18 Dec 2008
Ummmm....
And did they censor the 'Blind Faith's album from the 70's cover on here as well??? Seems completely daft to me to censor something that is freely available from many other public and respectable sources as, presumably, the CD would be available from public libraries as well as music retailers. Not that I've actually seen the Scorpions cover yet - even on their own home page its just a blank placeholder type thing....
Posted by Steve Ridd, 18 Dec 2008
Heavy handed
While I'm in favour of the excision of child porn from the Web, I feel that this could have been handled better. Couldn't the IWF have approached Wikipedia to request they remove the image if it was considered offensive?
Posted by Gary, 19 Dec 2008