Big Brett back again, with my second (and last?) blog on this COLOURFUL website (spelled colorful with a "u" because my chosen article comes from the BBC). Anyways, enough stalling. I found an article today which stated that many UK internet providers are now blocking a page from Professor Pitts' favorite online resource: Wikipedia. There was a dispute over a German band's album cover that displayed a naked girl on it. While one of my favorite albums by Nirvana has a naked baby on it, the naked girl on this German band's album is a whole different issue (plus I don't like heavy metal). Do you think the UK internet providers were right in blocking this Wikipedia page? Is the UK the new "Red China?" Read on and let me know what you think.
A decision by a number of
The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions, released in 1976.
Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.
The IWF said it was a "potentially illegal child sexual abuse image".
Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.
They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.
But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.
The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.
| | |
As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.
The IWF, which lists the BBC, News International and internet companies AOL (UK) and Ask among its members, said as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.
Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.
Mr Gerard also told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the album cover was still available as part of the band's box set and could be viewed on retail websites.
"When we asked the Internet Watch Foundation why they blocked Wikipedia and not Amazon, apparently the decision was 'pragmatic', which we think means that Amazon had money and would sue them, whereas we're an educational charity."
Access blocked
Susan Robertson, of the IWF, said the image could potentially contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978.
"We only act on the reports we receive, and as I understand it, the only report we received regarding this content, as of Friday, was the content on Wikipedia," she said.
| | |
Ms Robertson also said the IWF needed to "take a view" on the images available on Amazon with its "analyst team and police partners".
Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of
"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.
The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.
Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.
4 comments:
The problem is...where is the line? If you've ever spent a minute looking through Google pictures before you know it is riddled with photos that may be inappropriate for children. Wikipedia first needs to decide how it wants to present itself. I think YouTube has done a great job of keeping inappropriate content off its site. Maybe follow that approach.
When I started this article, I could honestly see where the IWF was coming from. While I don't particularly agree with this issue of censorship, I did think they had good intentions. However, seeing as how they only blocked Wikipedia and not other sites like Amazon.com that featured the same image, I felt that they really didn't care that much about the issue. If they aren't going to try to completely block the image (which is practically impossible) they might as well not even bother.
I feel that it is pointless to block the image or even attempt to. If you have surfed the internet you would know that by blocking content from one website, you are not blocking it from the internet itself. So if someone did want to look at the album cover, they wouldn't have to go to wikipedia.
In some ways I can understand where the IWF is coming from and what they're attempting to do by blocking the website, but I don't agree with their decision. Especially because they're not only blocking the picture, which is probably available on several other websites, but the text of the article as well. I don't think that's fair or the right approach to dealing with this topic.
Post a Comment