Talk:Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 9, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
December 10, 2008 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
July 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pedophilia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notability?[edit]

Having this article so soon makes us look like idiots. We're not Wikinews. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, Wikinews often makes us look like idiots. This page is bound to end up higher quality… I think it's too premature: we should right using the insight of time and distance. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly would we be waiting for (assuming this article didn't exist)? John Reaves 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources - just check the admin noticeboard topic for coverage. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Several points are to be considered regarding the blocking of content in the United Kingdom. Clearly in America this kind of thing is not allowed.
98.192.135.154 (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Virgin Killer controversy[edit]

Discuss merging in Virgin Killer controversy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is the better article, agree. – amicon 23:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is also the better URL; Virgin Killer Controversy is blocked by my ISP, as are all WP URLs ending in /Virgin_Killer_Controversy* ! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a better article title, for the reasons above, and that this one can be more easily expanded should the IWF continue to block further content. PretzelsTalk! 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the merge, even though there was only minimal discussion. Revert and restart the discussion if I was too bold. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I proposed the merge, but forgot to add the discussion section - obviously I support it. Thanks for the help. Terraxos (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
See also /Virgin Killer controversy for a copy of the edit history of the pre-merged article. This link is also in this talk page's archives. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Album cover in article[edit]

It does not qualify as a fair use image in this article. I wish it did, it would improve the article. The image is currently wikilinked, which is fine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this would be a classic fair use example. The image easily qualifys. A new rationale would be needed on the image page for this particular article though.
I added the image and Squeekbox removed it as 'deliberately provocative'. I was not being deliberately provocative. Don't be a dick Squeekbox. --Duk 01:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
ViperSnake151 removed it, not SqueakBox. I agree though, the rationale "rv good-faith edit. We do not want this article to be blocked" while polite was not a rationale I support. However, I would've removed it on sight as a copyvio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
SB did too[1]. --Duk 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree on the copyright issue, but IANAUnitedStatesCopyrightLawyer. If this were an article called Virgin Killer album cover or Controversies surrounding the Virgin Killer album cover or even List of Virgin Killer album covers then it would qualify. Due to existing controversies, either of the first two articles could have been written before this month and easily passed WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course adding the image here is being provocative, it would likely result in the text of the article being blanked for people in the UK. How is that helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Different definition of helpful: Having the image here would help any reader able to read it understand the article better. That is how it is helpful. If it weren't for copyvio issues, I'd endorse using it. If a person is unable to read it, it is not the fault of the article's content or of Wikipedia, but rather the fault of something at his end or something in the middle, neither of which editors should be influenced by. Now, regarding provocative editing, Wikipedia has guidelines designed to avoid provoking other editors into edit-wars or causing harm to real people in biographical articles or sections of articles. Those are based on long-running consensus. However, if there is a consensus on the issue of removing text or images to avoid provoking people off-wiki, Wikipedia is not censored is probably closer to the mark on this issue than Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. However, it's fair to say that consensus changes and the consensus opinion in late December 2008 may be different than it was on December 5. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be useful, seeing as how the image sparked this all off. Whether it qualifies for fair use or not I don't know - IANAL. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally think this is a classic case of why we have the ignore all rules policy. Sure Wikipedia is not censored, but its our lack of censorship that got us into this in the first place. We need to be able to let our British friends know in an encyclopedic manner what the bloody hell is going on here. By including the image (which in my mind, would also not pass the non-free content criteria), we'd run a greater risk of the STORY about this being blocked too. (ack, 2 EDIT CONFLICTS IN A ROW ARRGH!) ViperSnake151 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Its clearly not fair use, if it was added again i would remove it it obn said basis, not for the reason I did last time. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? If this isn't a perfect fair use then I don't know what is. How on earth did you divine this isn't a case for fair use? --Duk 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use would be putting the picture in a printed encyclopedia, where the image is not one click away. While there is value added to having the image visible in the page rather than hyperlinked, the added value from the difference between on-page vs. hyperlinked is a lot smaller than on-a-printed-page vs. listed-in-a-bibliography. The hyperlink provides enough value that a fair-use justification does not exist as long as it can be hyperlinked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair use is to illustrate the album not the controversy concerning the album, so its fair use at the Virgin Killer page and nowhere else. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That's why I mentioned A new rationale would be needed on the image page above. It's a classic fair use case. --Duk 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly fits fair use. Most of the editors claiming otherwise are editors who have previously wanted the image removed from Wikipedia wholesale so I guess trying to remove it from here is the best they can get. Looking at Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Images "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." That's pretty clear. Since part of the disagreement is whether or not the image is in fact pornographic there's a clear need to have the image here. Claiming that we should leave it out so this page isn't censored goes afoul of WP:CENSOR just as if we removed it from Virgin Killer. Claiming that it should be kept a click away is no different than making the image on Virgin Killer an extra click away or Depictions of Muhammad a click away. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It's not possible to fully grasp this topic without seeing the image, and there are no free alternatives that would suffice. Skomorokh 02:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That is why we link to the Virgin Killer article, the alternative open to all non UK located folk is to press the album link, and we can show our anti-censorship solidarity with people in old blighty by ensuring their isps don't stop them from reading this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. I didn't follow. Can you explain that in more detail. And can you while you are doing so explain how this isn't just more censorship on a different page? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the image in this article to illustrate the controversy clearly fits the "fair-use" provisions of US copyright law. The people arguing for its removal are the same people who have been trying to remove it for some time now and should be ashamed of themselves. As an aside, didn't we fight a long bloody war and then a shorter bloody war to guarantee our right to never have to listen to anything the British say ever again? Not to mention the mention the fact that the Brits owe us for pulling their fat out of the fire not once but twice in the 20th century. L0b0t (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

L0bot, can we please not have this turn into a nationalist pissing match? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Virgin Killer cover image sure struck me off-guard when I clicked on the article from the main page... could someone please at least move the image further down the article? --FlyingPenguins (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Move it down. Charles Papadelis (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am about to remove the image:

1) The burden of proof is to DEMONSTRATE fair use. Therefore, to be on the safe side of US copyright law, there should be clear consensus FOR an instance of fair use. The default for a copyrighted image is to assume it is NOT fair use until demonstrated otherwise, and until this demonstation is overwhelmingly accepted, which is clearly not the case.

2) It will be a nowadays-rare example on wikipedia of common sense to not deliberately get this article banned in the UK. Therefore I am ignoring all rules.

3) Two world wars (although being an Englishman I take issue with the World Cup Win being ignored) have no bearing on any of this. BeL1EveR (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good, I support this. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
1) JoshuaZ already demonstrated fair-use: "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." 2) It would not be Wikipedia getting the article banned; it would be the IWF. I do not see how it is "common sense" to acquiesce to censors who would even censor discussion of their activities. That isn't common sense; that's frightening. 3) I agree on that point only. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"I don't like it, so it needs SUPER consensus." Riiiight. Skomorokh 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ has carefully selected a part of it. The full wording, before I add any emphasis, is:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

Now with the key word here:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

This is not commentary OF the image, and therefore the part in brackets comes into play. BeL1EveR (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you actually read what I wrote and read the page on images. I explicitly quoted 8 not 1. 8 says (as you could see if you read it above) "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". Note that item 8 is not item 1. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to the first fair-use criterion. We're talking about the eighth. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's a more polite way of putting it than I did... JoshuaZ (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Many album covers could be considered iconic. Do they cease to be album covers?BeL1EveR (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
So are you arguing that an album cover can never be covered by 8? The vast majority of album covers don't generate an international controversy 30 years after they were made. It should be clear that this is much more iconic than the cover of any random album. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. It is to album covers what say, the McDonalds logo is to fast food, or Manchester United's logo is to association football. But they still have to be used in accordance with the fair usage criteron of what they are. Your argument is that the copyright rules (and therefore the fair-usage rules) for this album cover are different to that of other album covers BECAUSE it is iconic. BeL1EveR (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the image falls under 8 it is irrelevant that it is an image that could possibly fall under 1. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that to be the case. Point 1 is very well defined, point 8 is vague as to its presidence. I'm not going to remove the image again myself for the time being (although I defend anyone else doing so on the basis that in copyvio arguments the burden of proof is on inclusion), but I don't understand the rationale that a general case overrides a specific one. To clarify an earlier question, yes I am arguing that an album cover can never be covered by 8. I'm not certain I'm right, but I'd like clarification on the matter if I'm wrong for future reference. BeL1EveR (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There's no logic to this. We have a set of conditions where we think that an imahe is important enough that we should include a copy even if the image has a copyright. Under what logic should failure for one of them force failure for another? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can see the argument that we could make an editorial decision by consensus to remove the article. I find the argument that the image could be removed per the letter or spirit of WP:NFC not convincing in the least. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I am also unconvinced by the WP:NFC arguments for removal, and the simple edit summary "no" really doesn't justify removal at all. Verbal chat 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding iconic images: Images like the Campbell's Soup Can are iconic in that they are used in other famous artwork. Other fair-use images, such as some Beatles album covers, are iconic because they are widely used outside of the context of their original trademarked purpose. This album cover is fast approaching this status if it hasn't gained it already - whether it has actually crossed that line may become a matter for courts to decide should it be contested by financially interested parties. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't even believe this discussion is being had at all at this point. I can't imagine a way that this doesn't have fair use now. I might see how throwing NFC at it before might get it deleted, but to even think that now is simply ridiculous; the image is now at the forefront of the internet, has been involved in a brutal raping of consumers by NGOs, has artistic/cultural value (regarding the free-spirited culture of the time), and has been covered in the past for its provocative nature.

Since so much of the controversies have been surrounding the album cover itself, it only makes sense to include an image of it. Shame on you for trying to change that based on an 'all-or nothing' readership ideal and giving in without a wider consensus on the matter. Celarnor Talk to me 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this image is iconic. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

Should links to the Wikipedia namespace be allowed in "Further Reading" or "External Links"? I think they should be allowed on the same terms as any other off-Wiki web link. What are your opinions? I ask because of this and this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia namespace should never be cited using an internal link; it is not part of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
They can and probably should be in external links. Adding them into further reading is bad since further reading is supposed to be mainspace articles that are related. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You are thinking of "See Also," that's for other mainspace encyclopedia articles which are not previously mentioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action is a semi-formal report on the issue from Wikipedian insiders, I think it meets WP:EL (as a unique resource on the topic). I have no problem linking to it from the External links section, but it should under no circumstances be cited as a reliable source or internal linked in the body of the article. Skomorokh 03:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I put the link in, and admit that in such a form it was probably in the wrong place. I merely wanted to provide a link to or list of the available news articles. They could be simply cut and pasted, added as external links, or used as references in the article. As it stands, this article barely shows the wide reaction in the international press. Sorry to make the error (I do know better, just acted clumsily in my abstraction). Gwinva (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, "For Further Reading" is traditionally for books or other offline sources. "External Links" is traditionally for off-wiki links. Both have been used inconsistently in the past. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added an external link to the AN page; hope this satisfies all. Skomorokh 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why were article- and image-links turned external?[edit]

Why were Image:Virgin Killer.jpg and Image:Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg changed from internal links to external links in this edit? That's very unusual, the only reason I didn't revert on sight is the editor is already involved in these discussions and I assume he had a reason for saying "these should not be internal links." What is that reason? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia pages are referenced as such, they should be external links to explicitly denote that they are links to Wikipedia. Re-users of the content would generally make internal links go to their own site. Also, printed copies should include the URL - this is not done if it is an internal link. --- RockMFR 03:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a standard practice yet? If so, is it documented in a guideline somewhere? It should be. If it's an evolving practice it should be documented in an essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I also find this strange and I am reacting because this manner of linking disguises the use of the alternative image on this page (see the "File linke" section of Image:Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg). __meco (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The page Image:Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg just needed purging. To purge, "edit" the file then change the "&edit" at the end of the URL to "&purge" and hit "enter" and it will reload and recalculate the file links section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The title is inaccurate[edit]

Resolved: Thanks Andy. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF doesn't do the blocking. What they do is blacklist urls and then ISPs choose to block or not as they wish. A better title is IWF blacklisting of Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Any objections to such a move? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with a move. By the way, shouldn't the title spell out the Foundation's name instead of using an abbreviation? Nufy8 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"IWF blacklisting of Wikipedia" suggests they blacklisted the whole site, when only one or two pages were really effected. Skomorokh 03:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The site is on a blacklist since everything needs to go through the same list. They blacklisted the site and listed a specific page as problematic. Still if we need to make it more neutral how about "Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia controversy"? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to be difficult, but I preferred the first one! What is the technical definition of blacklisting? If it necessarily has to apply to an entire site, then there seems nothing wrong with the original suggestion. Skomorokh 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point about renaming but with things moving so fast I'd like to have some stability. Can we keep the renames to maybe one every 48 hours? We just moved less than 4 hours ago, and as time goes on an even better article name may appear. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Thought certainly needs to be put into finding a more accurate title. I raised a similar point at ITN: as I understand it, the IWF has no power to block or restrict access; those ISPs who subscribe to their blacklist do so. In a sense they blacklisted WP, which is where the technical problems came in: all WP traffic is redirected through proxy servers, who then block the specific page. But WP as a whole has been red flagged (if not black listed!) [2]. Gwinva (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You would rather have a stable, inaccurate article than a dynamic accurate one? Skomorokh 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Internet Watch Foundation-Wikipedia scandal anyone? I do think the IWF should be called Internet Watch Foundation. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Scandal is a highly POV term. Given that wording one could interpret it as talking about either the IWF or Wikipedia but either way that's not good. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I still think that 'Internet Watch Foundation blacklisting of Wikipedia' is accurate and NPOV. TerriersFan (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to that one. My earlier suggestion was more an attempt to throw something out there and see what people thought than an indication that it was something I thought we needed. Let's wait a bit and see what others think. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
IWF-Wikipedia content blacklist? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Internet Watch Foundation blacklist of The Scorpion album cover is perhaps more accurate

. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See above. I don't actually think this is more technically accurate. They flagged the article and the image and then blacklisted the en.wikipedia.org url as a "site for filtering", the filter then blocked out the specific url of the image or article. So it really is a blacklisting of wikipedia. Internet Watch Foundation - Wikipedia content blacklist may be ok. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Though that may imply that coordination exists where none did. We may be stuck with gerunds. Blast! Protonk (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
IWF-Wikipedia content blacklist! :D I think it'll work... Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Another problem with labeling the image as blacklisted is that isn't true. They didn't blacklist the image page just the article page (although apparently some ISPs have now updated that). Moreover, the image is not blacklisted where it appears on other websites or on other Wikipedia pages that host it. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
They blacklisted the image as well, according to this. Amazon removed their copy, due to mounting pressure one would think. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy with most options that drop the word "blocking", but don't start with "2008" as it makes searches less likely to be successful first time. Besides, as it's not happened before, do we need the disambiguation of a year? --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the article to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of the image[edit]

If you are going to use the image and have any hope of surviving a WP:COPYVIO discussion, at least discuss the image in enough detail and in the context of the block to show that having the image in front of you as you read the article vs. behind a link improves the article. Even a one-liner about how nude children are level-1 images in England and how that triggered the block would be a good start.

If such language isn't there in 6-8 hours when I get back online, I'll remove the image as no/improper fair use justification.

Even with such a discussion, I'm not entirely comfortable that this will meet fair use rationale as long as the bulk of the article is on the controversy and the blocking rather than a critique of the cover itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Already being discussed above. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
David's point I think is that even if we can make a justification on 8 we should discuss the image more in the article. That doesn't seem unreasonable. I'm going to head to bed now. But if you have time, adding a sentence or two probably isn't a bad idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
My point is we should be consistent and not take liberties with copyvio. If this article is about the block, we can continue to do so with minimal discussion and critique of the image, and therefore we won't need the image. OR we can put in some details of the image in the text, which will in turn justify the image. We have to be careful though, doing the latter as an end-run around COPYVIO may hurt, rather than help, the article. Only put in verbage about the picture if it actually helps the reader to understand the IWF block. If you can do so - and that shouldn't be hard - then using the picture to amplify the text may be justified. I say "may" since IANAUSCopyrightLawyer. With something this close to the legal borderline, we should get a 2nd opinion from the folks watchlisting Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Image Use Policy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Given US notions of fair use the minimal amount of discussion is definitely enough to satisfy US law. The issue is whether it satisfies the much stricter standards on Wikipedia for fair use. I agree that a sentence or two more would likely help matters. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The article already contains the lines, "Sarah Robertson, director of communications for the IWF, said that the image was rated '1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive'. She described the picture as 'erotic posing with no sexual activity.'" Perhaps more could be added, but this is certainly at least a good start, because the picture helps the reader to understand what is referred to by "erotic posing with no sexual activity." Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a few sentences which discuss the cover itself with some sources. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I commented in the above discussion. Two active threads on the same topic is confusing. Verbal chat 12:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Article title blacklisted[edit]

Just a note, the original title of this article, Virgin Killer controversy, has now been added to the IWF blacklist. Gazimoff 09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? But that is blatant censorship. It didn't have the image when it was located under that name. Gwinva (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't confirm if it's the IWF blacklist or autonomous action by my ISP Be Unlimited, but I definitely get a 404 error when trying to view Virgin_Killer_controversy. I can still see the new title (with image) though. They've obviously never seen The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Eve Hall (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No problems on my ISP (via BT network). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 09:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
On further investigation, it appears to be limited to Be/O2, and seems to be a way the original blacklisting url is handled. Any title that starts Virgin Killer is blocked, therefore Virgin Killer lemon is also blocked. This seems to be less of a deliberate attempt to expand the blocking remit, and more a poor configuration of the blocking filter. Gazimoff 09:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, you seem to be right. Sigh. Eve Hall (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
They're indeed doing a prefix search on accessed urls, probably in order to block dynamic urls that may have additional parameters added to the end. Effectiveness obviously dependent on the server software, but they don't seem to be giving any consideration on that. Random porn sites probably aren't quite as predictable as MediaWiki. --Ticram (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not make a list of ISPs not affected by this?[edit]

That way people who want to can make the decision to switch to an ISP that won't be affected by things like this. Given what's happened over the past few days, and affected ISPs' refusal to cooperate, I'm sure many people will be quite prepared to make that switch. --135.196.27.80 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to promote a POV or help those who wish to do so. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A list intended to encourage users to change ISP would not be acceptable, for the reasons outlined by SqueakBox. A list intended to help Wikipedia users better understand the effects of the IWF action on the operation of Wikipedia would however be perfectly acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As long as all info is sourced I agree, Duncan. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
We already have a list of affected ISP's in the article. ViperSnake151 14:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It's in just the lede and not the rest of the article. Does someone want to bring some of that down, expand and source it? Protonk (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Ref #13 is an internal source. Are there any external replacements for it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Are there any external sources to verify the claim that lots of external sources have webpages devoted to the topic? Uhh... Skomorokh 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course, but I simply wanted to know what everybody else thought before I went ahead and replaced it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE[edit]

What would people say about my shortening the Wikimedia response section? Right now the press release and Jimbo's quote make up a significant percentage of the article and I would rather they didn't. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles full of quotes make bad articles. The quote needs chopping down, perhaps paraphrasing. 86.29.235.46 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF u-turn[edit]

The [refactored] at the IWF appear to have seen the error of their ways 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • LOL get paid. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing is so freaking stupid. Porn is "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." If anyone at IWF thinks the little girl's photo is a "sexual subject matter" and "sexually exciting", they should be behind bars. As it is an album cover, the pic is intended to represent the album and probably to shock some people, but I seriously doubt the band's "sole intention" was to "excite the viewer". – Alensha talk 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was the rationale behind its unblocking. Let's give them a bit of credit for changing their minds. Anyway, onwards with the discussion of improving what will hopefully be a well-referenced (if rather current-ish) article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Please stop making ridiculous statements, its like saying if the police try to get behind the motivation of criminals (such as serial killers) they are themselves criminals, what utter bxxxxllcks. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it just speaks to the utter absurdity of the thoughtcrime anyway. The employees of IWF had to be given a special exemption from UK law to allow them to look at these images at all. It's all about context (a subtlety that all too often gets lost in the OMG PR0NZ hysteria) if you have a copy of Virgin Killer on vinyl with the original cover in your record collection there would be no problem, if, instead, you had just the image torn off the cover stashed away under your mattress with the rest of your "erotica" you might get into trouble. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. We, the Wikipedians, have actualy affected the decision of a major organisation. Jolly Ω Janner 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we've done that a million times before. But this isn't the place for that ;) neuro(talk) 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com reaction[edit]

Resolved: This has been added. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

Amazon.com removed the image too isnt this worth citation? --Ciao 90 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, this is chilling effect in its purest form. Unfortunately I could not find a source for that. If we do, we definitely need to include that. 118.8.130.145 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian has it: "However Amazon US no longer risks being blocked under IWF's rulings. The image, as an album cover, had been on its site earlier this week, but has now been removed, apparently on the site's own initiative."[3] --Ticram (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added this. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What?[edit]

"Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures."

Umm, so if it's abroad it's fine but if it's local it's not? I didn't know a picture interpretation differs upon location... Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, ensuring the UK does not host said images is the main remit of the IWF. Thanks, SqueakBox
Is the IWF saying they still think this image is illegal under UK law (if hosted on a UK based web server... I wonder if play.com is UK based?) even though the album with this sleeve is widely available in record shops on UK High Streets? 80.176.88.21 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
they are certainly reserving the right to blacklist the image if it appears on a UK server, and if anyone believes this is happening the iwf is the place to complain. Thanks, SqueakBox21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Play.com is based in Jersey which is strictly speaking not part of the United Kingdom. Davewild (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP effects[edit]

As I understand it, the proxy servers didn't just result in editing problems, but also loading problems by readers, due to the high traffic passing through a handful of ISPs. I read it somewhere, but can't remember which source. There are plenty to look through: [4]. Another point worth mentioning are the fake 404 messages, rather than transparent explanations: people didn't know they were being censored. Gwinva (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the editing problems were caused by the small number of IP addresses being blocked by Wikipedia for vandalism. The IP blocks for vandalism initially prevented both anonymous and authenticated edits. Mr. Bene (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Response by the Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Do we need the full text from the quotes? Can drop that down to "On 9 December, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia told the UK's Channel 4 News that they considered legal action" and leave the text on the pages that are referenced? Mr. Bene (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it was cropped. neuro(talk) 12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikimedia press release text was removed, but the Jimmy Wales quote is retained in full. Think I'll delete it, it brings nothing to the article. Mr. Bene (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed name change[edit]

Current one sounds a bit odd to me at least, especially since the current article only documents one encounter between the IWF and WP. Shouldn't we have something like '2008 Virgin Killer controversy'? neuro(talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The current name is an odd one for sure. I agree it should contain "controversy". 86.29.235.46 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The word "controversy" implies a long duration, a series of occurrences. More appropriate would be "incident". Also note that the article Virgin Killer controversy was merged into this article, and that the previous actively redirects here. Also note that the current title is strongly NPOV. Adding a word that implies conflict would reduce this. Finally, examine titles of articles on similar topics, like Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China and note the specific blocked items aren't referenced. Adding an action (like "Filtering of Wikipedia by IWF") would possibly make the relationship more clear while maintaining NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Bene (talkcontribs) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the current name is not good. Unless the long-term belief and intention is that the article will cover relations between Wikipedia and the IWF generally, encompassing various issues, I think the title should refer to the incident somehow. 86.133.247.1 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC).
How about '2008 Virgin Killer censorship incident'? neuro(talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll move this to '2008 Virgin Killer censorship incident' tomorrow morning, if there are no objections below. neuro(talk) 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, don't. This page has been moved several times already. Rather than continue the name hopping, lets find consensus: perhaps consider a few of the suggestions we've already had, and see which is preferred. Gwinva (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to go to bed, but if perhaps someone could create a straw poll that would be a good plan. neuro(talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
While this series of events was a result of IWF blocking the Virgin Killer image, most of the impact on regular users (and, thus, most of the external notice) was due to IWF technology interacting with the Wiki servers. For this reason, I suggest that the text "Virgin Killer" should not appear in the title. Mr. Bene (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Seeing as this is a mostly British related article, should we be using the British spellings "organisation" and "criticised" (for example)? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with those changes. Verbal chat 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed a few "iz"es to "is"es, and also one or two other spellings that my spell checker flagged as being incorrect in British English. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Thumbnails of the image remained accessible"[edit]

I don't recall the image being present in any other article until it was used in here, so surely this statement in the lead is incorrect? MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnails do not need to be in other articles to be generated, and this was indeed the case at the time. The block was still in place when this article was created, and this article contained a thumbnail of the image. neuro(talk) 05:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The sentence reads to me that they were viewable as thumbs elsewhere at the time of the initial action, which neither this article existing later or the fact thumnails could be added elsewhere proves. This action was supposedly to prevent casual viewing, so the statement doesn't stand up if your talking about thumbs being viewable if you actively created them elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The thumbnails created for this article were visible for casual viewers browsing the links from the history page or recent changes for the article, or googling for related images. It says everywhere that only two urls were blocked, but Wikipedia shows content through many different urls without people having to actively search for them. Indeed, the thumbnails and the image itself remained accessible the whole time. --Ticram (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't class searching through an article history as supporting saying they were still accessible, without qualification that that is not a normal way of reading the encyclopoedia. The image itself was still accessible by other means too, such as url parameters or the secure server, but this statement implies thumbnails were simply still visible through normal reading. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Normal reading" through one url was not possible, but all other methods were possible. Wikipedians click through diffs etc all the time. Neither the image nor any of its thumbnails were blocked, thus they were accessible. --Ticram (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The IWF supposedly works to prevent 'accidental exposure'. Hunting through diffs is not accidental exposure. It was not available as a thumb on any other existing page at the time of the action. The sentence is at best innaccurate and at worst, misleading, but I can't be bothered any more. Unwatching. MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

XFF[edit]

It should be noted that Wikimedia only uses XFF headers of a select list of "trusted" providers. The reason for this is that XFF headers are relatively easy to forge, and sometimes there is NAT'ing going of "local" ip addresses, that would not reliably match to IPs of individual users in Wikipedia. As such XFF headers are not enough in itself. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this in once I've worked out how to phrase it. Do you have a reference? neuro(talk) 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
[5] Mr. Bene (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Page title: Straw poll[edit]

This page has been moved several times in an effort to find an appropriate name, and there continued to be alternative names put forward. In order to establish consensus, a straw poll might be useful. Please indicate names which have your support, and give reasons for oppositions. Further suggestions can also be added. Gwinva (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: many ISPs continue to block pages containing the words "Virgin Killer".
  • Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia (existing)
    1. endorse: reject 2, 3, and 4 as the term blacklist can be misleading, and the 6th title doesn't mention either of the two major parties, and if it did it would be unwieldy. How about Internet Watch Foundation and Virgin Killer (album cover), which reflects not just the impact on Wikipedia but the chilling effect it had on Amazon.com and the continued threat of blacklisting and resulting chilling effect should a UK web site dare to host the image. In any case, don't move it for at least several days after the last move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    2. endorse: - No reason to name Virgin Killer in article name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    3. Maybe "incident" is needed but it's far less important than naming the IWF. Grsz11 06:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    4. oppose -- title does not describe article content. It's like calling Spanish-American War "Spain and America". 81.152.169.60 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
    5. Oppose per anon's reasoning. It's much too vague a title. Nufy8 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    6. endorse I agree that this title is vague, but it allows the article to deal with both the inclusion of Wikipedia URLs on the IWF list, and the technical ramifications to Wikipedia of being listed. Mr. Bene (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    7. Endorse - Unlike the case of the Spanish American War, there does not seem to be a neutral term that adequately describes the situation without without being more specific than the title needs (e.g. "censorship", "blacklisting", etc), or so vague that it is redundant ("incident"). It is fine to let the actual article do the explaining. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Internet Watch Foundation blacklisting of Wikipedia
    1. Endorse, it does what it says on the tin. If we have multiple incidents involving the IWF in the future, Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia could log these affairs, but this is only one incident. ViperSnake151 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    2. oppose as this is halfway between too generic and too specific. Yes, a URL from Wikipedia was listed by IWF, but this title implies all of Wikipedia was blacklisted. More appropriate may be Internet Watch Foundation blacklisting of Wikipedia URLs, but I won't suggest that as I feel it is unwieldy. Mr. Bene (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Internet Watch Foundation - Wikipedia content blacklist


  • Internet Watch Foundation blacklist of Wikipedia
  • Filtering of Wikipedia by IWF
      • #Endorse - this title (or with "IWF" spelled out - I see no serious problem with doing so) is properly descriptive - it names both parties involved and describes the conflict. In being descriptive, though, it steers clear of POV issues, by using the term "filtering" which has a practically neutral connotation - far more neutral than "censorship" and the less- though still pejorative "blacklisting." -Seidenstud (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Vote withdrawn per Mr. Bene's excellent point. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    1. first choice but prefer IWF spelled out. Filtering is an accurate neutral word without the POV of censorship and without the potential confusion from the word "blacklist". JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    2. Oppose While IWF did list a URL on Wikipedia, it was the ISPs who performed the actual filtering. Mr. Bene (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 2008 Virgin Killer censorship incident
    1. Strongly oppose the word censorship as POV, see below. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      I'm not especially supporting this choice, but "censorship" is exactly what it was. No POV involved there. 81.152.169.60 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
    2. Support. POV is an irrelevant argument. Most reliable sources appear to term this situation as "censorship", so that is what we should reflect in the article name. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    3. Second choice Multiple reliable sources call this censorship so using that term doesn't raise any serious POV problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 2008 Virgin Killer album cover incident
    1. Support best to focus on the reality. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    2. Oppose. The most relevant players here were the IWF and Wikipedia. The specific item in question was in some way not as an important. And there have been other issues involving the album in 2008 (including a Christian group complaining about the cover to the FBI) so the title is misleading. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Internet Watch Foundation and Virgin Killer (album cover)

Knock-on effects, IWF, technological details and so forth[edit]

Some handy articles on aftermath:

Some on technical effects:

Gwinva (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Event NOT closed, still ongoing[edit]

This article continues to refer to the event as being finished. However, as of 12 December 2008, filtering is still being implemented. It is still affecting users ability to edit/interact with Wikipedia shown here. The only thing more dispiriting than the block, is that efforts to raise awareness of the renewed block have been avoided.

What IS going on?? It will be some days before independent sources become available (if they do). Is it not right to remind readers of this?? Why is it wrong, or inaccurate to write about this, if the event is still ongoing?? Just because no official statements have been released?? This IS affecting users. Why else would administrators bar the filter-IP address??

If the block is implemented on an ongoing basis, one might as well block anonymous editing altogether. If anyone is aware of why the block has been re-instated, it would be good to know about it. (Kreb (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Wikipedia has the requirement of external references - which is why you saw most initial detail recorded on the admin boards, and the initial article being mostly press releases (which, in itself, generated calls for deletions). While this would be an excellent resource for blocked users, the question is whether it's appropriate content for an encyclopedia entry.
The actual issue at hand is expected to be not that IWF has re-added the URLs, but rather that the ISPs who subscribe to the IWF list do not have instantaneous synchronization with the IWF list. It took days for the IWF list with Wikipedia URLs to become broadly adopted, and each ISP may have made different retention period for URLs that have appeared on the list. The priority of the system would be to get new entries distributed - some ISPs may not even have the ability to remove entries (pure conjecture that). Mr. Bene (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

BT had removed the block on and the IP grouping mid-week, but restored both on Friday. They seem to have removed the block again late on Friday (at least, I can access the article - not sure about Krebs, who has continued to refer to the article being blocked), but is again grouping IPs together. This clearly isn't a matter of synchronisation or retention periods, because BT was back to normal a couple of days ago and isn't actually blocking the article. And the IP grouping seems to be limited to Wikipedia - I have, as before the IWF blacklisting, an individual proxy outside of Wikipedia. At some point on Friday, BT did something specific to the way its users access Wikipedia, and this seems to now be independent of the blacklisting of Virgin Killer. Newentry8 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Project namespace[edit]

Are the links to project namespace really warrented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talkcontribs)

However, this is an article about Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter from the govenment[edit]

I wrote to my MP about the IWF thing last year, I got a reply from the government a week or so ago. [6] -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Internet Watch Foundation[edit]

Thoughts on merging this page to Internet Watch Foundation? Seems reasonable to have a section about it in the IWF article, but an entire separate page seems unnecessary. Thoughts / comments? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a major event, deserves its own page. ViperSnake151 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A major event? That seems to be stretching it quite a bit. This is a noteworthy event, sure, but not a major one. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed, but I'm a tad worried that stuffing this article into the Internet Watch Foundation article will make both articles worse then they currently are. Mostly however, I just don't really see the point personally :D --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with TheDJ that it probably wouldn't do any good to try and merge this article into the IWF article. As mentioned above, it is noteworthy and surely that means it should have its own article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Article problems[edit]

  • Bold title intro paragraph: I've never seen a Wiki article that doesn't have the title of the article bold in the first sentence. Is this an oversight, or by design?
  • Intro paragraph too long: The intro paragraph is way too long and essentially acting as the body of the article, with the article body providing supporting material to the intro section. This is backwards. The intro section is supposed to be a summary of the article content. Most of the material in the intro section doesn't even exist in the article body!
  • Article title: The article title is confusing and not really accurate. This article is about a specific event, it is better known as the Virgin Killer Controversy.. in fact the book The Wikipedia Revolution refers to it as such, setting a precedent. The current title "Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia" is too generalized and just as easily could/should be a part of the Internet Watch Foundation article (as others have pointed out).

--Green Cardamom (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bold title[edit]

Neurolysis (talk · contribs) removed some bolding, saying that the relevant text "Shouldn't be bolded". Why not? I was under the impression that, as I said in my edit summary, "the bolded text is supposed to summarise the article like a title". Alternatively, we could have no text bolded, but the current format (only the text "Internet Watch Foundation" is bolded) makes no sense to me. Brian Jason Drake 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the text that you embolded is just plain weird - no, we don't embold a summary of the article. What we do embold, however, is the title of an article if it appears in the first sentance, which here it doesn't. Whether we should embold IWF in the first sentance or not, I don't know. TalkIslander 09:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I am concerned that the first sentence does not define the incident broadly enough. The first sentence is covered in technical details, and only presents the start of the incident. The first sentence is the key to the article, and this one holds the whole article down. Also, boldface text should not be wikilinked.
    • I am not an extremely computer-technical person, but sufficient that I can follow the prose in "effects on Wikipedia". Still, I do not understand how the two incidents are related. Was the rerouteing to the proxy serves of all traffic due to the blacklist? This should be specified a little more clearly.
Yeah, I'm fixing this right now. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Ref 7 and 8 (Yahoo and AP articles) are dead.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Three minor issues and the article will pass. Good work so far. Arsenikk (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    Since you addressed the concerns and Arsenikk seems to have disappeared, I'll pass this as a GA in his place. Wizardman 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal status[edit]

The IWF's filtering is not required under UK law. The UK ISPs were talked into a "voluntary" agreement by the Home Office.[7] During the Virgin Killer affair, not all of the UK ISPs complied with the block.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)