Talk:Australian Communications and Media Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Communications and Media Authority is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
High traffic

On 20090319, Australian Communications and Media Authority was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

merger with ACA[edit]

Agree. --Adbabypenguin 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

As this is an article on an Australian government body would it be better to use Australian spelling of words? An example is licence instead of the US spelling license? Ozdaren 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet Censorship and Criticisms[edit]

According to the article, "Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies."

I don't know if this particular criticism is sensible enough to be included. The reason I say that is that the Australian Constitution does not allocate powers to the States, only to the federal government. In some very particular cases the federal constitution does restrict the rights of states, but certainly not when it comes to censorship. The State Parliaments are basically free to legislate on anything else, whether it is mentioned in the Constitution or not. Should this be removed or, better yet, replaced with a more sensible example of criticism? Troyac 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

removed link[edit]

I have removed the actual link to the graphic pictures. I don't think it adds to the article, and we don't do content disclaimers such as "warning, graphic pictures". Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the link. If you remove it again I will report you. Note another user here has already been given final warnings for doing what you just did, by two admin users, not random users.
As for discussion. The ACMA were given powers in 1999 to secretly censor pages on the internet, with no appeals process and no transparency. This was rushed through our parliament with arguments like it being necessary to keep child pornography pages secret. This is the very first time something has leaked about what pages they have blocked, and what they have issued a take-down notice for. And the content itself is not particularly graphic. It's really quite tame, you see worse on the anti-smoking campaigns. So to say it is not relevant to the article is simply, idiotic. Cheers. --119.12.170.248 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
as for content disclaimers. Wikipedia does indeed do them. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer
So unless you have any more arguments for why the link shouldn't be included that's about that. --119.12.170.248 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, I'm not some random user. I've been here, for awhile. Administrators do not have more editorial power then me, they are equal with me.
The link does not add anything except shock value to the article. That is basic. A simple descriptive will suffice. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
the link shows the extent of the lower end of australian internet censorship, and is so very relevant as people can see exactly the kind of content they are trying to censor.
I didn't say you were a random user. Administrators do have more power, including the ability to ban. Two individually have issued final warnings the only other user who tried to remove that link.
Also I object to your latest note when removing the link again. " Why is *one* ip removing the edits of many users?". Here are the users that have reverted censorship of that url
211.27.106.139: [1]
Leo Lazauskas: [2]
BoomerAB: [3]
Mjquin_id: [4]
And myself.
So please, before claiming 1 person is removing the edits of many people, do your research. It is 5 people reverting the deletions of 2 people. You are in the minority here, and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.
  • I stand corrected. I misread the edit history. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed the link, as placing it inline in such a manner is very poor form, not to mention the fact that the "warning" is completely contrary to Wikipedia practice. There may be a case for a link to be included, I have no opinion on that at this time, but it should not be included in that way. For now, please keep the discussion to the talk page and stop the revert warring. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

and I have again included the link. The link is in the censorship and criticism section, clearly as an example of a takedown notice issued. If you think another type of warning is suitable I'd love to hear your suggestion, instead of your censorship. But wikipedia surely does do warnings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and if you follow the link on that page you will get a list of controversial articles in wikipedia that include lots of graphic content. Note this content isn't included, merely linked. The precedent is clearly here.
as for your "for now keep the discussion to the talk page", given you are in the minority and this has already been addressed by two administrators to have it included, I respectfully suggest you engage in the discussion and desist from the censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.100.82 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not think another type of warning is necessary. Did you actually read what I said, or did you just assume I was some kind of "protect the children" wacko? We do not have warnings of any sort within articles. I removed the link, not to censor the article, but because in its current state (ridiculous warnings and inline links) it looks terrible. Thankfully, we don't vote, and administrators have no more power than anyone else with regards to content discussions- I'm an administrator, and I could quite easily summon a number of other editors to remove the link. Lastly, and most importantly, do not accuse me of censorship. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, can you actually point to a single reliable source that states that that website was the one concerned? If the information is unverifiable, then it should obviously not be included. It appears to be currently referenced to a forum post that doesn't actually give the address, and I can't see anything on Google News. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are a protect the children whacko. If you are going to ask me to not accuse you of censorship, it would be nice of you not to make ridiculous claims like that.
Yes I read what you said. Read the link i gave
"Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view) nor the laws of the state of Florida in the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted. See a list of controversial issues for some examples of articles that may contain such content. Some of these articles contain warnings, but many do not."
There is plenty of objectionable content on wikipedia. If your concern is merely that the inline warning looks ridiculous then remove the inline warning. Then your issue is addressed, correct?
If you follow the multiple references included it explains that the link was the one prohibited. There are two levels of censorship here by the ACMA. The first is prohibiting a website ( they add it to filters, since they can't control non-australian content). The second is issuing the takedown notice for someone including the link in a comment in Whirlpool. Read the two references that have been included since yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.100.82 (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear what is referenced and what is not, due to the poor referencing (and citing of questionable sources). The issue I initially rose was concerning the inline link and warning. I have again removed the warning (though I wouldn't be surprised if it has now been reverted with "OMG STOP CENSORING MY WARNIGNS") but the link is still there. If you seriously want the link included, at least make it look presentable. I have been accused several times of censorship, despite the fact I made clear that I was removing the link for stylistic reasons. That's the reason I'm struggling to assume good faith here. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
well there were two citations on the takedown notice of the link. I have added a citation as you requested, for the point on theACMA secretely blacklisting the actual site, not the link. I thank you for making the link look presentable. I believe that engaging in improving content is much better than deleting it. And that action was the reason I was struggling with good faith. Censorship isn't always a bad word... but engaging in war edits deleting content saying "it's not presented well" is something I personally classify as such. But now we have reached a compromise through cooperative edits. Much better. The article has benefited as a result. Yay for the internets? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The newly added citation still doesn't offer a link to the website... J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
well it can't can it. The ACMA go and issue a takedown notice if someone does. Welcome to our censorship country. I believe if you read the sources cited, you can reliable put together that the issues is the same. The person quoted in the new citation is the same person who reported the site as a test of the ACMA -- theonly way anyone in australia can find out if they censor something or not. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
So, you admit that you don't have a source for the material, but you think it should be included anyway? Original research is not suitable for Wikipedia- what is included must be referenced to reliable sources. Can you provide a reason I should not remove the link as original research? J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read the citations? I'll add a fourth for you. How many do you want exactly? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I want one- One reliable source that links to the website. A non-notable pressure group could hardly be considered a reliable source, while the reputable news sources very blatantly do not include a link to the site. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
and you have been provided with 5, one of which quotes the exact email which the user received from the ACMA including the url. You will not see that link posted on an australian site for long. What you will read is reputable journalists reporting that the url was prohibited and then a takedown notice was issued for the url. Those links have been provided, and are reliable sources. I encourage you to read all of those articles. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, unless you have a decent reference for what the URL is, it cannot be included. The one that quotes the email is unreliable, and the URL is redacted anyway (unless I've completely missed the point- link?) I don't really care how or why there is not a decent reference for it- I only care that there isn't. I have not been given five, as none of those sources say "this was the website that was removed". Again- do you have a source, or are you going to continue to insist on using original research, and hiding behind "sources" that don't actually give the information you claim them to? Again, is there any reason the link should not be removed as original research? J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added a second that links the URL, which is from EFA.org.au. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
And since you have now gone quiet, I guess we are done for now. I also thank you for giving valid reasons for your deletion so the issue could be addressed and improved. "looks messy" isn't a very valid reason to delete content. See how much better it works when you engage people in improving content? Cheers. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As a style issue, I have added the site link to the External Links section. Perhaps this is a compromise. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
And I have disengaged the issue. I'll make no further edits to this article, and I will contribute nothing further to this discussion. Best of luck. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
the problem with the edit you just made is that the reference ends up as one of three references at the end of that sentence. A user has no way of knowing that the reference in particular is exactly the site in question. The other references are providing reputable sources for the entire paragraph. I think it is better linking the word "web site" or perhaps the phrase "a page" that just preceeds it, or if necessary putting the reference marker right next to "a page". Otherwise it is just lost. Someone else will need to make that change though as somebody locked this page for editing by new users or anonymous users. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
J Milburn - if you want evidence that the site in question is the actual site that has been banned, have a look around on the internet - several sources which will confirm the site in question here - specifically listing the exact URL that has been banned. In addition a copy of the email to the ACMA and subsequent response can also easily be obtained. 58.108.41.212 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA Censorship[edit]

Moved from User talk:Petri Krohn#ACMA Censorship -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Petri. Thanks for trying to clean up the reference a bit. I can't make edits right now, but will make this suggestion here. Perhaps you will agree. your change

The web page — #6 of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses — had been secretly prohibited by the ACMA

Isn't future proof, as #6 as a reference is dynamically generated and if someone inserts a reference higher in the page it will no longer be #6.

I suggest one of the following: leave it as a deep link, and put it on "the page". Leave abortion.tv there and link it, or revert back to "website" and link that to abortion.tv.

Alternatively, if you particularly feel it is better as a reference ( I don't! ) then put the #6 reference right after the text "page", which will help indicate that reference is the page itself. But honestly, this isn't a reference this is a source item; it's not something a person goes to so they can validate a reference, it is the thing itself. That is what hyperlinks are, afterall. But either way, if you could address the #6 not being future proof somehow that would be appreciated. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ou! You are from Australia! Then you cannot see what is on th pages. The "#6" refers to the name of the page, "AbortionTV Pictures #6" on the page itself and on the link on this warning page. It has nothing to do with how references are listed or numbered on Wikipedia artikles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We can see what is on the page. Prohibited does not mean illegal. It is legal to view. Also, the blacklist currently is meaningless. There is currently a debate going on whether to force ISPs to filter the blacklist. So we can see it, and we can do so legally. Currently. We can even legally link it on an autralian site. although the ACMA would then act on a complain to remove that link. Anyway, #6 was just a bit unclear as it was. Also, given there was just an extensive conversation sourcing and adding references for the specific page that was blocked, I think it is not particularly helpful of you to come in and remove it. Can you state a wikipedia policy that does not allow linking to that page? If not, why try to obscure it -- what does that achieve? --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:POINT seems to cover the situation. Also, inline citations are discouraged. - Nunh-huh 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you please elaborate on WP:POINT as it covers here? I can imagine a couple, i suppose, but I admit it's a bit of a struggle. Just asking for what you saw there.
Also, can you point where inline links are discouraged? It's not really a citation, but the thing itself. It just strikes me as odd that the absolute core element of the success of webpages -- hyperlinks -- wouldn't be used on wikipedia, especially given that external ones are given a special markup indicating they are external. Thanks! --Reasonwins (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
By POINT I meant specifically the actions mentioned in the article "Activists use Wikipedia to bait blacklist regulator". With regard to inline links, my apologies, I may have made it harder for you to find by calling it a citation; the relevant policy is that on WP:External links, which, in brief, states "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". This particular link is only tangentially relevant, and is certainly not meritable. "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." The link in question does not fit any of the criteria for "Links to be considered" and fits several of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided". - Nunh-huh 06:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've reverted the "POINT"-y re-addition of the link. We wouldn't remove a link that we deemed proper just because ACMA said to; we similarly shouldn't add a link that would otherwise be deemed unnecessary just because ACMA forbids it. - Nunh-huh 06:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that article in particular, however I agree with you what wikipedia contains should have nothing at all to do with the ACMA. I note that you turned it into a non-deep link, and then someone came and make that link a reference just so it was clear. I think that is a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, the most recent edit is an anonymous australian user ( 203. is AU ) who just deleted the whole thing again without any justification. Perhaps IP blocking would be suitable again. I do tend to agree with you though. A deep link by itself is a bit of a surprise, while the full url adds a bit of context. And yes it is not directly related to the article so a deep link may be misleading. However, the link it self is very relevant to the ACMA right now as it is the very first link in 7 years which we have known about. We have a senator right now pushing for that secret blacklist to be forced on all ISPs, and he claims it is "child pornography" and "ultra violent sites". Having the very first published link being someing as mundane as a pro-abortion site is incredibly hot news right now. ( just google ACMA australia abortion ). I did read over external links "links normally to be avoided". I can't say I agree with you that it fits every criteria. In fact, I can't say that it fits any of the criteria. Could you point out which ones you think this link fits? ( note I do agree it is not directly related, and have conceded a ref rather than deep link seems appropriate ). So a reference seems ok, would you agree? --Reasonwins (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I would say that adding a reference to a url that consists entirely of that url so that you can turn it into an actual link from this page is the sort of gaming of the system and WP:POINTiness that is to be avoided. Since you seem to be the only person agitating for addition of the link, I'd suggest you try to build consensus for addition here on the talk page rather than merely adding it again on your own volition, which will only inspire more wikidrama. Now might also be the time to point out WP:3RR, just in case you're not familiar with it, and in case this sort of thing continues. If you like, you could make a request for comments to help determine if others think the link belongs. - Nunh-huh 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that I haven't actually made any edits here (today, i am the other longwinded person above obviously), other than to add text to a reference somebody else put in, and remove a comment added to the article that was clearly inappropriate. But thanks for the heads up. You say I'm the only person agitating. If you look at the edit history, there are about 10 people who have either added the link, restored the link, or improved content around the link. So i'm really not the only one. The POINT doesn't apply very well here. Firstly, wikipedia doesn't respect australia's M15+ ( that is what the ACMA rate on ) rating scheme -- if they did I think half of wikipedia would disappear. But more importantly, the POINT refers to making edits within wikipedia to support arguments made within wikipedia. It's quite a stretch to extrapolate it here. If POINT were the case here, you would be going to every article and removing external links ;) I did ask you which of the "several of the criteria" it fitted for "links normally to be avoided", since that seems to be your only justification for taking it out. Could you respond to that? --Reasonwins (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course it's hard telling who is who when there are anonymous IPs involved. POINT applies quite well here, ("Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"), but if you feel it doesn't we could bring it to the Administrator noticeboard's attention to see if others agree or not. As to the links normally to be avoided: the most pertinent is #13, while 1, 2, 4, and 11 are also arguably true. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Now come on, there are also some IP users *removing* the content. Look at the most recent edits. By my count, there are 7 users who have directly put that link in, either as text, inline url, external link, or reference. 5 of them are named users. In addition, 3 users -- two of them named -- have improved content directly next to that link ( literally right on it ). two are IP users ( one of those ip users is me, and as this registered user, I have not put the link in so haven't counted myself twice or anything ). More IP users have taken the link out. So it's not very hard to find out, you just have to look at the edits before assuming you're on the majority, or that we have IP users here fudging the results.
I've mentioned the problem at WP:AN/I, so we can anticipate further input there. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
fair enough. I was adding this while you added that:
re #13. #1, um absolutely not. #2, the site quotes organisations in it's research. That's verifiable. #4, the context and 6 other references clearly shows this isn't primarily to advertise. But anyway, that relates to external links, and yes already conceded that mostly on #13. This is however relevant, and a reference would be appropriate. Part of the ACMAs job is to blacklist webpages, but they do so in secret. There have been 6 references added about this first publicly discovered censorship. The story has hit all of our major news sorces, and numerous small ones. It isn't a passing issue. It's relevant to their section on internet censorship, and at least 7 other users have said so. It certainly seems appropriate for a citation. On POINT, you do realize don't you that the ACMA will blacklist content that is MA15+ ( that means prohibited to people under 15 years of age ), and so this isn't needed. The article you quote is also not a reputable news source. ( refer to your point #13 ). My point is, if that article were reputable they would realise that all one needs to do is find any MA+15 content. The link itself achieves little to that goal. --Reasonwins (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think our useful discourse probably ended when you made your "gotcha" (but false) accusation of 3RR violation. The paragraph above is a splendid example of wikilawyering, but while it throws a lot of wiki-terminology around, it also fails utterly to address the issues involved. So we will have to rely on the good offices of others if any progress is to be made here. - Nunh-huh 08:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
123. You have come in and forced your opinion on a topic that has already been extensively discussed. You reverted 3 times, how is that false? --Reasonwins (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RR. 3 times is the maximum allowable. Even if we count all three diffs as reversions, the fourth reversion, the one that would exceed the maximum allowable, isn't there, because I didn't make it. - Nunh-huh 08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read it. 3 is the absolute maximum, in a best case scenario. You can be banned for less. I've had this pointed out recently, so just letting you know. In doing 3 reverts to try and force your view of the page you aren't using that guideline in good faith. That is why I stopped at just 1 revert. Try reading it again, and read all of it. Glad I could help. --Reasonwins (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You'd be more far helpful if you'd stop making false accusations. Switching to ad personam argumentation isn't going to bolster your case for adding an extraneous link in order to use Wikipedia to make a point with your local censorship board. - Nunh-huh 09:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite ridiculous that the link to the URL in question has been removed from this article. Let's put all of our agenda's away for a second and accept the fact that including the link is essential if this article is to be informative. Face facts people - if the link was not so confronting nobody would have removed it in the first place. Seeing this sort of censorship occurring on Wikipedia is quite disheartening.

So can I at least on the talk page mention the link in question, so that others can verify the status of the sources, reliable or not? If I said that according to wikileaks that the Complaint Reference is 2009000009/ ACMA-691604278 and it deals with http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm would that be allowable? In the talk pages I mean, not the article itself? Or will this part of the talk page be ruled somehow inappropriate? If so, I hope that while the link I've spelt out may be deleted, a marker saying (deleted URL) would be inserted in its place, and a plausible justification for the edit given. Zoe Brain (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What's ridiculous is the gaming that's going on in order to insert the link here, and the insistence that "the link is essential" as if that were not a point in contention. It's possible to provide explicit information without actually linking, as I've illustrated by altering the wiki markup of your addition. - Nunh-huh 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
For which my thanks. I entered it in without any markup originally, but it seems the editor automatically inserts that. I wasn't aware of the existence of <nowiki> tags. It was cluelessness not gaming, as the important thing is the text string to search for, not that it be linked. From the ACMA viewpoint, it doesn't matter anyway, text, hyperlink, image, search engine result, anything which can be used to determine the URL is equivalent. Hence the need for blurring of this image in a story in an Australian publication about this controversy. Zoe Brain (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

220.253.112.137 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the references can be sorted out satisfactorily I think anti-abortion page incident in relation to the ACMA action will be far more informative and less biased than currently. At the current edit it looks like ACMA is taking action against Anti-abortion websites. That's not the case since this is an action taken against a specific url after processing a complaint. If that page itself was reproduced on a different URL the ACMA won't act unless there is a fresh complaint. Just saying that they blacklisted an Anti-abortion website without letting readers know the specific content URL adds bias in relation to the ACMA action. (220.233.17.206 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

I personally don't believe that the link adds any encyclopedic value to the article, and I was going to remove it until I noticed the page was locked, and this discussion was here. A text description of what the website contains, as is already in the article, already seems sufficient to me. And, what makes that one site out of all the sites ACMA must have banned so special that it deserves to be an external link, anyway? Xmoogle (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is important for several reasons:
  1. It was the first confirmed link on the blacklist
  2. It appeared before the ACMA lists were leaked, so that "all the sites that ACMA must have banned" were actually unknown at that point
  3. The site's purpose is political, although its addition to the blacklist was I presume due to its graphic nature
  4. It caused a take-down notice of the post in the Whirlpool forums, which might be the first confirmed take-down notice
  5. It had a wide exposure in the MSM
cojoco (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

abortion censored page[edit]

The ACMA currently maintain a filter which can be used voluntarily in private homes. The aim of that filter is to provide a clean feed to children. The feed is kept private.

Currently there are discussions to make it mandatory for that "potentially prohibited" content to be forced upon all ISPs. Therefore this discovered blocked page issue has ran around all of our major news companies. Google "acma abortion australia" to get an indication of the coverage. The main issue of contention is they currently only maintain a list used voluntarily by people in homes that want a censored internet. So nobody previously cared. But now that it is proposed they may apply that to the entire population suddenly everyone is interested in what they actually censor. IS it just child-porn and ultra violent material? No. The ACMA guidlines let them block content above MA15+ ( that is, content rated above suiltable for a "mature audience, 15 years+). This is the only site that has been published by our news websites as one that is blocked, and it is quite mundane. And, by the way, not prohibited content in any other western country, including the USA where wikipedia is hosted.

The url in question, the issue, and the two bouts of blacklisting have been heavily referenced here in the article, with extremely reputable sources. They have recently added wikileaks to the blacklist which is also starting to get similar news coverage, and may be a second article.

It has been suggested by one user here quoting a non-reputable news source, that the only reason to add the link here is to bait the ACMA. That isn't necessary, and frankly is a bit offensive. For a start, since they currently maintain a black list of content that isn't suitable to under 15 year olds, an enormous part of wikipedia would already be candidates. There is no need to rely on this page. Much of the internet would be. But it does make an interesting news story for a magazine company that runs an itnews section. ( That site is run by http://www.haymarketmedia.com.au/, who publish magazines. ). But most importantly, it discredits the relevance of this issue which *has* been in all of the real mainstream news, such as fairfax media and news limited, and our own ABC.

RELEVANCE

The ACMA are the body that classify internet content, and can add it to blacklists. Therefore the only example known to the public of content they have blacklisted is extremely relevant to an article about them and their activities.

How to include it?

Having had the external links rules pointed out, I believe the best way is to make it a reference, alongside text similar to "have blocked this web page". I note wikipedia contains numerous pages with graphic content that can be quite shocking, and also points out that wikipedia does not censor content for that reason. So the question comes down to relevance, as I understand it.

Happy to see more discussion here. But please do view the edits over the past 3 days. I've put together a list of those that added the link and came up with 7 unique users who directly put it in, and 3 users who enhanced it with references or clarifying text. I'm just saying that because 3 people now have come in and assumed this is the actions of one person, which is a little odd since the edit history is clear --Reasonwins (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This section reads more like a point of view forum. You should keep a neutral point of view and help improve the article rather then attack people/organisations. Bidgee (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


abortion censored page[edit]

The ACMA currently maintain a filter which can be used voluntarily in private homes. The aim of that filter is to provide a clean feed to children. The feed is kept private.

Currently there are discussions to make it mandatory for that "potentially prohibited" content to be forced upon all ISPs. Therefore this discovered blocked page issue has ran around all of our major news companies. Google "acma abortion australia" to get an indication of the coverage. The main issue of contention is they currently only maintain a list used voluntarily by people in homes that want a censored internet. So nobody previously cared. But now that it is proposed they may apply that to the entire population suddenly everyone is interested in what they actually censor. IS it just child-porn and ultra violent material? No. The ACMA guidlines let them block content above MA15+ ( that is, content rated above suiltable for a "mature audience, 15 years+). This is the only site that has been published by our news websites as one that is blocked, and it is quite mundane. And, by the way, not prohibited content in any other western country, including the USA where wikipedia is hosted.

The url in question, the issue, and the two bouts of blacklisting have been heavily referenced here in the article, with extremely reputable sources. They have recently added wikileaks to the blacklist which is also starting to get similar news coverage, and may be a second article.

It has been suggested by one user here quoting a non-reputable news source, that the only reason to add the link here is to bait the ACMA. That isn't necessary, and frankly is a bit offensive. For a start, since they currently maintain a black list of content that isn't suitable to under 15 year olds, an enormous part of wikipedia would already be candidates. There is no need to rely on this page. Much of the internet would be. But it does make an interesting news story for a magazine company that runs an itnews section. ( That site is run by http://www.haymarketmedia.com.au/, who publish magazines. ). But most importantly, it discredits the relevance of this issue which *has* been in all of the real mainstream news, such as fairfax media and news limited, and our own ABC.

RELEVANCE

The ACMA are the body that classify internet content, and can add it to blacklists. Therefore the only example known to the public of content they have blacklisted is extremely relevant to an article about them and their activities.

How to include it?

Having had the external links rules pointed out, I believe the best way is to make it a reference, alongside text similar to "have blocked this web page". I note wikipedia contains numerous pages with graphic content that can be quite shocking, and also points out that wikipedia does not censor content for that reason. So the question comes down to relevance, as I understand it.

Happy to see more discussion here. But please do view the edits over the past 3 days. I've put together a list of those that added the link and came up with 7 unique users who directly put it in, and 3 users who enhanced it with references or clarifying text. I'm just saying that because 3 people now have come in and assumed this is the actions of one person, which is a little odd since the edit history is clear --Reasonwins (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This section reads more like a point of view forum. You should keep a neutral point of view and help improve the article rather then attack people/organisations. Bidgee (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
bidgee, this area is a discussion area and is used to help mash non-NPOVs into NPOVs. So unless you are going to engage in doing that, you aren't helping. --Reasonwins (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I encourage those with either view to add their points for including and against. I also request that people refrain from editing the wikipage in this area without engaging in the discussion, as a few have been doing.

Points to include the url, either in full or merely as a reference link:

  1. wikipedia does not censor content to MA15+ ( not allowed to under 15s) like the ACMA do, and therefore should not have any concerns restricting something the ACMA does in it's children filters.
  2. It is quoted in multiple reliable news sources.
  3. it is extremely relevant to the ACMA, in their Internet arm.
  4. The issue has received enormous press, in just 3 days, and is therefore notable and relevant.
  5. The issue is currently being debated within the government, and so people will naturally look here for reference material
  6. It is the only highly referenced example of content they have put in their filtered feed. As it is neither illegal or prohibited, wikipedia should have no trouble referencing it.
  7. countries that already do censor the internet, do not get to influence what wikipedia contains. Imagine thailand removing any criticizm of their king and the outcry that would ensue.
  8. Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. W:AGF Firdous e Bareen --Reasonwins (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Points to exclude:


Full protection[edit]

Comment It is clear that SoWhy attempted to protect the page from the addition of the link now being added by Reasonswins and Leo Lazauskas. Their comments at his talk page - go close to being uncivil. I have fully protected the page in order to protect the project and this matter (especially for those intent on adding the material) must get full approval before the page is unprotected for the purpose of adding the material.--VS talk 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What was "uncivil"? SoWhy repeatedly assisted in removing a perfectly good link to a relevant site, and I mused about his own self-assessment as an "inclusionist". I even added a smiley-like face to show that I wasn't being overly serious.

Furthermore, it is merely your opinion that what some of us have been doing is vandalism. Just as some of us regard what SoWhy and others have been doing is vandalism by removing the link. In fact, why are they so concerned with the link being removed. Is that their political spin showing through? Why else would someone repeatedly remove a link that gives a hard example of what ACMA regards as offensive? Sounds like a vested interest to me. Leo (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo Lazauskas, I suggest that you start assuming good faith since calling those who are protecting the project (Wikipedia) are doing vandalism is unhelpful, bad faith, uncivil and also disruptive and FYI, I'm against the internet filtre but I don't use Wikipedia to protest about it and don't disrupt it to prove a point. Bidgee (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with suggesting that those removing the link are vandalising the efforts of the majority of editors who want it? Do I have to include an emoticon after every phrase to ensure that nobody is offended? ;-)

As regards the inclusion of the link, I suppose I must bow to the minority and its imperium. They have all the power to ban us and our ilk, so we can but tug our forelocks and submit to their greater power and influence. <sniff>.

I would love this edit war to end soon, so we can include some other information that would be of great value to anyone consulting the page. Sadly, that is unlikely, so the poor readers will have to make do with the current sanitised version. Leo (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leo, while I am also frustrated that we have a) a majority of people including the link, b) two admins restoring the link, and c) multiple hit and run users who have reverted edits, acted to get the article blocked and then abandoned the discussion, what helps now is to focus on the facts. That is, a majority of people have put the link in. Most that have removed it have done so with bad practice, by deleting and running. So we can just focus on the actual points for why it can be included, which I have summarised above, in the numbered points. Note, that nobody has added anything yet to the "reasons against" list. If you have any to add to those lists, please do. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Some corrections User:BoomerAB and User:Mjquin id are not Administrators (as to what you have listed on the talk page below). Calling me and Nunh-huh hit and run editors is bad faith and you have been warned about that and has it come to you that I may be busy ATM. Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thanks for pointing that out, they issued a final warning for being banned to a user so I'll double-check and update the below text if correct.
Look, I don't mean to act in bad faith, but can you accept that you have also acted in bad faith? You are not following your own quoted assuming good faith but instead jumping on a low-key publicity grabbing article, which doesn't even have multiple sources. I figure, if you can work to get an article reverted or locked, you can then engage in discussion over why you think that should be the case. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
reviewing those users' pages, they both seem to monitor for vandalism, and have the ability to block users. That sounds like admin to me. But if there is a more accurate term I should be using, feel free to make a suggestion. Or am I getting this completely wrong? --Reasonwins (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Both users are WP:VANDALISM patrollers, that use tools to attempt to detect and undo vandalism in any form (including edit warring) and hand out warnings to users who engage in vandalism or vandalism like behaviour. Additionally they have the WP:ROLLBACK permission to revert edits more efficiently than normal users. They do not have the ability to block users, though they as any user have the ability to report people of interest to administrators who might use their block permission. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, administrators have no requirement to engage in the editorial proces. They protected an article because they observed that "normal" editors were unable to write this article without getting into heavy disputes. As such admins "freeze" the entire proces in hopes that such a thing will be able to be done properly at a later time. It is a shame an admin had to step in, but it is how Wikipedia works. The admin does not have to engage in assisting in writing this article, though they sometimes might do so voluntarily. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You sum that up incredibly well, DJ. Good job :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I contend that a majority of Wikipedia editors want that link included. I am a wikipedia editor, and I don't like to see Wikipedia being abused in this way, wading into controversies that we are not a part of. It is inevitable that those that feel strongly that the link should be included are more likely to come here to express their opinions than those that feel otherwise would. A flash mob does not constitute a consensus. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
And now the Wikipedia Controversy about this page has made it into a Reliable Source. Which because it's in Australia, now has to even fuzz out the URL in the screen capture of the Wiki page. This is surreal. That's not a POV, it's an objective reality. Zoe Brain (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. And a minority doesn't constitute much of a representative sample either. Leo (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended protection[edit]

I have extended the full protection of this page by another 5 days. I have done so because the matter of inclusion of the link is still being debated and I see it as my duty to protect wikipedia and its editors. That is especially the case following some of the events by Australian Police today in relation to another organisation. I should also like to add that I have been in contact with the Wikipedia Foundation by email and they have asked me to de-escalate the on-wiki situation if possible - I see 5 more days of protection as assisting in the de-escalation. I hope that those AGF'ing me in this matter will agree with my actions today.--VS talk 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A sensible and justifiable move in my view, well done. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

Focus on the real issue: relevance of the link to the article[edit]

Let us please focus on the real issue here, which is whether or not the link is relevant to this article.

Many users opposed to the inclusion of the link seem to be second guessing the motives behind those who want to include the link. This is not relevant to the discussion. They may well have certain motives behind their point of view, but the only thing that matters here is the relevance of the link to the article.

Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Firdous e Bareen (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Can't we create a separate page that focuses on the ACMA filtering/censorship? so that the Main article stays NPOV true and relevant (and more importantly unprotected so peeps can edit the article again.

Also moving the censorship Info to a separate page might keep everyone agreeable and happy. Forest rd (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it's relevant to this page though, specifically to their efforts in classifying internet content. To remove it would not be NPOV, but a biased view. But can we stay on topic. This question is very specifically about the URL of a prohibited link. edit: by that i mean, even if your suggestion was done the URL issue would still exist. So can we address the primary issue first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonwins (talkcontribs) 10:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok well maybe some admins need to intervene here then, I was simply suggesting an alternative to constant re-edits and reverts and having the article locked. Also as a note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia doesn't include a link to the abortion websiteso maybe it should be added there first before the ACMA article can be sorted out. Forest rd (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
well lets see how the discussion goes first, then get to the finer points. I'd like to stay on topic on if the URL is relevant specifically to the ACMA, not a broader topic. --Reasonwins (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

- Given a few times I have been accused of acting in isolation here, acting with just one other, and even a suggestion of sockpuppetry, I thought it would be useful to include a list of people who had included the link. If this list is somehow bad I do deeply apologize and please remove it immediately.

Leo Lazauskas diff
211.27.106.39 diff
BoomerAB (admin) diff
Mjquin_id (admin) diff
B-man-online diff
Tardis diff
203.173.41.22 diff

edits improving the link:

124.171.119.72 diff
Geni diff
AntiStatic diff

-Reasonwins (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And I see it this way: This majority of editors wants the link included.

Leo Lazauskas diff
211.27.106.39 diff
BoomerAB (admin) diff
Mjquin_id (admin) diff
B-man-online diff
Tardis diff
203.173.41.22 diff

And this minority is intent on vandalising the efforts of the majority:

124.171.119.72 diff
Geni diff
AntiStatic diff

That, of course, is just my humble opinion, and I wouldn't like to upset anyone in a position of high authority: after all, their imperial-like veto counts far more than that of one or two of us minions. (Even if we are a majority on this issue). All in all, I would love to know if any of the "vandals" are in the employ of ACMA. Leo (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. We didn't allow Wikipedia to be used to "spread the AACS" key. But now the key is still part of the article in the proper way. No hurry, and not a political platform. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's problematic when an editor here has explicitly admitted elsewhere that he is part of a group that has "targeted" Wikipedia as a "great site" to use in their campaign against the ACMA and then complains when he is found out. WIkipedia is not for your personal use as a protest vehicle. Wikipedia is also not a link farm. It's silly to suggest that encyclopedic coverage of a censor necessarily involves linking to each site they censor; the impetus behind the inclusion of the link is not because it's encyclopedic, but because it would be useful - rhetorically or otherwise - to a given set of political activists. - Nunh-huh 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree that is problematic. It's the first I've seen that, and is undoubtably the source of the article quoted earlier. But lets put it in perspective. As one user already stated, "Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines". That is, one users bad motivation does not make something automatically invalid. Many good arguments have been put forward. It would be just as easy to say that a user somewhere decided that censoring wikipedia is the way to counter it, and therefore that is reason to include it. That argument wouldn't stand either. So the way to resolve this is to argue on merits of relevancy. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the justifcation for accuseing me of vandalism?Geni 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, Leo, you might want to actually have a look at the diffs before you go charging around accusing people of vandalism. Or even read the lead-in (hint: "improving" != "removing"). The three of us you accuse of vandalism did not in any way reduce the position of the link on the page. AntiStatic (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link should be included as it is an example of what the ACMA blocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.168.186 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What has the AACS key got to do with the current dispute? Different issues, IMO.

I would like to add some new material to the ACMA page along the lines of: Wikileaks - the document repository attached to Wikipedia - has published the list of sites banned by the Danish government, and these pages have been put on the blacklist...

When will I be able to do that (if at all)? Leo (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I should hope not, given that Wikileaks is not the document repository attached to Wikipedia. For that, you want either Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons. Wikileaks has no relation to Wikipedia, except for running the same kind of Wiki software. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The common ground with AACS and this is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to make a point. It's an Internet Encyclopedia, not a forum. And whereas possibly including this link in 2 weeks, after proper discussion will give us a good article in the end, including it now, mostly serves the primary goal; to make a point. The AACS key even made it to the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Not because we/Wikipedia were censoring the information, but because people were using Wikipedia as a way to make their point, instead of writing good articles. I'm not saying that this is gonna happen in this case, but it is a valid concern by the Wikipedia community and taking 2 weeks to decide on it, is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
for the record, I would be perfectly happy to include it in two weeks. I'm not here to make a point. I do seriously oppose the censorship proposal. What concerned me is I came to this article after reading about it in the press, and there was very little information about what or how they censor. Then I see that the very first(!!) proof of what they do censor came out in the press. Contrary to being "child porn" and "ultra violent" material, as our government has suggested, it was quite mundane. I suspect more will come out too. For example, from reading the article do you realize they are empowered to issue takedown notices on material not suitable to people under 15 years of age? ( we call it M15+). There is information missing here and people who are driven to improve it greatly. Perhaps a section on the guidelines they follow to classify internet content would be appropriate ( i have found many sources, on their own website, including the legislation they follow ). And, where appropriate, some examples would be very encyclopedic, relevant, and of great interest to anyone seriously researching this institution. --Reasonwins (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As having been very involved in the IWF & Wikipedia controversy, I definitely appreciate the fine details of these kinds of issues, and I can understand that a better article is desired by many folks, unfortunately, it does not seem we have skilled editors engaged in this article that can provide this. Lets hope someone shows up who knows how to write articles. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the link is undoubtedly encyclopedic. In an article explicitly tied to censorship, exactly WHAT is being censored is fundamentally important. Classifying the link as vandalism is misleading and an abuse of the system; it is no more vandalism than those who are reverting the edits. I hope we can reach a consensus here - productive edits shouldn't be removed at the whim of individual moderators. StuartH (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

( anyway it's 1am here in australia, i'm going to bed. I'll be back tomorrow to read through the various arguments. Thanks to everyone for being involved in the discussion. It seems the first time there has been any for a couple of days ) --Reasonwins (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a "debate" as such. A couple of moderators with veto powers over-rode what seems to be the majority opinion on this matter. Instead of allowing the link in the first instance, they chose to delete it and lock the page until they see fit to allow us the freedom to change it. But you can call that "debate" if you like :-) Leo (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not include it for two weeks, and if the debate bends the other way, remove the link in two weeks. To do it the current way is, as StuartH said, to be beholden to the whims of individual moderators who IMO are acting against the majority opinion. Leo (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. A significant majority has not been shown
  2. We don't decide things in Wikipedia based on majority rule
  3. Wikipedia is not on a timetable to get "done". In order to get the best encyclopedia we can decide to do things at a later time.
  4. People focused on a single topic tend to be biased. Editors from the wider community might have entirely different opinions, but are possibly also not aware of a discussion
  5. Wikipedia has criteria for inclusion of information. The fact that the link is not in the current article is because the original inclusion of information is disputed and thus it has to be shown that the link is useful before it can be added again.
  6. Wikipedia does not have moderators. It only has editors and administrators. The administrators have decided to protect a state of the article that follows our policies of content dispute.
  7. You have a clear conflict of interest in this case
These are just a few of the reasons why you should stop waving the same flag over and over again dear Leo. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not on a timetable to get "done". In order to get the best encyclopedia we can decide to do things at a later time.

So why not leave the link until after the debate? Why the hurry to remove it? Leo (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See point 5. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be clear that the goal for some is to include the link anywhere in Wikipedia, so they can use that link to make a point (as in this edit), which rather undercuts the notion that the link is being included because it's important to this article rather than their campaign. - Nunh-huh 14:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And Forest earlier suggested that we include it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia which doesn't include a link to the abortion website. As he said, maybe it should be added there first before the ACMA article can be sorted out. Maybe it should be included on the Pro-life page first. I dunno. Incidentally, I didn't put the link on the Pro-life page originally. I reverted it because a useful relevant link was removed. I take it that I am allowed to do that if I genuinely believe Wiki will be improved that way? Leo (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that edit was decidedly WP:POINTy, and efforts to propagate your link by adding it to other articles would probably violate our policy against WP:SPAM, and perhaps conflict of interest. Given your off-Wiki statements, it's not immediately clear that these edits are made in furtherance of Wikipedia's goals rather than your own. The discussion about this link belongs here; don't seek to avoid the need for consensus by spamming it elsewhere. - Nunh-huh 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, who are you to decide where debates should or shouldn't belong? Or are you just expressing an opinion forcefully and it just sounds over-authoritative to me? Leo (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't provide any meaningful commentary on your authority issues. -Nunh-huh 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It just sounded like you were demanding that the debate happen here and nowhere else. Leo (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's generally considered good form not to forum-shop or decentralize discussion - here, or on almost any wiki. You're free to ignore good form, of course, though I would expect doing so would not engender a lot of sympathy for your position. - Nunh-huh 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean - it's more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule.

It will be interesting to see if the debate splits along two main lines. One, where people add to the general knowledge of the world, and the other that lessens it after that knowledge has been made generally available. ;-) Leo (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect, and would hope, it will be a more nuanced discussion that avoids classifying the world into two opposing camps. But I suppose we'll find out. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see two un-nuanced streams already. One where those who include the link are termed "vandals" and its Ok to call them that. No apologies to them, no siree, even though they believe they are improving Wiki. And there's another camp (not for fnarring) who delete the link but should not be called "vandals" because it might hurt their feelings. :-) What a whacky old wiki world! Leo (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The link is relevant. There's no good reason that it shouldn't be included here and at Internet_censorship_in_Australia. Whether or not the original editor added the link in good faith isn't relevant to what content should be here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole name calling of "vandals" about either the URL adders or deleters is unhelpful. can we please steer away from that. The main thing is for this article to be NPOV. There was an earlier compromise between editors to include the link in the footnotes I believe. Does this solution not seem acceptable? Forest rd (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest rd (talkcontribs) 21:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not name calling. It's the name we use for people who engage in unconstructive and/or disruptive behaviour within the Wikipedia community, be it intentional or not. Personally, the whole article seems of such low quality to me, that I would say it would be better if people focused on the core content of the article; the organization, before they spent time discussing wether or not the link should be included. Proposals for alternate versions of the article can be discussed and written here on the talk page or in a personal sandbox. The fact that this does not occur is truly a shame. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem very complicated to me. There's no vandalism gooing on when long-time users add back a link that has a plausible argument for being here. The bottom line is that someone who came to this article would want to see the page in question that was blacklisted. Having linked to it just makes sense. I have yet to hear an argument against the link aside from the fact that some users may have had an agenda when they made edits to include it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a host Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise the link was added sole with the intent to challenge the Authority to block Wikipedia from all Australians[5] it should be removed from this article as it has no relevance to the article subject., nor does it offer any further information about the subject as per WP:EL Gnangarra 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with SOAP. The fact is that someone who would come to this page would expect to be able to find the link in question. Whether the initial user who added it intended to make a point or not isn't relevant to evaluating that issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
they would have maybe some reason to see the issue discussed in the article and links to citations about it, but that doesnt necessarily mean a link to the actual site in question. Gnangarra 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? If one were talking about the context of X, you wouldn't expect a link to X? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
[Personal attacks deleted] -- Plausible argument (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Plausible argument (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If in an article you were discussing a video of me from 10th grade then yes, linking to it would be expected. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Plainly it's a cheap shot. But, lacking a clear WP policy against bringing up off-wiki personal information in the context of a discussion, it appears on the face of it to fall short of a personal attack. Maybe it's time to begin to develop and implement such a policy. But either way, IMO, JoshuaZ has every right to be livid about it. Nonetheless, lacking a clear policy about such things, I think it's time to move back to the substantive issues. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullet point refocus[edit]

Good morning people. You guys have been arguing, but losing focus of the issue and getting a bit sidetracked. Can you argue on the merits of whether the link is relevant to the article. The motivations of 1 person is really irrelevant. If you could dot point your reasons against that would be very helpful.

Points to include the url, either in full or merely as a reference link:

  1. wikipedia does not censor content for MA15+
    The ACMA does. To argue over this link would also be arguing over a large amount of wikipedia content. Reasonwins
    Wikipedia does censor content, but only in cases that are privacy sensitive, non-educational, non-useful, defamatory and illegal content as defined by Florida law. Not for age or religion reasons. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    This is a counter argument against censoring content in wikipedia, and has nothing to do with the discussion until someone makes that claim that wikipedia should censor content.--213.67.232.233 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is quoted in multiple reliable news sources.
    Please start gathering these. It will simplify your argument. --TheDJ (talkcontribs)
    DJ, they are in the current state of the article. There are 6 there. Go read them. --Reasonwins (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    I read the articles, only 1 website Somebody think of the Children, currently includes the link. The others only discuss "a abortion" site. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    It doesn't hurt listing them here so each source can be discussed.--213.67.232.233 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    The EFA article also links the site, but it is currently under heavy load as the FULL ACMA list has been leaked overnight. Check it in a few hours. --Reasonwins (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. it is extremely relevant to the ACMA, in their Internet arm.
  4. The issue has received enormous press, in just 3 days, and is therefore notable and relevant.1234 and more.
  5. The issue is currently being debated within the government, and so people will naturally look here for reference material
  6. It is the only highly referenced example of content they have put in their filtered feed. As it is neither illegal or prohibited, wikipedia should have no trouble referencing it.
  7. countries that already do censor the internet, do not get to influence what wikipedia contains. Imagine thailand removing any criticizm of their king and the outcry that would ensue. --Reasonwins (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    This is not a reason to include a link. You take the premise that wikipedia is censored, which is already covered by point 1 --TheDJ (talkcontribs)
  8. Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:AGF Firdous e Bareen
    This relates to the Wikipedia editing process, not as to wether this link should be included. --TheDJ (talkcontribs)
  9. it satisfies guidelines for references

Points to exclude: ( i'm going to add yours here guys, feel free to edit them since I"ll need to parahprase. But the mess above is very hard to follow, and this dot-point section has been here since the initial lock ).

  1. The article should focus on the organisation, and it's censorship, specific cases are not required to do so, though they might be useful context. User:TheDJ
    There are some points in the above list that can be made quite reasonably without including the link. To be so specific about a link is not required to write about an "issue". As such those points are rather moot when discussing the inclusion of the link. There is a reason why I keep encouraging people to write about the organization and the issue, before deciding on wether to include the link. Focusing on one such a "small" detail distracts from writing a proper article. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. The link does not satisfy the WP:EL guidelines. User:Gnangarra
    Please elaborate on why it doesn't satisfy WP:EL guidelines.--213.67.232.233 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. The link adds nothing to the article. User:Gnangarra
    perhaps to be more specific, it adds "little more" to the article than the already included reputable news source citations. --Reasonwins (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Linking to the news articles is enough, it is no necessary to link to the page. Gnan
  5. Wikipedia is not here to facilitate other people's agenda. --TheDJ (talkcontribs)
    This point becomes less important the longer the controversy exits, and the more notable it becomes. --TheDJ (talkcontribs)
    Please elaborate on why the links goes against WP:SOAP. Does the inclusion of the link go against WP:NPOV or WP:NOTE and if so how or why?--213.67.232.233 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

--Reasonwins (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. I'm all for removing the link, but include a link to lists of censored sites, like the one in Wikileaks or, even better, some list of blocked sites that has been verified. The reason behind this is that the current link does not provide enough information about the problem, and it's chosen to create shock on the reader. Why should we include the current link and not any other of the +1000 blocked sites? Or why don't include them all? Just link to a list on a verifiable source. --81.202.35.113 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

Also, could you keep your points to the second list please. Or feel free to discuss them above. I want these lists to remain uncluttered, and you ahve come through and cut them all up. How about if you have a comment on a point, make it a new section, link it, and we discuss it outside the list. Could you move your edits please? --Reasonwins (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in separating such things. A point has context and cannot be stated without that context. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
DJ, look at the mess above this list. This is what it will become, uncomprehensible. If you want to discuss a point: create a new section. Link the piont to it. And we can discuss it there. -Reasonwins (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because there is a lot to read does not make something incomprehensible. People repeating the same points that were said one paragraph higher up in the discussion, and people requiring repeated explanations of the workings of the Wikipedia community and it's policies make something incomprehensible. And in the end a hotly debated issue will always be difficult to make "comprehensible". Don't fear it, embrace it and work with what you have. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
DJ, do you think my suggestion would make it more readable? And more clear? If so, why fight against it? I'm a little confused here by your arguing. --Reasonwins (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly everyone needs to drop the vandalism accusations. There are people sincerely think the link contributes constructively to the article, and people who sincerely think the link is inappropriate by Wikipedia standards. Just because people disagree over what the article should include does not make anyone a vandal.

My view is that the abortion link and/or list link provide a an irreplaceable resource for understanding the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Who are they? What do they do? What sort of things do they want to block? And most importantly What are their standards? Those questions cannot be fully answered with just descriptive words. One cannot fully understand and judge the ACMA's standards without the option to see the abortion website or maybe even the full text list. Some people may glance at the abortion site, find it viscerally revolting, and approve of the AMCA's standards. Others may examine the site to see if there is anything remotely resembling "fetus porn" or if it is otherwise intolerable, find the content more medical-ish and legitimate political advocacy, and conclude that the AMCA is wildly overstepping their claimed standards and that they cannot be believed or trusted.

Just because some people are amused at the POINTy that the AMCA may be faced with a double standard for Wikipedia does not change the fact that the link contributes an irreplaceable resource for understanding the AMCA and understanding their standards and understanding the controversy. Wikipedia is hosted in Florida and subject to US law, and the fact that an Australian agency might object to the link cannot be a consideration for removing it. We most certainly would not remove content or a link because Iran wanted to censor it or even threatened to block Wikipedia over it. This link contributes irreplaceable understanding for readers across the globe, it contributes to the article, and there are zero legal considerations under the only relevant law. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA blacklist leaked[edit]

The ACMA's blacklist of "prohibited" online content has been leaked on Wikileaks.[6]

I trust that everyone will agree that this truly is worth adding to this page. You cannot claim otherwise, seeing as the leak of the list has generated media attention and is therefore highly relevant to this article.[7]

So, how do we go about getting this article re-opened so we can add this vital information? Firdous e Bareen (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You trust wrong. Wikipedia IS NOT YOUR SOAPBOX. 75.172.33.167 (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just start writing here, and then we will see. I do agree that this information, and especially the smh.com.au article is much more useful and relevant information than the one link, and should definetly be included. And now I'm gonna sleep :D --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In the order of material that might be useful here: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/296165/betfair_banned_by_acma And now I really am going to sleep :D --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This information really does need to be added. Its already on the wikipedia page on wikileaks. Why isn't it here? Because of some spat over a link which is available on most of the net. Pathetic. Booksacool1 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should link to the blacklist. But it's absurd to suggest that we should link to each of the pages per se just because they're blacklisted. Not that we've never done absurd things, but it would be better if we avoided them. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting view there Nunh-huh. However, the government has denied the validity of the blacklist. That reverts us to a positon of the only verified item that the government has prohibited is the abortion page. That is why this one page is relevant -- because it is the first, and the only, example of censored content. Indeed, when there are more which are verified by reliable sources, then a discussion around what to link would be worthy. But when there is just one, and it is the only example, then you link to one. Especially given the press it has received and how notable and relevant it is. --Reasonwins (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I still believe we should link to the actual abortion website because that one is of particular importance. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's evidently of importance to you, but it's just one of many other sites on the blacklist. - 09:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
the blacklist has been denied. So, it is the only known link. --Reasonwins (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Link to the list, and include the government's statement, then. - Nunh-huh 09:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
there is no reputable link between the two articles. Wikileaks is the only source claiming the list is the ACMA list. It has been denied by numerous reputable sources. That is the exact opposite of the Abortion page. It has been confirmed by reputable sources, and was quoted in an email by the ACMA itself. So Abotion page verified, this leak, is not. As it isn't verified or reputable, no it shouldn't be linked here. --Reasonwins (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the blacklist has been denied by the government, but the controversy should still be reported on in this article. The link to the Wikileak's page should also be provided, within the context that it has been denied, seeing as the issue has being in the media and is therefore important.
Even if the list was legitimate, then the abortion page would still be worthy of having its own link within the article, simply because it has been subject to particular controversy and media reporting, prior to the Wikipedia issue commencing. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The blacklist hasn't been completely denied. The government admitted that at least some of the links on the the black list ARE on the real ACMA black list ""There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist." - Conroy. So its certainly noteworthy. Booksacool1 (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I bet that I could find another such list of banned web sites from some other country or company's list, and that would have links in common with the ACMA list, but that doesn't mean that I have a plausible claim to having the ACMA list. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
but would you find a list that contains numerous links to online gambling sites, and an admission by the ACMA that they will add overseas gambling sites to the filtered lists ? This list is indeed a list that contains the content the ACMA filter. The news in australia has been running HOT all afternoon. They also blocked numerous normal adult porn sites, because they are allowed to block MA15+ ( stuff not deemed suitable for people under 15 years of age ) material if it is behind a paid service. Quoted in the same article. --Reasonwins (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While the Government has denied that this is the ACMA blacklist, not even Wikileaks contends that the list is identical to the ACMA blacklist. Wikileaks asserts that the list corresponds to the "ACMA list" setting of some adult censorship software, and the SMH and many other media outlets seem quite happy with the assertion that the list is related to the ACMA blacklist. It definitely is relevant to the article. cojoco (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ui) Just for the record, I think that both WL and SC are substantially in agreement now:

  1. WL posts first list, which they say comes from censorship software
  2. SC says that this is not the ACMA list
  3. WL posts second sets of lists, which they say comes from ACMA
  4. SC says that this seems to be substantially the same as the ACMA list

Refs are in here --- cojoco (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Link[edit]

Please restore. I wish to be able to see the issue and make my mind up for myself. Being able to visit the link that is banned will help me make up my mind. ~~

You need a better set of eyes. The fact that you complain about something that is no longer the case, suggests you are here to make a point instead of using or contributing to Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You sound a little biased and bad-tempered in this debate. Perhaps you should recuse yourself and have another Wiki administrator handle it. Just a respectful suggestion... Leo (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a wiki administrator. I was arguably a bit tired when I wrote that. Besides, I have little ultimate interest in inclusion of this information. In Wikipedia, that is a healthy approach. One link on one issue is not the end of the world. Not being Australian, the whole article can be deleted as far as I care. But I do care about Wikipedia and I have some experience with articles on similar issues. That's why I'm here. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of links in the discussion above that go to the edit history where you could find the link. Also there is a link to the EFA web site in the references section, and they link to it. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


"Not being Australian, the whole article can be deleted as far as I care." Excuse me? How offensive and narrow minded of you. What _are_ you doing on this page, or are you just here for the revert war? 124.170.244.85 (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm here for Wikipedia. I contribute to many articles that sometimes don't belong to my primary interests. And care is relative. I care enough to discuss things, but i don't care enough to get myself into a burnout when someone "deletes an article". --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

IOW, the revert war. Leo (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reader[edit]

I came to Wikipedia from a news article to see what the fuss was about. I wanted to learn more about the ACMA, their guidelines and agenda. If the link can be verified, it would help me make up my own mind about the necessity for censorship within Australia. Although I can also understand your reluctance to make this Wikipedia article a primary source in the controversy - the recursion would make our heads explode. 61.88.56.214 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

just saw it in the footnoes - ok scratch that haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.56.214 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's High Wiki Drama at its best! 75.172.33.167 (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Make it a seperate list of URLs then.[edit]

Given that the link in question is just one link in a thousand and given other Governments (e.g. Italy) routinely censor URLs to illegal material, then wouldn't it be better to list the URLs in a separate article with who censors it ? Then we can just say that the lists of URLs that the ACMA censors is found here. This is similar to the list of areas that have been obscured by google or the list of "terrorists" or the many other lists that Wikipedia has. A suitable filter should be able to then add that specific Wikipedia URL to any blacklists rather than the issue now of a recent story promoting a URL by embedding a banned URL in an article. This taints the articles from any substring searches and so actually promotes censorship. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This link is clearly a distinct situation in that this specific link has become an issue which has gotten international coverage. It isn't some random link that happens to be on the list. Listing everything that they have censored would not be consistent with Wikipedia policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Use common sense in what I have said - the Wikipedia policy of Notability always applies - as with list of areas that have been obscured by google we do not report any random blurry area that piques someones attention but we must have media references. If a link doesn't have a relevant reference then it is not notable. This link is clearly notable and so should be in it's own article (or list) rather than the ACMA: why I think this is so is, for instance, we do not put details of terrorists in the US article because the US calls them a terrorist but we have a separate list of terrorists or an article on the terrorist. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition[edit]

{{editprotected}}

ACMA blacklist leaked

On 19 March 2009 it was reported that ACMA's blacklist of banned sites had been leaked online, and had been published by Wikileaks (link). Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, obtained the blacklist after ACMA blocked several Wikileaks pages following their publication of the Danish blacklist. Assange said that "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks."

The leaked list, which was reported to have been obtained from a manufacturer of internet filtering software, contained 2395 sites. Approximately half of the sites on the list were not related to child pornography, and included online gambling sites, YouTube pages, gay, straight, and fetish pornography sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions, Christian sites, and even the websites of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist. Colin Jacobs, spokesman for lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that there was no mechanism for a site operator to know they got on to the list or to request to be removed from it.

Associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt of the University of Sydney said that the leaked list "constitutes a condensed encyclopedia of depravity and potentially very dangerous material". Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, described the leak and publication of the blacklist as "grossly irresponsible" and that it undermined efforts to improve "cyber safety". He said that ACMA was investigating the incident and considering a range of possible actions including referral to the Australian Federal Police, and that Australians involved in making the content available would be at "serious risk of criminal prosecution".[1]

Salmanazar (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not bold enough. Include the link to the page that started the present furore. This is an important event in the history of ACMA, possibly the most significant in its short history, and Wiki decides to skirt around the issue. Piss-weak in the extreme, IMO. 121.45.216.84 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My little addition is only about the leaking of the blacklist which is currently breaking news. Salmanazar (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better placed in Wikinews now, and here later after revision? Leo (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you propose adding this section? Is there consensus for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought the logical place would be as a subsection of the "Internet censorship and criticisms" section. Salmanazar (talk)

Stop getting so far off the track![edit]

The situation is simple. A particular URL was used. There is plenty of verification of it. The current article references http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/acma-anti-abortion-prohibited/, which links to the blacklisted URL.

All the discussion of whether there is a list and what other pages might be on it are totally irrelevant to the particular incident being described.

There should be only one issue here: Does wikipedia link directly to the page it is discussing, or does it only link to other pages which themselves link to the page. Personally, I think wikipedia should link directly. From a usability standpoint, why should users have to click through another source to see the page itself if they wish to do so? What if, years down the track, the intermediate site goes away? Then, the information, despite being verified and known to be true, becomes lost to the wiki reader. Kremmen (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue is should WP even bother at all. It is recentism and feels like a case of guerilla marketing to push some clicks. Oddly enough if it was goatse I'd be happy to link as that is so old-skool we all probably have copies of goatse in ASCII art on some backup somewhere. Heck this isn't even meme to be relevant. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fetus link stilll there[edit]

{{editprotected}}

The link to dead baby pictures is still at the bottom of the page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's still there because we're not supposed to remove things from the article that aren't BLP vio's or vandalism (while protected). ScarianCall me Pat! 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Better to Keep than Delete[edit]

There are many people that think that the link is relevant. That is enough. While we do not want Wikipedia to be filled with noise, this is obviously not noise because it provides tangible evidence of the type of rules ACMA uses. It is also a media headline.

But more generally, it is far better to have a few sections that some editors may think are less relevant than to delete content that may be relevant to the reader. Disk space is cheap, we are not restricted to any particular number of pages. The fact that many editors think that it should stay is enough.

Let the reader decide whether they want to follow the link. Deletionists should spend their time producing new good quality content rather than focusing on destroying other people's work. Tuntable (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To want to keep a link because it is "tangible evidence of the type of rules ACMA uses" feels like it fails WP:SYNTH in that you want the reader to draw a particular conclusion regarding the functioning of the ACMA. I am no deletionist as I suggested that such URLs be placed in a separate article just like we already do with the obscured Google map data. If we placed dozens of obscured GPS fixes into the Google article then the Google article would be a complete mess. We do not put links in say the Australian government article to the banned The Peaceful Pill Handbook but we list it in one place in a List_of_banned_books. But I do not seem to have got much traction for my idea even though we already do things that way for stuff governments want to hide. A separate article of these URLs would allow people to wikilink to the article from within this ACMA article to show examples of URLs. Only URLs that had suitable media coverage need be included. The link to any wikileaks data could then be from that separate article rather than ACMA. So much tidier and easier to find banned URLs. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the link in - it is relevant and adds to the quality of the information on ACMA. As a compromise, we could put the actual graphic (after obtaining permission) onto the page. 121.45.211.75 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This single link is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the existence of the list and the process of how it is constructed (which seems to be a manually entered tiny selection of crap). Ttiotsw (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
If the anti-abortion link belongs anywhere in Wikipedia it would be in the Internet censorship in Australia and possibly in a Anti-Abortion article but not in this article. The article should be about the Department/Organisation in terms in what its roles are (other then censoring the internet)and what it controls (again other then censoring the internet). Bidgee (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, note that the link is actually in the article about Australian internet censorship. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it matters if there is common information between the Internet censorship in Australia article and this one as long as it's relevant to the article's subject matter and not given undue weight. In fact, there is a lot of stuff about ACMA in that article, and the relevant legislation, which perhaps would be better off in this one. cojoco (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Domain Blacklist contains lapsed domains.[edit]

In addition to the "abortionnow" link, I propose we include the following blacklisted link: http://www.cartoonnow.net/

The reason being that this domain is on a blacklist despite having lapsed and been reregistered by a legal entity for legal purposes. 118.208.40.183 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

that link isn't confirmed as being submitted by the ACMA. While the ACMA continue to deny that all links on the leaked list were as a result of an investigation by them, the only single confirmed link we have is the abortion page. As for whether the abortion page is confronting, there is plenty of other similar graphic imagery on Wikipedia. That might come as a surprise to some australians, who are used to the overbearing censorship in this country, but have a look around and you'll see. --Reasonwins (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Resolve these issues by focussing in this article on the ACMA institution. There is an entire Internet censorship in Australia article which goes into (probably too much) detail on the Great Australian Firewall itself; examples of blacklisted sites should go there (if the volume of necessary examples justifies it, split to a subarticle). A short summary of Internet censorship in Australia suffices here - ideally one without recentist detail. Something like the summary at the top of Internet censorship in Australia would do fine. Rd232 talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. You have my support. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup OK with me. It is a nicer arrangement. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind is to what extent the secondary sources talk about the blacklist in the context of the ACMA specifically, versus Australian censorship in general. AfD hero (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should still contain a rundown of ACMA's activities though, ie. it should summaries most of what the internet censorship page contains. I believe this is a common practice right throughout Wikipedia. Therefore, seeing as the link is so significant, is should probably also be included in this page. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It should only briefly summarize the main points of the Internet censorship in Australia article. Bidgee (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Googling news on the ACMA shows an enormous number of results for the internet censorship issue. It is the primary thing the ACMA is popular for now, according to reliable news sources ( the underpinning of wikipedia -- citing reliable sources ). This isn't a passing single thing. It is an enormous thing. And while it is a single url, don't forget the fact that the ACMA operate in secret, except from FOI laws, and so this single URL is the only absolutely confirmed item. It is very noteworthy as an example of the ACMA activities in their internet arm. I've not the time to dig up the guideline right now, but most here should be familiar with the WP weighted coverage guideline, where sides of an argument and content in an article should appear weighted based on citable resources. To downplay this issue is to break that guideline. --Reasonwins (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the page is locked, but perhaps the article could be amended to include the significant developments of recent days - notably, the fact that the entire ACMA blacklist has been leaked to the public. 220.233.202.100 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand why wikipedia keeps pretending the leak of the blacklist is unimportant and unrelated to the ACMA. Its one of the single most important things that has happened in ACMA's history. Sure this article shoudn't go into indepth (save that for the censorship article), but it deserves at LEAST a mention. Booksacool1 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I really think that the ACMA article deserves some information about Internet Censorship in Australia, as it is currently the most notable thing that ACMA is doing, from the perspective of media attention, anyway. There is information about ACMA in the ICIA article, but a lot of it was written a long time ago, and as far as I know nobody with a strong knowledge of ACMA itself has consistently been editing that article in recent times. It would be great if the ACMA information could be beefed up and brought up-to-date in ICIA, but at the moment I don't think it is of sufficient quality to replace the discussion of censorship here. cojoco (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I can see what you're getting at but we have the tread carefully with this issue. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why exactly do we have to "tread carefully" with this issue? cojoco (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Tread carefully? No, I don't think so. Assuming you mean what I think you mean, doing so would be entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"Tread carefully" is about keeping a neutral point of view and not turn the ACMA and ICA articles into news articles. Bidgee (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
How is reporting the facts not a "neutral point of view"? The leaking of the blacklist is one of the most significant, not to mention interesting and entertaining, events to have occurred in the debate on ACMA and ICIA. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem relevant here, as we're talking about material that is highly relevant to the subject of the article, although I agree that it should not have undue weight. cojoco (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It depends on how it's reported and the way it's written. ACMA has said it's not it's blacklist by has said that some of the links have been blocked but it still doesn't mean that it's ACMA's list. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant since some of the stuff out in the press or other sites is just one event type stuff. I'll try and give more detial later as I'm currently at TAFE. Bidgee (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just report the material as it is presented in reliable sources, which is what we should be doing anyway? There is obviously some disagreement about the provenance of the lists, although there is probably not nearly as much disagreement as it may first appear, as Wikileaks does not imply that the original list is the ACMA blacklist, and has posted a second list. Why are so many getting touchy about this issue? cojoco (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think by "tread carefully", we need to be careful because any Australian adding that link could be liable for heavy fines, or possibly even getting Wikipedia added to the blacklist. Being morally in the right won't help in the least if Conroy and the ACMA decide to throw the book at us. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
Yes, that's the spirit! Let's just lie down and die whilst the Labor party walks all over us, our freedoms, and our beloved Wikipedia. cojoco (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
well, I'm Australian but am living outside the jurisdiction of the Aussie government at the moment - quite happy to add the link as many times as necessary, but the greater wiki community should decide if it is required in the article or not - it's not just about aussies. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't much care if the link is added to the article or not, but it does seem a bit silly that the article is locked after several days over such a trivial issue, especially when there is so much material that should be added. The disagreement had not even reached edit-war status: it's not as if we're editing the Gaza conflict. I think we should just unlock the article and let the editors do their usual thing. cojoco (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point; being morally in the right will be a cold comfort if my savings get wiped out over a link on a website. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

Adding material during protection phase[edit]

I have noted the above comments about inclusion of other material - particularly by Cojoco (here and at my talk page). Editors who wish to add material during the protection period (other than matters closely related to the disputed item) can at any time put their properly referenced etc contributions under a separate sub-heading below this point and if there have been no concerns raised as to that inclusion over a 24 hour period I will be happy to add that component. --VS talk 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I should add that I am only acting in my administrative role and will have no input into the actual wording etc of content to be inserted. From that perspective the exact suggested wording for content (in relation to my offer above) should be proposed so that other editors who do have/wish to have some input into the content can agree or otherwise. From that perspective I am offering exactly what it says on the article page header .. in so far that editors may use the editprotected template or mode of operation during the protected time period to ask me or any other administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus.--VS talk 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A timeline[edit]

Here's a timeline from ICIA which I think contains the main events relating to the release of the ACMA blacklists. This should probably be massaged for the ACMA article:

  • March 18, 2009: WikiLeaks publishes a list which is "derived from the ACMA list for the use of government-approved censorship software in its "ACMA-only" mode."[2] Included in the list were "the websites of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator".[3]
  • March 19, 2009, Australian media sources report that the ACMA blacklist has been leaked to WikiLeaks "The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence." [4]
  • March 19, 2009, ACMA stated that the list which appeared on the Wikileaks website was not the ACMA 'blacklist', as it contained 2300 URLs: the ACMA list contained only 1061 URLs in August 2008, and has at no stage contained 2300.[5]
  • March 20, 2009, WikiLeaks published another list, this time closer to the length published by ACMA. Wikileaks believes that the list is up-to-date as of the time of publication[6]
  • March 25, 2009, Stephen Conroy has stated that this list closely resembles the ACMA list.[7]

cojoco (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Two blacklists[edit]

I think the current description of the ACMA blacklist leak misrepresents what occurred. Wikileaks posted two sets of blacklists, from two separate sources. SC stated that the first was not the ACMA list, and that the second looked like the ACMA list. It probably takes a few reliable sources to puzzle this out, but it's all there, and if you look at WL it doesn't even require any interpretation. cojoco (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I wrote "it was reported that..." Got any links to news stories about the 2nd list? Salmanazar (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There's the primary source, which has the updated list, and this newscorp article, which says that the "updated list" is "like the ACMA list". cojoco (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Salmanazar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Australian Communications and Media Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)