Comments on: UPDATE: Wikimedia statement regarding censorship in the UK http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/ News from inside the Wikimedia Foundation.org Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:19:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ryan Kiefer http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1163 Ryan Kiefer Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:07:13 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1163 First of all, could someone please explain to me exactly how the image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster is an example of paedophilia on Wikipedia, as you put it. I would certainly agree that it's in bad taste, but it is not an example of that. And I'm absolutely sure that the image found there is of a consenting adult. And for those who think that Wikipedia is a place for advertisers and sexual deviants: Wikipedia has a pretty strict idea of what it is and is not, and what is encyclopaedic and what is not. My sources for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view And many other of Wikipedia's content guidelines. Anything that deviates from this should not be on Wikipedia, but it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of the respective editors who put it up, and they are the ones to blame, not the site hosting it. In short, I agree with what everyone else has been saying. Censoring should not be a job of an agency or group. If you don't want to look at something that could be considered indecent, for Christ's sake, don't look at it, especially in an encyclopaedic context. First of all, could someone please explain to me exactly how the image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster is an example of paedophilia on Wikipedia, as you put it. I would certainly agree that it’s in bad taste, but it is not an example of that. And I’m absolutely sure that the image found there is of a consenting adult.
And for those who think that Wikipedia is a place for advertisers and sexual deviants: Wikipedia has a pretty strict idea of what it is and is not, and what is encyclopaedic and what is not. My sources for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
And many other of Wikipedia’s content guidelines.
Anything that deviates from this should not be on Wikipedia, but it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia. It is the responsibility of the respective editors who put it up, and they are the ones to blame, not the site hosting it.
In short, I agree with what everyone else has been saying. Censoring should not be a job of an agency or group. If you don’t want to look at something that could be considered indecent, for Christ’s sake, don’t look at it, especially in an encyclopaedic context.

]]> By: Kreb http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1150 Kreb Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:45:34 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1150 The web-block/filtering has been re-instated for BT Broadband customers (and some other ISP's), as of yesterday (12 December). Why is no-one taking action about this?? This issue is NOT over - yet. The web-block/filtering has been re-instated for BT Broadband customers (and some other ISP’s), as of yesterday (12 December). Why is no-one taking action about this?? This issue is NOT over – yet.

]]> By: Arnomane http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1143 Arnomane Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:32:12 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1143 @hal: What has naturism to do with pedophilia?! Nothing. Naturism even is very far from *any* kind of sexuality. Just read the article [[Naturism]]. I hope you will be enlightened a bit. The images displayed there don't display sexuality. They display people how they really look like. The difference between an erotic photo (you know posing, concentration on erogenous zones and such...) and a naturism photo (just a naked person being there and perhapes doing something like taking a bath) is fundamental. For example this image here really is great in this respect: [[Image:Naturista.jpg]]. But sure according to "low" standards this particular image is child pornography... Luckily there are still people that withstand bigott people that want to sexualise (and thus criminalise) everything related to naked skin. I am sick about people that flag every naked person as sexual offending. I think it is fundamentally important for the mental and physical health of every child, man and women to know how other normal people look like without clothes. At minimum a child should have ever seen his/her parents and siblings naked! Otherwise they only get access to all these high gloss erotic photos (the more the parents try to prohibit this the more their teenage kids will search for it) and often feel inadequate (and maybe even get sick) because they think they don't have a perfect body "like everybody else" or at least rate others according to some pinups and never can have a stable partnership because they aren't satisfied with themselves and their partners. The particular "Virgin Killer" cover surely is bad taste but so are many images. But bad taste doesn't mean illegal. Otherwise quite some rich people could be sued for bad taste (I sometimes wished I could...). And of course where do you find comparable objective information alongside the image? Only in Wikipedia. And what do these IWF-zealots do? They ban the only comprehensive information channel about that music album and leave everything else untouched. P.S.: This is not a defense of pedophilia and other sexual topics outside "consenting adults". @hal: What has naturism to do with pedophilia?! Nothing. Naturism even is very
far from *any* kind of sexuality. Just read the article [[Naturism]]. I hope
you will be enlightened a bit. The images displayed there don’t display
sexuality. They display people how they really look like.

The difference between an erotic photo (you know posing, concentration on
erogenous zones and such…) and a naturism photo (just a naked person being
there and perhapes doing something like taking a bath) is fundamental. For
example this image here really is great in this respect:
[[Image:Naturista.jpg]]. But sure according to “low” standards this
particular image is child pornography… Luckily there are still people that
withstand bigott people that want to sexualise (and thus criminalise)
everything related to naked skin. I am sick about people that flag every
naked person as sexual offending.

I think it is fundamentally important for the mental and physical health of
every child, man and women to know how other normal people look like without
clothes. At minimum a child should have ever seen his/her parents and
siblings naked! Otherwise they only get access to all these high gloss erotic
photos (the more the parents try to prohibit this the more their teenage kids
will search for it) and often feel inadequate (and maybe even get sick)
because they think they don’t have a perfect body “like everybody else” or at
least rate others according to some pinups and never can have a stable
partnership because they aren’t satisfied with themselves and their partners.

The particular “Virgin Killer” cover surely is bad taste but so are many
images. But bad taste doesn’t mean illegal. Otherwise quite some rich people
could be sued for bad taste (I sometimes wished I could…). And of course
where do you find comparable objective information alongside the image? Only
in Wikipedia. And what do these IWF-zealots do? They ban the only
comprehensive information channel about that music album and leave everything
else untouched.

P.S.: This is not a defense of pedophilia and other sexual topics
outside “consenting adults”.

]]> By: Cometstyles http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1141 Cometstyles Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:53:11 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1141 Good sense prevailed and it has been fixed, hopefully, the IWF will think twice next time before doing anything stupid again..I really don't Wikimedia will waste their time suing the IWF, we have better things to do and get on with what we were doing all along, providing free NPOV information. Good sense prevailed and it has been fixed, hopefully, the IWF will think twice next time before doing anything stupid again..I really don’t Wikimedia will waste their time suing the IWF, we have better things to do and get on with what we were doing all along, providing free NPOV information.

]]> By: Felipe Budinich http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1140 Felipe Budinich Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:45:25 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1140 Your editors still publish pedophile images such as the indecent image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster Pedophilia? probably not very tasteful, but it is not even close to obscene, I've seen sculptures that are more obscene (for example http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Santa_Maria_della_Vittoria_-_6.jpg), but aah right they were made by great artists, so they can't be obscene. even if they were, there's stuff a lot worse on Ads Your editors still publish pedophile images such as the indecent image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster

Pedophilia? probably not very tasteful, but it is not even close to obscene, I’ve seen sculptures that are more obscene (for example http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Santa_Maria_della_Vittoria_-_6.jpg), but aah right they were made by great artists, so they can’t be obscene.

even if they were, there’s stuff a lot worse on Ads

]]> By: Ipatrol http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1139 Ipatrol Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:41:58 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1139 This is a rediculous example of action without due process of law. They should be sued by WMF. This is a rediculous example of action without due process of law. They should be sued by WMF.

]]> By: Serge the Serious Contributor http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1138 Serge the Serious Contributor Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:36:58 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1138 Now I understand why something like a page on prince Harry is so valuable to be present here as pages of non-Christian non-Anglo backgrounds commoners’ achievements are being meticulously deleted as not essential for still inherited even a shadow of a possibility of professional activities existing outside fashion parade cat walks. Perhaps, pages “HMERII” and “British Royals” provide enough information at the start of a third millennium. Now I understand why something like a page on prince Harry is so valuable to be present here as pages of non-Christian non-Anglo backgrounds commoners’ achievements are being meticulously deleted as not essential for still inherited even a shadow of a possibility of professional activities existing outside fashion parade cat walks.

Perhaps, pages “HMERII” and “British Royals” provide enough information at the start of a third millennium.

]]> By: Serious Contributor http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1137 Serious Contributor Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:35:07 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1137 Now I understand why something like a page on prince Harry is so valuable to be present here as pages of non-Christian non-Anglo backgrounds commoners’ achievements are being meticulously deleted as not essential for still inherited even a shadow of a possibility of professional activities existing outside fashion-parade-cat walks. Perhaps, UK-related pages “HMERII” and “British Royals” provide enough information at the start of the third millennium to attract readers to special publications on relevant topics. Now I understand why something like a page on prince Harry is so valuable to be present here as pages of non-Christian non-Anglo backgrounds commoners’ achievements are being meticulously deleted as not essential for still inherited even a shadow of a possibility of professional activities existing outside fashion-parade-cat walks.

Perhaps, UK-related pages “HMERII” and “British Royals” provide enough information at the start of the third millennium to attract readers to special publications on relevant topics.

]]> By: Markmonitor http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1136 Markmonitor Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:15:21 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1136 Protecting exploitation of children is NOT censorship. Your editors still publish pedophile images such as the indecent image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster It is well known that this particular editor (a.k.a. hoary) uses Wikipedia to further his own commercial marketing (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_circus) whilst using it as a playground to attract other pedophiles. Protecting exploitation of children is NOT censorship.
Your editors still publish pedophile images such as the indecent image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WebHamster
It is well known that this particular editor (a.k.a. hoary) uses Wikipedia to further his own commercial marketing (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_circus) whilst using it as a playground to attract other pedophiles.

]]> By: Mary http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/12/08/wikimedia-statement-regarding-censorship-in-the-uk/comment-page-1/#comment-1135 Mary Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:18:44 +0000 http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=199#comment-1135 The Wikimedia Foundation statement to the Press is not very strong. Why so namby-pamby? The Wikimedia Foundation statement to the Press is not very strong. Why so namby-pamby?

]]>