![]() | Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | Important notice: Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed. If you find this image offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. See the image talk page for the archived discussions. |
![]() | This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, even on articles dealing with issues caused by our lack of censorship. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having this article so soon makes us look like idiots. We're not Wikinews. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Discuss merging in Virgin Killer controversy. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not qualify as a fair use image in this article. I wish it did, it would improve the article. The image is currently wikilinked, which is fine. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Clearly fits fair use. Most of the editors claiming otherwise are editors who have previously wanted the image removed from Wikipedia wholesale so I guess trying to remove it from here is the best they can get. Looking at Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Images "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." That's pretty clear. Since part of the disagreement is whether or not the image is in fact pornographic there's a clear need to have the image here. Claiming that we should leave it out so this page isn't censored goes afoul of WP:CENSOR just as if we removed it from Virgin Killer. Claiming that it should be kept a click away is no different than making the image on Virgin Killer an extra click away or Depictions of Muhammad a click away. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Using the image in this article to illustrate the controversy clearly fits the "fair-use" provisions of US copyright law. The people arguing for its removal are the same people who have been trying to remove it for some time now and should be ashamed of themselves. As an aside, didn't we fight a long bloody war and then a shorter bloody war to guarantee our right to never have to listen to anything the British say ever again? Not to mention the mention the fact that the Brits owe us for pulling their fat out of the fire not once but twice in the 20th century. L0b0t ( talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Virgin Killer cover image sure struck me off-guard when I clicked on the article from the main page... could someone please at least move the image further down the article? -- FlyingPenguins ( talk) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am about to remove the image:
1) The burden of proof is to DEMONSTRATE fair use. Therefore, to be on the safe side of US copyright law, there should be clear consensus FOR an instance of fair use. The default for a copyrighted image is to assume it is NOT fair use until demonstrated otherwise, and until this demonstation is overwhelmingly accepted, which is clearly not the case.
2) It will be a nowadays-rare example on wikipedia of common sense to not deliberately get this article banned in the UK. Therefore I am ignoring all rules.
3) Two world wars (although being an Englishman I take issue with the World Cup Win being ignored) have no bearing on any of this. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
JoshuaZ has carefully selected a part of it. The full wording, before I add any emphasis, is:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
Now with the key word here:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
This is not commentary OF the image, and therefore the part in brackets comes into play. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. It is to album covers what say, the McDonalds logo is to fast food, or Manchester United's logo is to association football. But they still have to be used in accordance with the fair usage criteron of what they are. Your argument is that the copyright rules (and therefore the fair-usage rules) for this album cover are different to that of other album covers BECAUSE it is iconic. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding iconic images: Images like the Campbell's Soup Can are iconic in that they are used in other famous artwork. Other fair-use images, such as some Beatles album covers, are iconic because they are widely used outside of the context of their original trademarked purpose. This album cover is fast approaching this status if it hasn't gained it already - whether it has actually crossed that line may become a matter for courts to decide should it be contested by financially interested parties. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't even believe this discussion is being had at all at this point. I can't imagine a way that this doesn't have fair use now. I might see how throwing NFC at it before might get it deleted, but to even think that now is simply ridiculous; the image is now at the forefront of the internet, has been involved in a brutal raping of consumers by NGOs, has artistic/cultural value (regarding the free-spirited culture of the time), and has been covered in the past for its provocative nature.
Since so much of the controversies have been surrounding the album cover itself, it only makes sense to include an image of it. Shame on you for trying to change that based on an 'all-or nothing' readership ideal and giving in without a wider consensus on the matter. Celarnor Talk to me 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Should links to the Wikipedia namespace be allowed in "Further Reading" or "External Links"? I think they should be allowed on the same terms as any other off-Wiki web link. What are your opinions? I ask because of this and this. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added an external link to the AN page; hope this satisfies all. Skomorokh 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why were Image:Virgin Killer.jpg and Image:Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg changed from internal links to external links in this edit? That's very unusual, the only reason I didn't revert on sight is the editor is already involved in these discussions and I assume he had a reason for saying "these should not be internal links." What is that reason? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
IWF doesn't do the blocking. What they do is blacklist urls and then ISPs choose to block or not as they wish. A better title is IWF blacklisting of Wikipedia. TerriersFan ( talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy with most options that drop the word "blocking", but don't start with "2008" as it makes searches less likely to be successful first time. Besides, as it's not happened before, do we need the disambiguation of a year? -- Dweller ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly moved the article to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to use the image and have any hope of surviving a WP:COPYVIO discussion, at least discuss the image in enough detail and in the context of the block to show that having the image in front of you as you read the article vs. behind a link improves the article. Even a one-liner about how nude children are level-1 images in England and how that triggered the block would be a good start.
If such language isn't there in 6-8 hours when I get back online, I'll remove the image as no/improper fair use justification.
Even with such a discussion, I'm not entirely comfortable that this will meet fair use rationale as long as the bulk of the article is on the controversy and the blocking rather than a critique of the cover itself. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the original title of this article, Virgin Killer controversy, has now been added to the IWF blacklist. Gazi moff 09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That way people who want to can make the decision to switch to an ISP that won't be affected by things like this. Given what's happened over the past few days, and affected ISPs' refusal to cooperate, I'm sure many people will be quite prepared to make that switch. -- 135.196.27.80 ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ref #13 is an internal source. Are there any external replacements for it? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What would people say about my shortening the Wikimedia response section? Right now the press release and Jimbo's quote make up a significant percentage of the article and I would rather they didn't. Protonk ( talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The [refactored] at the IWF appear to have seen the error of their ways 80.176.88.21 ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This whole thing is so freaking stupid. Porn is "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." If anyone at IWF thinks the little girl's photo is a "sexual subject matter" and "sexually exciting", they should be behind bars. As it is an album cover, the pic is intended to represent the album and probably to shock some people, but I seriously doubt the band's "sole intention" was to "excite the viewer". – Alensha talk 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. We, the Wikipedians, have actualy affected the decision of a major organisation. Jolly Ω Janner 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Amazon.com removed the image too isnt this worth citation? -- Ciao 90 ( talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures."
Umm, so if it's abroad it's fine but if it's local it's not? I didn't know a picture interpretation differs upon location... Message from XENU complaints? leave me a message! 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the proxy servers didn't just result in editing problems, but also loading problems by readers, due to the high traffic passing through a handful of ISPs. I read it somewhere, but can't remember which source. There are plenty to look through: [4]. Another point worth mentioning are the fake 404 messages, rather than transparent explanations: people didn't know they were being censored. Gwinva ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we need the full text from the quotes? Can drop that down to "On 9 December, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia told the UK's Channel 4 News that they considered legal action" and leave the text on the pages that are referenced? Mr. Bene ( talk) 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Current one sounds a bit odd to me at least, especially since the current article only documents one encounter between the IWF and WP. Shouldn't we have something like '2008 Virgin Killer controversy'? — neuro (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is a mostly British related article, should we be using the British spellings "organisation" and "criticised" (for example)? ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall the image being present in any other article until it was used in here, so surely this statement in the lead is incorrect? MickMacNee ( talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that Wikimedia only uses XFF headers of a select list of "trusted" providers. The reason for this is that XFF headers are relatively easy to forge, and sometimes there is NAT'ing going of "local" ip addresses, that would not reliably match to IPs of individual users in Wikipedia. As such XFF headers are not enough in itself. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has been moved several times in an effort to find an appropriate name, and there continued to be alternative names put forward. In order to establish consensus, a straw poll might be useful. Please indicate names which have your support, and give reasons for oppositions. Further suggestions can also be added. Gwinva ( talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Some handy articles on aftermath:
Some on technical effects:
Gwinva ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This article continues to refer to the event as being finished. However, as of 12 December 2008, filtering is still being implemented. It is still affecting users ability to edit/interact with Wikipedia shown here. The only thing more dispiriting than the block, is that efforts to raise awareness of the renewed block have been avoided.
What IS going on?? It will be some days before independent sources become available (if they do). Is it not right to remind readers of this?? Why is it wrong, or inaccurate to write about this, if the event is still ongoing?? Just because no official statements have been released?? This IS affecting users. Why else would administrators bar the filter-IP address??
If the block is implemented on an ongoing basis, one might as well block anonymous editing altogether. If anyone is aware of why the block has been re-instated, it would be good to know about it. ( Kreb ( talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
BT had removed the block on and the IP grouping mid-week, but restored both on Friday. They seem to have removed the block again late on Friday (at least, I can access the article - not sure about Krebs, who has continued to refer to the article being blocked), but is again grouping IPs together. This clearly isn't a matter of synchronisation or retention periods, because BT was back to normal a couple of days ago and isn't actually blocking the article. And the IP grouping seems to be limited to Wikipedia - I have, as before the IWF blacklisting, an individual proxy outside of Wikipedia. At some point on Friday, BT did something specific to the way its users access Wikipedia, and this seems to now be independent of the blacklisting of Virgin Killer. Newentry8 ( talk) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Are the links to project namespace really warrented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs)
I wrote to my MP about the IWF thing last year, I got a reply from the government a week or so ago. [6] - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on merging this page to Internet Watch Foundation? Seems reasonable to have a section about it in the IWF article, but an entire separate page seems unnecessary. Thoughts / comments? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Neurolysis ( talk · contribs) removed some bolding, saying that the relevant text "Shouldn't be bolded". Why not? I was under the impression that, as I said in my edit summary, "the bolded text is supposed to summarise the article like a title". Alternatively, we could have no text bolded, but the current format (only the text "Internet Watch Foundation" is bolded) makes no sense to me. Brian Jason Drake 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The IWF's filtering is not required under UK law. The UK ISPs were talked into a "voluntary" agreement by the Home Office. [7] During the Virgin Killer affair, not all of the UK ISPs complied with the block.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Most school filtering has started to filter Wikipedia, even HTTPS is enabled. They doing the same to other pages. For example in UK (at least), UK schools is filtering Wikipedia and forced into own school servers, which will replace Wikipedia SSL with own web filters. Then, it scan for some terms, and it will block pages with words under "bad" lists. Why? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Source number 40 has not this information on page 12 in the PDF document. I do not understand French and can not find in this long document, which page is the right, where this text is included and used for source. If someone can help, please. Thanks. Станислав Николаев ( talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | Important notice: Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed. If you find this image offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. See the image talk page for the archived discussions. |
![]() | This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, even on articles dealing with issues caused by our lack of censorship. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having this article so soon makes us look like idiots. We're not Wikinews. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Discuss merging in Virgin Killer controversy. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It does not qualify as a fair use image in this article. I wish it did, it would improve the article. The image is currently wikilinked, which is fine. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 00:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Clearly fits fair use. Most of the editors claiming otherwise are editors who have previously wanted the image removed from Wikipedia wholesale so I guess trying to remove it from here is the best they can get. Looking at Wikipedia:Fair_Use#Images "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." That's pretty clear. Since part of the disagreement is whether or not the image is in fact pornographic there's a clear need to have the image here. Claiming that we should leave it out so this page isn't censored goes afoul of WP:CENSOR just as if we removed it from Virgin Killer. Claiming that it should be kept a click away is no different than making the image on Virgin Killer an extra click away or Depictions of Muhammad a click away. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Using the image in this article to illustrate the controversy clearly fits the "fair-use" provisions of US copyright law. The people arguing for its removal are the same people who have been trying to remove it for some time now and should be ashamed of themselves. As an aside, didn't we fight a long bloody war and then a shorter bloody war to guarantee our right to never have to listen to anything the British say ever again? Not to mention the mention the fact that the Brits owe us for pulling their fat out of the fire not once but twice in the 20th century. L0b0t ( talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Virgin Killer cover image sure struck me off-guard when I clicked on the article from the main page... could someone please at least move the image further down the article? -- FlyingPenguins ( talk) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am about to remove the image:
1) The burden of proof is to DEMONSTRATE fair use. Therefore, to be on the safe side of US copyright law, there should be clear consensus FOR an instance of fair use. The default for a copyrighted image is to assume it is NOT fair use until demonstrated otherwise, and until this demonstation is overwhelmingly accepted, which is clearly not the case.
2) It will be a nowadays-rare example on wikipedia of common sense to not deliberately get this article banned in the UK. Therefore I am ignoring all rules.
3) Two world wars (although being an Englishman I take issue with the World Cup Win being ignored) have no bearing on any of this. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
JoshuaZ has carefully selected a part of it. The full wording, before I add any emphasis, is:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
Now with the key word here:
Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).
This is not commentary OF the image, and therefore the part in brackets comes into play. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. It is to album covers what say, the McDonalds logo is to fast food, or Manchester United's logo is to association football. But they still have to be used in accordance with the fair usage criteron of what they are. Your argument is that the copyright rules (and therefore the fair-usage rules) for this album cover are different to that of other album covers BECAUSE it is iconic. BeL1EveR ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding iconic images: Images like the Campbell's Soup Can are iconic in that they are used in other famous artwork. Other fair-use images, such as some Beatles album covers, are iconic because they are widely used outside of the context of their original trademarked purpose. This album cover is fast approaching this status if it hasn't gained it already - whether it has actually crossed that line may become a matter for courts to decide should it be contested by financially interested parties. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't even believe this discussion is being had at all at this point. I can't imagine a way that this doesn't have fair use now. I might see how throwing NFC at it before might get it deleted, but to even think that now is simply ridiculous; the image is now at the forefront of the internet, has been involved in a brutal raping of consumers by NGOs, has artistic/cultural value (regarding the free-spirited culture of the time), and has been covered in the past for its provocative nature.
Since so much of the controversies have been surrounding the album cover itself, it only makes sense to include an image of it. Shame on you for trying to change that based on an 'all-or nothing' readership ideal and giving in without a wider consensus on the matter. Celarnor Talk to me 08:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Should links to the Wikipedia namespace be allowed in "Further Reading" or "External Links"? I think they should be allowed on the same terms as any other off-Wiki web link. What are your opinions? I ask because of this and this. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added an external link to the AN page; hope this satisfies all. Skomorokh 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why were Image:Virgin Killer.jpg and Image:Virgin Killer alternate cover.jpg changed from internal links to external links in this edit? That's very unusual, the only reason I didn't revert on sight is the editor is already involved in these discussions and I assume he had a reason for saying "these should not be internal links." What is that reason? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
IWF doesn't do the blocking. What they do is blacklist urls and then ISPs choose to block or not as they wish. A better title is IWF blacklisting of Wikipedia. TerriersFan ( talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy with most options that drop the word "blocking", but don't start with "2008" as it makes searches less likely to be successful first time. Besides, as it's not happened before, do we need the disambiguation of a year? -- Dweller ( talk) 11:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly moved the article to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to use the image and have any hope of surviving a WP:COPYVIO discussion, at least discuss the image in enough detail and in the context of the block to show that having the image in front of you as you read the article vs. behind a link improves the article. Even a one-liner about how nude children are level-1 images in England and how that triggered the block would be a good start.
If such language isn't there in 6-8 hours when I get back online, I'll remove the image as no/improper fair use justification.
Even with such a discussion, I'm not entirely comfortable that this will meet fair use rationale as long as the bulk of the article is on the controversy and the blocking rather than a critique of the cover itself. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, the original title of this article, Virgin Killer controversy, has now been added to the IWF blacklist. Gazi moff 09:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That way people who want to can make the decision to switch to an ISP that won't be affected by things like this. Given what's happened over the past few days, and affected ISPs' refusal to cooperate, I'm sure many people will be quite prepared to make that switch. -- 135.196.27.80 ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Ref #13 is an internal source. Are there any external replacements for it? – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What would people say about my shortening the Wikimedia response section? Right now the press release and Jimbo's quote make up a significant percentage of the article and I would rather they didn't. Protonk ( talk) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The [refactored] at the IWF appear to have seen the error of their ways 80.176.88.21 ( talk) 18:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This whole thing is so freaking stupid. Porn is "the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." If anyone at IWF thinks the little girl's photo is a "sexual subject matter" and "sexually exciting", they should be behind bars. As it is an album cover, the pic is intended to represent the album and probably to shock some people, but I seriously doubt the band's "sole intention" was to "excite the viewer". – Alensha talk 19:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. We, the Wikipedians, have actualy affected the decision of a major organisation. Jolly Ω Janner 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Amazon.com removed the image too isnt this worth citation? -- Ciao 90 ( talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures."
Umm, so if it's abroad it's fine but if it's local it's not? I didn't know a picture interpretation differs upon location... Message from XENU complaints? leave me a message! 20:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the proxy servers didn't just result in editing problems, but also loading problems by readers, due to the high traffic passing through a handful of ISPs. I read it somewhere, but can't remember which source. There are plenty to look through: [4]. Another point worth mentioning are the fake 404 messages, rather than transparent explanations: people didn't know they were being censored. Gwinva ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we need the full text from the quotes? Can drop that down to "On 9 December, Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia told the UK's Channel 4 News that they considered legal action" and leave the text on the pages that are referenced? Mr. Bene ( talk) 02:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Current one sounds a bit odd to me at least, especially since the current article only documents one encounter between the IWF and WP. Shouldn't we have something like '2008 Virgin Killer controversy'? — neuro (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is a mostly British related article, should we be using the British spellings "organisation" and "criticised" (for example)? ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 22:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall the image being present in any other article until it was used in here, so surely this statement in the lead is incorrect? MickMacNee ( talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that Wikimedia only uses XFF headers of a select list of "trusted" providers. The reason for this is that XFF headers are relatively easy to forge, and sometimes there is NAT'ing going of "local" ip addresses, that would not reliably match to IPs of individual users in Wikipedia. As such XFF headers are not enough in itself. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has been moved several times in an effort to find an appropriate name, and there continued to be alternative names put forward. In order to establish consensus, a straw poll might be useful. Please indicate names which have your support, and give reasons for oppositions. Further suggestions can also be added. Gwinva ( talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Some handy articles on aftermath:
Some on technical effects:
Gwinva ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This article continues to refer to the event as being finished. However, as of 12 December 2008, filtering is still being implemented. It is still affecting users ability to edit/interact with Wikipedia shown here. The only thing more dispiriting than the block, is that efforts to raise awareness of the renewed block have been avoided.
What IS going on?? It will be some days before independent sources become available (if they do). Is it not right to remind readers of this?? Why is it wrong, or inaccurate to write about this, if the event is still ongoing?? Just because no official statements have been released?? This IS affecting users. Why else would administrators bar the filter-IP address??
If the block is implemented on an ongoing basis, one might as well block anonymous editing altogether. If anyone is aware of why the block has been re-instated, it would be good to know about it. ( Kreb ( talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
BT had removed the block on and the IP grouping mid-week, but restored both on Friday. They seem to have removed the block again late on Friday (at least, I can access the article - not sure about Krebs, who has continued to refer to the article being blocked), but is again grouping IPs together. This clearly isn't a matter of synchronisation or retention periods, because BT was back to normal a couple of days ago and isn't actually blocking the article. And the IP grouping seems to be limited to Wikipedia - I have, as before the IWF blacklisting, an individual proxy outside of Wikipedia. At some point on Friday, BT did something specific to the way its users access Wikipedia, and this seems to now be independent of the blacklisting of Virgin Killer. Newentry8 ( talk) 18:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Are the links to project namespace really warrented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol ( talk • contribs)
I wrote to my MP about the IWF thing last year, I got a reply from the government a week or so ago. [6] - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts on merging this page to Internet Watch Foundation? Seems reasonable to have a section about it in the IWF article, but an entire separate page seems unnecessary. Thoughts / comments? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
-- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Neurolysis ( talk · contribs) removed some bolding, saying that the relevant text "Shouldn't be bolded". Why not? I was under the impression that, as I said in my edit summary, "the bolded text is supposed to summarise the article like a title". Alternatively, we could have no text bolded, but the current format (only the text "Internet Watch Foundation" is bolded) makes no sense to me. Brian Jason Drake 09:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The IWF's filtering is not required under UK law. The UK ISPs were talked into a "voluntary" agreement by the Home Office. [7] During the Virgin Killer affair, not all of the UK ISPs complied with the block.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Most school filtering has started to filter Wikipedia, even HTTPS is enabled. They doing the same to other pages. For example in UK (at least), UK schools is filtering Wikipedia and forced into own school servers, which will replace Wikipedia SSL with own web filters. Then, it scan for some terms, and it will block pages with words under "bad" lists. Why? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Source number 40 has not this information on page 12 in the PDF document. I do not understand French and can not find in this long document, which page is the right, where this text is included and used for source. If someone can help, please. Thanks. Станислав Николаев ( talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)