2008/12/8 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 2008/12/8 Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I understand the intent in helping ISPs to limit collateral damage, and it >>> certainly would be handy to have the problem resolved for the UK editors >>> effected... >>> >>> But in the midst of the news cycle, and with a bit of a PR backlash in >>> progress, I'm not sure you want to get into "Wikipedia administrators, >>> developers, work with ISPs to block access to images." It can wait a day or >>> two, I think, to see if the IWF or the involved ISPs take action on their >>> own. >> >> Indeed - give it a couple of days and the public pressure might be >> enough to force a U-turn. The media seems to be largely on our side >> for a change, which is nice. Perhaps they are finally coming to see up >> as one of their own and are seeing this as the authorities censoring >> the media? > > Doubtful. More likely that since IWF were out of the office over the > weekend they haven't been able to present their side of the story. > It's equally possible that the IWF is unsure if it should have blocked > the image in question.
The IWF put a statement on their website last night and sent a spokeswoman to the BBC Radio studios this morning, they have been presenting their side of the story. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
