On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:16 AM, geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since wikipedians can rapidly generate very large numbers of thumbnail > URLs and have just the "sod you" attitude to do it such an approach is > unlikely to be effective. Blocking wikipedia by URL is unlikely to be > effective.
We could sod-you rename the article too, but we haven't yet. Arguably the article is incorrectly named at the moment, as there are other notable things called the virgin killer. On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. A fair position. I just want to make sure we have the moral high ground on this: They are blocking the text when they could just as well block the image. They are censoring knowledge about the subject rather than just the objectionable image, they have had actual knowledge of this concern for going on 48 hours now and have not resolved it. I want it to be clear that there was and is no excuse for the continued blocking of the text. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
