On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 2008/12/9 Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Right now the whole thing is under review. > >> > >> Not anymore: The IWF has stated that the block will be removed. > > > > > > "See, proof that the IWF system works" > > > > Seriously though, I hope they explain exactly why they've made that > > decision, though I doubt they will. > > They have explained it on their website > (http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm). The relevant bit is: > > "Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals > Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved > in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the > image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of > Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) > considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this > specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has > existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to > remove this webpage from our list." > Wow, that's exactly the type of explanation I was looking for. I'm going to hold off on deciding whether or not I agree with it. Also interesting is: > > "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of > indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion > our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended > consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed > of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision." > > If they'd asked, we could have told them that would happen... at least > they realise it now and will hopefully take that into account in > future. I'm not sure if I disagree with their conclusion, or disagree with their objective. I think this incident has at least had the potential to encourage productive dialogue about this problem. Of course, they probably see the issue in a completely different way than I do anyway, especially if their goal is to minimize the availability of the images, and not to minimize the actual victimization of children. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
