Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 3

Main page
I asked whether this should be mentioned on the main page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No way. IMO, it'll look like we are "attention seekers". Not a worldwide story; and for a start off it doesn't have it's own article yet . D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BEANS \ / (⁂) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not relevant here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  20:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No Protonk (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not a good idea -- lucasbfr  talk 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

← So, we think it's good when the press expose attempts to censor our encyclopaedia, but when people come to our front door looking to find out what's going on, there's nothing directing them to a summery? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite coincidentally, Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Have at it. --Kiz o r  21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I started that section. How is the person who reads about this in their newspaper supposed to find it, if it's not flagged on the main page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not stupid, you'd see that people attempting to edit Wikipedia whilst in the current blocked state are given a link to this page. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not stupid, you'd see that I mentioned people coming from press articles, not blocked editors. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'd think that the press article would explain enough about the situation... most of the press articles already have a link to this page... Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'd think that you have an utterly unrealistic view of the fourth estate; and fail to realise that tomorrow's dead-tree editions have no links. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He might be stupid, or not from the parts of Great Britain that have come under this censorship, or he might not have done something that has not been indicated to be relevant to the issue he's talking about, or he might be referring to a different group of people than you. Which of these is the least likely? Xenu, your temper's been running high for a while now, but now you're antagonizing well-meaning regulars and your grammar is starting to break down. Could you do me a favor and utilize the valuable advantage we have over real-life conversations by getting off the computer for a while? --Kiz o r  21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. :) Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * None of that made any sense. How does refusing to put this on the main page mean we think it is good. Wikipedia is not a protest site and there are millions more articles that aren't impacted by this. The goal should be to show that the IWF is small and petty, not that they are important enough to suspend how we would normally do things in order to accomodate them. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was after 7 edit conflicts. Jesus. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The goal should be to come to an agreeable solution. Let's not be too quick to make enemies of other people just because they have their own goals and have slighted us in pursuing them. --Kiz o r  21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Users affected will see the block notice, which has appropriate links and information. Hence we already have an effective way of notifying affected users of the situation, and this discussion is voooooid. :) P retzels Talk! 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy - what (IMO, this is) I don't want to do is have this turn into a crazy, huge, bigger-than-necessary issue...which a Main Page mention could provoke. And considering the pace the media is catching up to us, this is probably going to be annoying. And see Protonk's comments. 4 e/cs... Icy  // ♫ 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It already is a big issue. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but lets not make it a bigger issue than it needs to be. \ / (⁂) 21:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen today's press coverage - including the single most popular news story on the BBC website? It links only to http://www.wikipedia.org/ Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Protonk: Please read what I wrote: I said that what we think is good is "when the press expose attempts to censor our encyclopaedia"; nothing else. All our articles are impacted, when inappropriate locks are made. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get it now. I still stand by my statement.  Front page content is determined by a specific process and shouldn't be fooled with except under extreme circumstances.  I don't view this circumstance as extreme. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The goal should be to show that the IWF is small and petty, - Er, no. We shouldn't be trying to fight them. The goal should be to find some way for UK users to be able to edit the site again easily and come to an amicable solution. Wikipedia is not in the business of political activism. Mr.Z-man 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguably building a free encyclopedia that doesn't stifle content due to preferred interests is an act of political activism. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the IWF to enquire whether this isn't counter-productive. I don't expect a reply. -- Rodhull andemu  22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many more copies of that album are going to get sold as a result of this. :) Protonk (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy
A policy/guideline has been proposed - Images of children - relevant to this discussion. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia_talk:Images_of_children if you want to say no. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And again Images_of_children in general if you'd like to ignore the bias created by Protonk with the above post. Are you an admin Protonk? I couldn't be bothered to check. If you are please resign - POV pushing is not acceptable. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, what did Protonk do that would merit having to resign as an admin? Everything seems good to me. Random  89  22:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck. Pedro : Chat  22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll strike mine too, since I can see the argument that people would be tainted before they discussed it. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given your percpetion, I will now also apologise as well as re-confirming my striking. Pedro : Chat  22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I can see how you would be upset. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal has been marked as rejected. Davewild (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments
There is a very brief comment from Jay Walsh for the foundation in this updated AP article - Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo. Jimbo also seems optimistic that this will be sorted out soon - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&curid=9870625&diff=256495801&oldid=256486556 They did a great job, too. :-) I predict this will all be sorted within a couple of days... and not the way the IWF hopes it might]. Davewild (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved
I have boldly moved this page to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action, which is both shorter and more meaningful than the previous title. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good move. The title also misled a "reliable source" into claiming that all access appears to be coming from no more than two IP addresses. (Heise report in German). --Hans Adler (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good move. Pedro : Chat  22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to talk
I've posted a notice to the Community Bulletin Board. Would it be useful to clean up this page the article by moving discussions to the discussion page? This event has been so fast moving it's quite difficult to find information here. P retzels Talk! 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. I think that was the point of the "executive summary" at the top. Might be good to focus on that and move older discussions to the talk page.  Anyone have a nose for what is stale above ? Protonk (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Mass trolling" section? Oh, I see you've archived it - can probably go to the talk page as completely unrelated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I archived a few but left them here. If no one objects I'll move them in an hour or so.  I've also moved around a couple of other posts to leave the basic summary and technical info near the top of the page. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship possibly extending to Finland
Lapsiporno.info is now reporting that the (English Wikipedia) Virgin Killer article is censored on a Sonera proxy in Finland. I assume the Finnish Wikipedia article, which also has the cover image, is not. If true, the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation must be implementing IWF's blacklist, although their list is supposed to be always outdated and technically too clumsy to filter only certain addresses. Prolog (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. As a member of Finland's geek population, I believe I speak for the majority when I say that the Finnish list was made into law by a bunch of total bastards who at no point contested the claims that it is, without exaggeration, worse than useless for its stated purpose. It's interesting (if disheartening) that the NBI got the cash needed for refining censorship, but the list is no more consequential here than it was when it blocked the W3C as child porn, and can safely be ignored. --Kiz o r  00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tietokone reports that the implementation of the IWF blacklist was an error on Sonera's part. Since it has now been corrected, the number of unconstitutionally censored legal pages must be about a thousand minus one. Prolog (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews mainstream?
Should the Wikinews link be moved to "Social news"? I really doubt it's a mainstream news source. --NE2 02:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be in Social news now. P retzels Talk! 03:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone fixed it. --NE2 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement from the Foundation
On behalf of the Communications Committee:

Censorship in the United Kingdom disenfranchises tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors

''Wikimedia Foundation opposes action by internet watchdog group to blacklist encyclopedia article''

San Francisco CA, December 7, 2008: As of December 6, 2008, most Internet users in the United Kingdom no longer have full access to Wikipedia. Due to censorship by the UK self-regulatory agency the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), most UK residents can no longer edit the volunteer-written encyclopedia, nor can they access an article in it describing a 32-year-old album by German rock group the Scorpions. Wikipedia visitors in the UK have also reported performance issues accessing the site.

The IWF has confirmed to the Wikimedia Foundation that it has added Wikipedia to its blacklist, which also had the unintended consequence of rendering UK-based internet users unable to edit the encyclopedia, and possibly harming the site's performance inside the UK.

The IWF says its blacklist is used, on a voluntary basis, by 95% of UK-based residential Internet Service Providers. A statement on the IWF website says it added the Wikipedia article to the blacklist after the article was reported by a user, and an IWF assessment found it to be “potentially illegal.”

“We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world,” said the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, Mike Godwin. “We believe it's worth noting that the image is currently visible on Amazon, where the album can be freely purchased by UK residents. It is available on thousands of websites that are accessible to the UK public.”

“The IWF didn't just block the image; it blocked access to the article itself, which discusses the image in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion,” said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “The IWF says its goal is to protect UK citizens, but I can't see how this action helps to achieve that – and meanwhile, it deprives UK internet users of the ability to access information which should be freely available to everyone. I urge the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist.”

The Wikimedia Foundation is proud of the work done by its volunteer editors, who have created an encyclopedia which external studies repeatedly validate as equal or better in quality compared with conventional encyclopedias. Wikipedia's editors take care to ensure the quality of the content of the encyclopedia, and to safeguard the core community values of freedom, independence, and neutrality.

The Wikimedia Foundation will continue its discussions with IWF to resolve this matter.

Q/A can be found here.

&rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Buzzkills.
Just can't have no fun, can we? :) Protonk (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Ah, well, I still have the Gerard/IWF flunky debate to look forward to. :) -Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 08:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cached versions
I just wanted to comment cos I'm confused. When searching for the Wikipedia article in Google, it offers a cached version with the article and image being viewable (on my ISP anyway). So would the IFW/IWF (can't remember which) block that if they got wind of it? Or, because it's Google's saved version, it falls out of the whole Wikipedia blocking thing? Sorry if that sounds incredibly dense. :p londonsista  <sup style="color:#ff66cc; font-family:alois light;">Prod  08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The blacklist is fairly incompetent at actually preventing access to the image and article: the only things that are blocked are the URLs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer and . Any other way of getting access will work. --Carnildo (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah okay, certainly seems incompetent. Thanks for clearing that up :) londonsista  <sup style="color:#ff66cc; font-family:alois light;">Prod  10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK this controversy has made the major TV media. Nationwide broadcaster Channel 4 evening news showed the offending image full screen with blurs, and uncensored on a monitor screen with many copies of the same image to indicate how common it was on the Internet. I would suggest to those who think viewing the image may be legally dangerous to them in some way that this is now unlikely. (posting through a 56k modem, as unable to use wiki edit because of the censoring)80.225.220.176 (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage and response
So far, the mainstream media has not really picked up on this to the same extent that it did with the Seigenthaler incident in 2005. This led to a great deal of criticism of Wikipedia's operating procedures in the media, and much tighter rules for the biographies of living persons were introduced as a result. Like it or not, there may need to be a look at Wikipedia's procedures to prevent fiascos like Virgin Killer in the future. User generated content always carries the risk that controversial or illegal material will be uploaded, and most websites acknowledge this with their terms of service, which govern the type of material that can be viewed by the general public. For example, the material found in top shelf magazines may not be illegal, but it would be unwise to upload it to a Wikipedia article and then argue that Wikipedia is not censored. This would be fine if the material were shown as coursework at a university, preceded by a warning that some people might find the images offensive. A website that can be accessed at home or in a school or public library needs to show a common sense approach to what is acceptable content. It is unwise to have an image like Virgin Killer displayed in the public part of a website where members of the public of any age could come across it without a warning. Most websites accept this, and would either not host the Virgin Killer image or add a login page with a disclaimer, saying that persons accessing the material affirm that they are over 18 years of age and understand that the material may be considered offensive. In my view, it is time for Wikipedia to consider introducing a similar system, since WP:NOTCENSORED is not always an adequate fallback in these situations.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You can come back to me with that argument, when we remove images of Mohammed from the articles. read; I do not consider the image to be child pornography, and think it should be present in its article (now more than ever) And as long as the image is noteworthy and not illegal in the US where are servers our hosted, it should stay, because that is as far as our censorship goes. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a censorship issue and it is becoming tiring to hear the word used. The Virgin Killer image would cause a Terms of Service (TOS) issue for most websites that can be accessed without a login by members of the public. People may think they are supporting freedom of expression by backing WP:NOTCENSORED to the hilt on this issue, but there needs to be some common sense about how and when the material can be accessed.  I realize that I am likely to be in a minority on this, but am simply pointing out how most websites deal with material likely to lead to TOS issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on Amazon. --NE2 10:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There already is common sense. We don't censor to benefit any particular group.  With regards to your other points, they all depend on making the fallacious assumption that this particular image is child pornography, which it is not.  Pursuant to USC §2256, to constitute child pornography, a given image needs either sexual intercourse, beastiality, masturbation, exhibition of the genitals, or sadistic/masochistic abuse to qualify.  Even in terms of obscenity, it has to not have any kind of artistic value, which, given the circumstances, is already out the door as an option.    <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  10:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, if the image is not illegal under US law, then the Wikimedia foundation is under no obligation to remove it. It is also a shambles that an image that has never been ruled illegal in any court of law has led to this type of blocking.  I have been talking about general guidelines, not this particular image. Some of the videos on YouTube are preceded by this message: This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. By clicking "Confirm", you are agreeing that all videos or groups flagged by the YouTube community will be viewable by this account.

YouTube does this to protect itself against the allegation that some of its content could be accessed by minors. A small percentage of the images on Wikipedia might benefit from similar flagging, but this would not be censorship.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are various third party tools around if you want to censor what people can view on a given computer. If you want to prepare a list of problem pages for say DansGuardian you are free to do so.Geni 11:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Content blocking programs are well known for leading to nonsense like the Scunthorpe Problem. There is no substitute for human guidance, which is why YouTube's user flagged system is better. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DansGuardian is open source. You are free to set it up so it only hits pages on it's blacklist.Geni 12:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Realistically, the chances of creating a perfect and up to date list of blacklisted pages are zero. Although content filtering is commonplace on school and public library computers, most computers in home environments do not have it. This is why website administrators usually have their own guidelines for content that could be deemed inappropriate.  YouTube seems to have the balance about right.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 12:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of BBC Today interview
From the BBC Today interview with IWF and David Gerard:

Transcript by User:TRS-80: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2008/12/08/today-show-transcript/ - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(I assume it was Evan Davis since he's the Today Programme host, but he wasn't identified in that clip). TRS-80 (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [Angels-on-heads-of-pins discussion of fair use of transcript redacted as no longer relevant and hence confusing on page - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)]


 * In before DMCA takedown notice. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  10:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the issue with blocking both the text and the image was brought up. I'd have thought blocking access to the image would be enough to prevent it being seen in the article, or is that simplistic thinking on my part? Good interview anyway. londonsista  <sup style="color:#ff66cc; font-family:alois light;">Prod  10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The blacklist probably isn't that dynamic. It only handles URLs, apparently, since you can go to the site easily enough at the properly formatted url (i.e, /index.php?title=Virgin_Killer) while behind the bad ISPs.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  10:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to patch up some of the missing words and edit. I believe it was Gerard that asked "Blocking text?", but we'll have to ask for confirmation of that.  —Sladen (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was indeed me. I'm just mostly annoyed I didn't get in the words "hamfisted and incompetent". Would have liked to put in "smells of hammers" too, but that would have been pushing it ;-)


 * Also did a prerecord for BBC World Service World Update, dunno if that's up anywhere - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the tone in the IWA representative's voice "Look, we do our job in good faith" was noticeable—it would have been interesting to have had an additional 30–60 seconds to play out. However, I don't think overt aggression is needed when you've already succeeded in highlighting a flaw (the presenter picked this up at "if it's a principle, it's a principle...?").  Somebody leaving an interview flustered speaks (sounds) volumes.  Either the IWF will need to U-turn, or to wade their way through 636,000 images URLs. —Sladen (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

--

Extremely easy solution
It's legitimate to link to content hosted on other sites which don't have the strict fair use inclusion rules that we do (ie. our policies go above and beyond the case law). Hence, I have put the transcript here: http://pastebin.ca/1279606 and will have it uploaded to bathroomcabal.org (where the recording is hosted) when I can get hold of the website operator. This avoids us flaunting flouting our fair use policies on the basis of IAR or interpreting foundation resolutions while still not breaking fair use laws. Daniel (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * flaunt != flout DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've been up all day dealing with this nonsense on OTRS and in the Australian media, and it's now twelve minutes to midnight, so I'm going to bed. Thanks for highlighting my error; corrected. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a more reliable link posted by David above. Daniel (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Message of Support
for those of you who dont live in a rapidly developing fascist police state, and can access the relevant page please PLEASE do not remove the image, or in any way concede to these self appointed idiots and their Spinal Tap-esque censorship. please remember what wikipedia is not!, and put it on the main page! "You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me."Jw2034 (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on Tiscali broadband, and there's no censoring here. I can view the article easily.


 * So far, the only real effects of the block have been:

There is little point in letting a genie out of a bottle and then finding that you cannot put the stopper back in. This is what the Internet Watch Foundation has done, and it is a sad day for the Internet in the UK. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To screw up the access to Wikipedia for up to 95% of people in the UK.
 * To draw far more attention to the image than it would otherwise have had.


 * As with User:79.69.190.135 above, I'm with Tiscali and able to access the article too. I haven't tried logging out to see if editing is still available. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Can we please not refer to the United Kingdom as "a rapidly developing fascist police state"? And there would be no point in putting the image on the main page, as it has no relevance to the main page. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to refer to it in such a way. perhaps creeping fascist police state would be better. Jw2034 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because as the above-linked WP:NOT says, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We're not here to offer our opinions on what other countries are or are not. If you want to do that, start up your own wiki. Dreaded Walrus t c 15:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Neologism
Reading though the comments pages of a couple of referenced news sites, the neologism "Hadrian's Firewall" seems to have sprung up.  Gazi moff  13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image and subsequent protection
I fear that admin Fish & Karate has made an error of judgement here.

After a morning when a number of well-intentioned users have removed the image, and been reverted because there is no consensus that the image should be removed, he came along, reverted to a version with no image, and protected the article in his preferred state (without image). Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be better handled at Talk:Virgin Killer rather than splitting threads. Pedro : Chat  14:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fish & Karate has already re-inserted the image in response to editors' concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful when ascribing motive - I reverted an edit that labelled a good faith edit as vandalism. I reverted myself when Duncan and a few others pointed out to me what I'd stumbled into.  Please note the page is now permanently protected for three days as the edit warring was getting silly. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#28c">fish &amp;<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#D33">karate  14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon removes the image
As seen on: http://theridiculant.metro.co.uk/2008/12/no-such-thing-a.html

It appears that Amazon has removed the backcover of the Scorpions' double-album box set that includes the offending picture from their website. This is possibly in response to the IWF controversy and might potentially be influenced by the incorrect assessment of the Guardian that this might lead to a total block of Amazon in the UK during the Holiday gift shopping season. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the image is still present on Amazon.com and other localized sites. P retzels Talk! 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on Amazon.com D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * it is here.Geni 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not available there anymore. --Elitre (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, silly reactionaries. Will The Scorpions' official site be next? [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Article within main encyclopedia?
Just wondering whether anyone thinks yet there is any need for an actual article within the main encyclopedia yet. I'm not sure that we need one yet, but with a lot of mainstream press (and the possibility of Amazon being put on the blacklist), there may be need for an article on the controversy. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that so far the Virgin Killer article details the issue enough. I don't think it's notable enough for an entire article on its own yet. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now it's news. After the dust has settled it can be split off.  Within a few days of this being "case closed" or by early January even if the controversy is still brewing, there should be a demand for an article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am sure the Virgin Killer article details the issue brilliantly. But as a resident of the United Kingdom, I'm not allowed to see it! doktorb wordsdeeds 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's one there now, since 20:14 (UTC), 8 December 2008.&mdash;Dah31 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lifting some of the blocks?
Because most IP addresses of the proxies are now on our XFF whitelist, it might be a good idea to lift the ban on these. We then have verification if the XFF is working, and if there is remaining traffic coming from those addresses. The biggest advantage is that those users will be able to use the ACC tool again if they need to, because I doubt that the ACC tool recognizes the XFF headers. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

fwiw
to echo what I've mentioned at Wikipedia Review - I hope we can react sensibly to this news, and not escalate things into false 'censorship' vs. 'naked children' polarity. I hope everyone can remain calm and allow that it really is probably quite sensible to have a discussion about how people might react to the imagery at the virgin killer article, and elsewhere. This wiki-idiot has been working a bit on a proposal about Sexual content, which is loosely related to this issue, and maybe it would be both a good idea, and look like a good idea for this discussion to happen.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the call for reasonable discussion, but I don't see how it is opposed to just taking the standard stance we take toward censorship. We have a stnading position on how we treat questions of "concerns" over portrayals of facts and images.  We politely acknowledge them, then note that our content will remain unchanged.  This is a case where wikipedia summarizes controversy and criticism of a notable image, not where we are posting something for the sake of posting it.  Further, this is just an internet blacklisting site.  They responded to an anonymous request to flag a website and have done so summarily.  That should not be conflated with community "concern" about something.  I know where you are coming from and I don't want to respond just to be disputatious (that's a word!), but I figured I'd chime in. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to say one thing. That image was the cover of a record album that was released in 1976. That was 32 years ago. It's been continuously available for purchase since then. And in the intervening 32 years NO ONE has been prosecuted, charged, arraigned, accused or indicted in any court anywhere ever for having anything to do with child pornography because of the production, distribution, possession or use of that album cover. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not in Europe. Nowhere. It is plainly, obviously, beyond any semblance of reason and without question a load of idiotic nonsense to suggest that there is anything illegal about that image. Do the folks who think it's child pornography honestly believe that they can see something in that image that no court or law enforcement agency ANYWHERE has seen in 32 years? Of all the issues and all the controversies I've seen on Wikipedia, by far the greatest volume of moronic commentary has been produced regarding this image. The only issue worth discussing here is how to get the nanny-staters in the UK to come to their senses. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * heh - see my comments about polarity, steven :-) I don't think it's helpful to split into two angry camps. You're spot on about the facts of the image status though, of course. Here's a 'not safe for work' example though of an image of a woman in a sexual context, where we have no idea how old she is at all. Presumably were she a minor, that image would be illegal, and currently we take it on faith from a contributor who's uploaded nothing else, that the image is both licensed appropriately, and legal. There's thin ice around, and hopefully we can get together and come up with a good path through it..... best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Here's one of a fully nude minor, easily younger than the girl on the album cover.  I should tell the IWF about that one.  I see the point about sexual images without any encyclopedic purpose (seriously, do we need the picture to visualize autofellatio?).  I think that too many of our sexuality related articles play host to needless uploaded self-nudes.  But we should separate that from cases where we host a non-free image because it has been the subject of criticism or commentary.  And I also think we don't help anything by getting into a panic over nudes (not saying you are, fo course) :) Protonk (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * totally agree about avoiding panic, Pro :-) (and don't think you should bother telling the IWF about that image - hopefully no-one is suggesting it's problematic?!) - your input at Sexual content would be marvellous :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I I was mostly being impish when I suggested telling them about it. Though I'm sure if I clicked through the "notification of outrage" form (or whatever), they would dutifully mark it as child pornography.  I'll take a look at the essay, thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I highly doubt they would mark the infamous Kim Phuc Phan Thi as child pornography. While I don't believe the Virgin Killers image is or should be consideredchild pornography, there is a vast difference between the two and I'm surprised that you don't understand that. Perhaps it'll help if you consider the imagehas been controversial since it was released whereas the infamous photo has not (or at least not for the same reasons) Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it look like I don't understand that? Jeez.  I'm sorry.  I thought they were the same thing.  Of COURSE they are different.  One is a poorly conceived album cover for a metal band from the 1970s.  The other is an iconic image of pain, suffering and disclocation that won the pulizter prize.  No.  They aren't the same.  But both have naked pre-pubescent girls in them in relatively full frontal nudity and neither are child pornography by any definition that would be upheld in a court in either England or the United States.  So, the cover of Virgin Killers, a subject of critical commentary and on this earth for 32 years was flagged on an anonymous tip line as child pornography by some prude.  They proceeded, like blacklisting sites, to give it a cursory once over and block it.  Because there is no way they would have done so if they were thinking about it at all.  This has nothing to do with the "controversy" surrounding the album cover.  This was someone seeing an image that they deemed offensive and an entire nation being forced to view content based on that decision.  My point was that from the standpoint of the net-nanny/blacklist site, there isn't likely to be a difference between an incredibly culturally significant image and an image of minor cultural significance.  Consequently, it behooves us to discuss this for what it is and providing a like image that this heavy handed effort would also attempt to censor does just that.  I wasn't, in fact, confused between the two.  Thank you. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The IWF spokesperson Sarah Robertson was also on BBC Radio Five earlier today (see ) and she seems to suggest that they assess whether an image is indecent in their opinion, regardless of its context. --Whimsical Oracle (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that while I, like most other sane people, have a strong dislike of child pornography, this isn't child porn. First off, there is a difference between porn and nudity. Pornography involves sexuality. As others have mentioned, are we going to ban all of those famous Christian paintings of cherubs? Cause that's child nudity.

Secondly, for those wanting to remove the image because they believe it to be unnecessary, the article is an academic discussion of the controversy surrounding the album image. Since it is a discussion about the controversy surrounding a still-legal image (as noted above, no one has ever been charged or prosecuted for making, selling, or purchasing that album), there is no reason why the image shouldn't be on the page. It isn't simple a gratuitous example of nudity or porn. Even the autofellatio image isn't excessive, unless you want to argue that the article itself is too taboo to be covered on Wikipedia. I've seen a few eyebrow raising and unnecessary images on Wikipedia and Commons, but these aren't in that category. Gopher65 <sub style="color:green;">talk 03:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the government's own definition says this is not pornography. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really at all about a debate being needed on the subject, because that has been raging for a long, long time. And Wikipedia isn't the place for that, at any rate. It can docucument the debate, and can be reflective of the current moires of society that spin out from it. For example, the article on The IWF. The only issue is how to negotiate the removal of Wikipedia from the filter put in place by IWF, and how it happened in the first place. That's not something we can do at a grass roots level. Harmonica (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in the Today interview, Robertson describes it as "an image of child sexual abuse". I'd like clarification on how the image shows the child being abused. The issue of outrage here is that the IWF, an independent and charitable foundation (not a government department) thinks that it can decide that, although not illegal, "it's probably better that people don't see this, because they might not like it, so we'll stop them accessing it" - without any government sanction or law to back them up. Warn people that the image might be offensive, yes, but don't indiscriminately block all access for everyone. They do not have the right to make that decision for us. Not to mention the fact that their block is hackneyed and ineffective, although that's partly the ISPs fault for not including the X-Forwarded-For headers. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Did the whole website just go down?
For about two minutes then I was looking at a blank screen for all of Wikipedia on all the articles. Was that just me... or everyone? D.M.N. (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Appears to be quite a few people... it's back but terribly slow. D.M.N. (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it went down for me, and when it came back it was terribly slow like we were being filtered. I'm going to check Virgin Killer again to see if the censorship has spread to America. -MBK004 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not censorship for me as of yet. Don't think that was what the problem was. -MBK004 21:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I never got a "Wikimedia Foundation error" like I normally do when a technical error occurs, I just got a blank screen like what I get with the Virgin Media page. For a second I thought IWF were censoring the whole site. =( D.M.N. (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I almost wish they would do just that, since that would almost certainly be one of the last things they ever did... TH (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a biot of a silly comment that assumes that the IWF does no good. What do you prefer, that nobody protects the internet fromt he very real scourge of child porn. While the IWF may have been wromng in this casse it does not follow they are always wrong or not needed. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly prefer that nobody "protects" the Internet in the way that IWF are trying to do it, yes. They should go after the sites, not the users. This half-assed attempt at censorship does more damage than good and as has been mentioned many times already it doesn't stop those who want to from bypassing it, at all. TH (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The people who need protecting are children who might be exploited, but the IWF doesn't do anything about that. As far as I can tell the only thing the IWF does is "protect" people from seeing potentially offensive images.  They don't go after child pornographers, they just hide them from the eyes of Brits. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was one of the WMF's sysadmins, it had nothing to do with the UK ISPs. Fixed now. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment, the Internet Watch Foundation may well be in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any block should be clearly indicated, and failure to to this by producing HTTP 404 errors is probably illegal.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the ISP's proxies that are producing the fake 404s, not the IWF. The IWF merely provide the ISPs with a list of "banned" URLs. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously claiming you or any of us have the human right to observe child pornography. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly. He's merely pointing out that some ISPs are producing error messages which clearly aren't true.  Surely it would be better to say "this is a page which may be construed as child pornography, and has been blocked" rather than "Page not Found"? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Serious question - what about anyone who has added text to the article from the UK who now finds their work (whom will have no connection at all to "potentially illegal" image(s) and will have contributed to the article legally) now censored? --tgheretford (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Squeakbox, I can't speak for Black Kite, but as long as album covers like the one at issue are classified as child porn by someone's definition, then I will vehemently claim that I ahve a human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF, and as long as I don't market it as child pornography. It is only when the definition is tightened up to something reasonable that I will drop that claim.  I think many Wikipedia editors agree with me.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my life's fondest wish to look at dubious images of pubescent girls on the Internet. However, the utter shambles here is one of the biggest challenges that Wikipedia has ever faced.  The Internet Watch Foundation block is the cause of the fake HTTP 404 messages, see Qui facit per alium facit per se.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I was only commenting on the fake 404 notices, not the issue itself. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was an unrelated error by one of the Wikimedia site admins. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Affected locations
Does the noticebaord's Affected locations section have any relevance? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not, since it is affecting 95% of the residential population. We could list all those locations... but that would be pointless *rolleyes*.  [ジャム] [talk] 00:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be more useful to mention locations where it is accessible, the other 5%. My vpn UK connection certainly still works. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 95% figure is the IWFs figure and I strongly suspect it is not consistent with reality.Geni 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Geographical location seems to be pretty irrelevant within the UK, since the censorship is dependant on ISP rather than local phone exchange. It would probably be more useful to replace this with a section on each ISP (Error messages/codes, which pages blocked, XFF headers working etc), maybe bringing in info from the scraggy Notes section under the IP address table. I would do this, but I'm late for work already! Eve Hall (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall we move it to the talk page, and close it, then? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs inclusion
Does our list of blogs have to be justified by notability guidelines? If not, I want to know if someone would revert me if I added mine and several others I found, and if so, why blogs by people w/o wikilinks are listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just good judgment. If it isn't a significant source or a particularly insightful source (the OWF news release has a particularly good technical description without being techy), I wouldn't add it.  But if the blog itself is notable, probably good to give it a go. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. If the post adds something new and is not just a recap of everything that's happened, please go ahead right away. However, to be listed in the Mainstream section I'd definitely expect a source to have a WP article. P retzels Talk! 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the encyclopaedia article
Our current article on this is at IWF block of Wikipedia. There is a talkpage discussion here as to whether that is inaccurate and what the correct tile should be. One possible title is Internet Watch Foundation blacklisting of Wikipedia. Is this accurate? Suggestions and comments welcome at the talkpage. Skomorokh 04:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I boldly moved the article to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Google trends
http://www.google.com/trends?q=Barack+Obama%2C+Virgin+Killer%2C+Financial+crisis&ctab=0&geo=GB&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=0 On how information on a "potentially illegal" "pornographic" album cover became as sought after as information on Barack Obama, and even more than a financial crisis. The stuff that books are written about :D --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this going to be a problem?
Just seen this article in German - Indizierung des Scorpions-Albumcovers "Virgin Killer" soll geprüft werden. Can read virtually no German myself but the google translation seems to suggest someone is reporting the image in Germany. Can someone who does know more German than me say if this might lead to the same sort of problem in Germany? Davewild (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it was added to a filter that is used in schools and stuff in Germany. But i'm not 100% sure. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what it says. The bit about a filter list refers to the UK/IWF situation. I am writing a short summary. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Approximate summary: The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien maintains a list of potentially harmful media. Whoever distributes media which are on the list must make sure not to give them to anyone under 18. The self-control body of providers of multimedia services applied for the Virgin Killer image to be put on this list, saying that while not child pornography, the photo shows a child in an unnaturally sexually accentuated pose. There is a link to an earlier article about a judgement saying that this is in fact sufficient reason to put a photo on the list. The Scorpions feel awkward about the latest events, saying that the cover was produced by the creative team of their record company, but that it had become an indelible part of their past. Founder Rudolf Schenker explains that those were different times, the only negative reaction in Germany had been a single newspaper calling it an "impudence". --Hans Adler (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion: The German language Wikipedia is not affected by this, since it has stricter rules that do not allow showing copyrighted album covers. (No fair use doctrine in German copyright law, which is fundamentally different.) It seems likely that the English language Wikipedia is not affected either, at least at first, since it appears that German youth protection laws are currently only enforced against media that originate from Germany or target a German market. But there are plans to introduce internet censorship of child porn. By the way, whether the image is put on the list seems to be mainly a matter of enforceability, since distributing such images to anyone is always illegal according to a German law (§ 4 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 JMStV). In other words, whether en.wikipedia is already breaking this law (in an area that is currently not being enforced) depends on the geographical/linguistic scope of this law, which I could not figure out. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation will be different between common law and civil law countries and between countries with written constitutions and common constitutions and between EU countires and non-EU countries and so forth. Since we can't please all of the countries all of the time, historically the English Wikipedia has made a point of not bothering to try to please any of them. (Ironically, the only thing we do take a hard line on internationally is the scourge of child pornography, which is welcome on no Wikimedia project for any reason - proving again that the image in question != kiddie porn). All in all, let's not worry on EN WP about the meta issues. But feel free to worry on Meta, of course. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: the only things we do take a hard line on internationally are those things which would be illegal to host on any Wikipedia project web site in that web site's host country.  This includes child porn, non-fair-use copyright issues, and thanks to the United States's First Amendment, a very small list of other things.  If Wikipedia were based in, say, China, Saudi Arabia, or England, that short list would be considerably longer. Basically, if Wikipedia or its employees, officers, or service providers would face likely legal action in their own countries no matter which part of the project the item was on, then a hard line is taken.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion was about "the same sort of problem in Germany". The short answer was: yes, once the German internet censorship system that is currently being planned has been set up, it's likely that this kind of thing will happen in Germany, too. This wasn't about pleasing anybody, it was about what to prepare for. E.g. I believe it makes sense for WMF to get into a dialogue with large ISPs in the UK, but also in Germany, in order to make sure that Wikipedia is not disrupted when they start censoring. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:2008 IWF action?
Wouldn't this be better putting as its own Wikipedia-space page rather than as a subpage to make it easier to find? It'll probably be useful to keep for historical reference if nothing else. -Halo (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When there has been 24 hours of silence here (probably in about 48 hours of the last filter being removed), move the page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, lets take some more time, and then move it. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Emigrate from Britain?
I'm not sure about this option, but I was thinking about emigrating to a country without internet filtering and good internet acces... like Japan? Just my thought, comments welcome. --Marianian (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rather fond of Sweden myself. Ian ¹³  /t  22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These things only happen when I'm not home in Belgium. You should go there: it's a wonderful place. I wish I was home to check what Belgacom had done; I suspect "fuck all", since "speedy reaction" is not something you attach to any reaction over here. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to live in a nanny state, you might want to reconsider Sweden: Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action
 * Forget Sweden! I was there at the time of Ken Starr's report into the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I recall using a Swedish public library's Internet terminal to read a BBC News story about the scandal, only to find that the page was blocked... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Damnit. Norway maybe? Ian ¹³  /t  21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Get a vpn, it costs but its not expensive and it will fool web sites into thinking that you are outside the UK when you aren't. And if you do emigrate, as millions of us have, you'll need your UK vpn to get you into your favourite UK only online content. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, a person I was working with some time ago, who has a house in Spain, recommended exactly the same approach - he uses it to keep up with EastEnders on the BBC iPlayer. Not exactly my cup of tea but if it floats your boat, fair enough! -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rather a good idea really. Well, not the watching Eastenders bit... :) Ian ¹³  /t  21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Block notice
I have updated User:Lucasbfr/UKBlock to reflect the fact that the IWF have revoked their block, even though many users are still unable to edit. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Top man 81.156.229.253 (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A must read
I found this opinion piece by Neil Gaiman, that he wrote several days before all this. For everyone interested in this IWF issue, I think it is an absolute must read. It reflects on many of the problems that exist when people have the desire to censor "icky speech", as well as some historic context towards censorship in the UK. I found it one of the best things I read this week (and trust me, I read a LOT about censorship this week :D ) --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ifd
. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it has been speedily closed. The debate will have to happen reasonably soon as we havent properly debated this in months but given what has happened right now it is premature. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interview transcripts
I see that User:Scott MacDonald in this edit has removed the interview transcripts.

I think that's a mistake. It is relevant for the project to have a record of what happened, and how this event evolved, that will remain after other websites have gone, since this was a highly visible event that directly affected the project. That is a legitimate legal use under the law; and we should recognise that it is an appropriate use here for the good of the project.

Here is a reinstatement of the discussion that was held previously:


 * Is this a copyvio? Should anyone care? [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 10:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. Both UK and US law have fair dealing/fair use copyright exceptions to allow reporting of current events.
 * Yes, but it violates our fair use policy, which restricts fair use material to articlespace. See WP:FU and Non-free content criteria exemptions. Daniel (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to apply WP:IAR. The transcript is exceptionally valuable here in the context of this page, as background for shaping WP's response going forward, to show how the largest number of people in the UK will have been exposed to the story.  Jheald (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IAR doesn't overrule the Foundation's fair use licensing resolution, sorry. The Foundation is sovereign even above any Wikipedia policy, including ignore all rules. It clearly defines the limits as "articles". Daniel (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Read the Foundation resolution. It doesn't actually define "articles" as an inviolable limit. (2) WP:IAR always applies - if the circumstances are such as to justify it. This is sufficiently serious.  It touches the project directly. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've read it, and applied it more times than you have. The relevant clause is "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" - the only part of that which applies is the third criteria, and it specifically states that it must be articles; unless you're going to claim this is a "historically significant" event, in which case your judgement as to this incidents' relative significance leaves a lot to be desired. Furthermore, no, IAR cannot overrule a Foundation resolution. EVER.' Daniel (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "with limited exception" is what applies here. This is a limited exception. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A whole transcript isn't a limited exception. A quote or two, maybe, but not a whole block of copyrighted text. Daniel (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't say "Their use, except a quote or two", it says "Their use, with limited exception". Not the same thing at all. DuncanHill (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any exception must be limited. Daniel (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec). (1) Note the words with limited exception -- in exceptional circumstances, other uses are possible. (2) The Foundation resolution is intended to be about the normal business of writing an encyclopedia. But this is something directly about the project itself. The resolution was never intended to be applied to limit our ability to assess and respond to events directly touching the project. Jheald (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use directs us to use no more than required to achieve the identified purpose. In this case, the identified purpose requires the whole text.  That possibility is recognised, both in UK and US law.  Jheald (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also raised this earlier at: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in order to elevate it, but it hasn't caught and might benefit from moving elsewhere.  —Sladen (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (and Scott) are right. Quote the transcripts under fair use in the articles on the IWF issue by all means, but not outside article space. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this level of detail is inappropriate for a general encyclopedia article. But it is essential to have as a reference for the project.  Jheald (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These transcripts are far more relevant to Wikipedia internal than they are to Wikipedia readers.  Which is, the reason they were created.  —Sladen (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WikiNews (or even Wikiquote?) may be more appropriate in that case. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Their legal fair-use case wouldn't be as solid. They don't have the same need that the core project does to make sure that there is a complete verbatim transcript rather than a paraphrase. Jheald (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Our non-free media policy does not allow fair use claims outside of article space. I have removed that material again. DO NOT REPLACE IT, or you may be immediately blocked.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our non-free media policy does allow limited exceptions outside article space. Please do not use the threat of blocking when you are in an editorial dispute. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely someone here has a website hhere they could host these or someone could pastebin them. Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't be hosting them, this would stop the drama.John Reaves 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Em? How is that ethical. Anyway, linking to copyvios is disallowed.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Websites come and go. This is a resource the project needs, and that the project has far and away the strongest legal case to host. Jheald (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * MBisanz has issued a final warning to me following my single revert, I feel other editors should be warned of the likely consequences of this disagreement over the interpretation of policy. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4)As the author of three of the transcripts, surely they are not actually copyrighted text - they were all created by Wikipedia users. The situation would be different if they were copied from the actual media source but as they are they are my personal interpretation of what was said. I, and the other transcribers, have released our contributions under the GFDL, so as long as we're not using the actual copyrighted broadcast (the audio/video, as they were radio and one TV) there should be no issue. P retzels Talk! 22:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, it doesn't work like that. Your transcripts are derivative works and thus not entirely yours to license as you please. No, if fair use doctrine won't help us here, I'm inclined to say we can't include them. &mdash; Dan | talk 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, as the fair-use doctrine does apply here, we absolutely should include them. Jheald (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be really gratifying to see some quoting of policy here. Jheald and DuncanHill, what part of our licensing policies do you believe support making an exception for this page? (I hope we can agree that what we're talking about here is an exception to Non-free content criteria exemptions, which reads "[non-free content] should never be used on ... the Project namespace" (emphasis in original).) &mdash; Dan | talk 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion above about "limited exceptions"? 'Cos that would be the bit. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC) - It would be gratifying if people didn't edit their questions after I have replied to them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) This is the question which I answered, not the one which now appears above. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, we edit-conflicted by a few seconds, which I wouldn't think is that big a deal. Anyway, I do see the discussion, and in particular I see that some people think this page is a good candidate for a "limited exception" and others don't. The trouble is that the policy gives us no basis at all for deciding who's right, so we're left looking for a default decision. My judgment, for what that's worth, is that quoting an entire segment is not appropriately limited. Quoting a few juicy bits, on the other hand, with a link to the audio original, is probably limited enough. Will that do? &mdash; Dan | talk 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Board approved policy is clear "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." The exemptions are listed here and this is not one of them. You are entitle to say policy stinks and argue for a change. But the policy is not flexible. IAR does not apply.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to refer to the Foundation resolution, quote it accurately, as it has been in the box above. Note particularly the phrase "with limited exceptions".  The normal case is set out at WP:NFC.  What is being argued here is that this justifies a limited exception.  Jheald (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting verbatim. See Non-free content criteria #9.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC is not the Foundation resolution. The Foundation resolution is the Foundation resolution.  Per the terms of the Foundation resolution, this is a justifiable limited exception to WP:NFC.


 * (ec, continuing) Secondly, per WP:POL, you should always think why policy exists, rather than blindly apply it. Policy exists to allow content re-usability, and to stop WP and downstream reusers getting sued.  That is why usually we absolutely forbid NFC out of article space -- because there is no legal fair-use case that we can have it there.
 * This is an exception. Because there is a legal fair-use case to have it here, and because it is something the project needs.
 * We have a policy that says in exceptional cases we make exceptions to policy. It is called WP:IAR.  Such exceptional cases are very rare, but this is one of them.  Jheald (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To some extent, you just have to use common sense. While I would agree that a full transcript probably goes beyond fair use, to argue that we can't have any fair use copyrighted text on anything other than an article page is beyond the pale. Are people suggesting that if all we had was a single sentence quote from the interview that it should be removed as a copyright violation? Becuase that would, in fact, be a copyright violation, but one allowable under fair use. No, I think it's obvious that fair use is a concept that we apply broadly outside article space, whether we've codified that or not. The question should be, rather, whether this qualifies as fair use or not. I mean, I notice that we've got such a violation on ANI right now:  where somebody has posted a pithy quote. If you really think that fair use does not apply AT ALL outside of an article, you should start an edit war about that one, too. Or you could act like a reasonable editor and recognize that this is not a black and white issue, but rather, one with shades of gray. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a possibility we can sidestep this whole argument. If nobody objects, I will contact the relevant sources to ask for permission to use transcripts of their reports. P retzels Talk! 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Permission isn't good enough, they will need to release the content under the GFDL license. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WOW ! First, as a former broadcaster I'll tell you that this work ("transcript") is pretty much a work for hire (in US parlance) and IS copyrighted by the BBC. HOWEVER - there's no way to actually get that text from the BBC,per the BBC itself, so, there's a good case for IAR right there.

Second, anyone who knows anything about the BBC (shortwave or other) knows that the BBC rarely EVER responds to listener requests, except when the specifically solicit them. So, odds are, asking them for permission will not work either. Sound like a really good case for IAR. I support IAR in this. Leave the "transcript" in. It's like a paragraph, if that  KoshVorlon  > rm -r WP:F.U.R     14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)