Valkian Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 A dog with wings, was whistling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Ohhh it's a Mr Edinburgh quote. But so is "BLOODY SILLY FOOL!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s-island Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008 - The UK is becoming North Korea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer I can't get to it! I wonder how much else is censored!! This is bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Aaaaagh! I can't edit pages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s-island Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 When a page is censored in the UK, the entire domain is routed through a proxy server so all visitors from the UK will appear as the same visitor to the servers of Wikipedia. The consequence is that the entire country is blocked because it becomes an excellent way of doing vandalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 This is a sticky problem. Whilst this is clearly very uncool and I am completely opposed to any censorship of the net, I don't think ISPs should be forced not to do so. The real question is is there enough competition in the ISP market? People should be able to easily move to the 5% of ISPs that do not enforce the blacklist if they want to, can they do so? How easy is it to identify ISPs that have opted out, or indeed opted in? Are ISPs that offer uncensored access available in the same geographical locations as other ISPs? Personally I think the big ISPs should be broken up and advertising should be clearer on these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 Hmm. I could get through to it, but I wish now that I hadn't been able to. I think that Wikipedia should censor the image with a wee black strip or something. But I probably don't think it should be banned by ISPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 I've just done a quick google image search and really, I don't know what al the fuss is about. This is no more offensive or "potentially illegal" than, say, the work of Edward Weston. I really disapprove of this knee jerk think-of-the-children mentality which seems so prevalent these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Hmm. I could get through to it, but I wish now that I hadn't been able to. I think that Wikipedia should censor the image with a wee black strip or something. But I probably don't think it should be banned by ISPs. I won't even ask what it is.... ... ... What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Eh. Seen it. Ok... No. Agh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven_Q45 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Censorship_of_WP_in_the_UK_Dec_2008 - The UK is becoming North Korea! I don´t get it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 The idea is that countries which censor information like this tend not to be the freest of nations. Especially the criteria for what is censored appears to "potentially illegal" (which can be applied to literally anything) rather than actually illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 On a related note, I just saw this which is equally retarded. How can anyone possibly argue that this is right? EDIT: I had written this whole meandering rant about the article linked to above but ended up deleting it because it was a meandering rant. I left the two sentences above intact because I thought they were related enough to the conversation to still warrant inclusion. Unfortunately I hadn't realised that, if you don't notice the link, it looks like I'm refering to the quote from Gabez below. Gabez is not retarded - I love him. Wikipedia should censor the image with a wee black strip or something. I could not disagree more (although I agree they have every right to choose to do so). Your objection is purely based on what you find offensive to your culture not objective assessment. If you think that Wikipedia should censor content to be sensitive to someone's culture then you must surely agree that cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed must be censored. Indeed if I say I am offended by images of fruit then Wikipedia should also take my views into account and remove or censor any bananas, apples or strawberries. Ignoring this for a moment though let's assume that the image is pornographic in nature, how does putting a black strip over it make it OK? If I were to sell a book filled with nothing but child pornography that had been censored with black bars I would still be profiting from child abuse but, according to your logic, that's fine because you can't see anything naughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted December 9, 2008 Author Share Posted December 9, 2008 I think you might have responded to my point differently if you had heard me say it aloud: I meant "they should censor it," as in "they should be ashamed of themselves!!" not "they should censor it" as in "ban this sick filth now." Likewise, I think Wikipedia "should" censor swear words, not because putting asterixes in them changes them into other words, but because if I were Wikipedia, I should like to censor my swear words. Does that make sense? Also, when I support pirates, I'm such a terrorist lover; but when it comes to censoring child porn, suddenly I'm a Nazi! */Not serious* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Haha, yes I can see how the difference between "they should censor it" and "they should censor it" might not come across over the internet. I think what you're saying as that given the choice you would choose to have it censored, but you wouldn't want to impose censorship upon them right? I'm totally fine with that, as I say it's a cultural thing and you're totally entitled to your own particular culture. I've made my previous post clearer in case you thought I was calling you retarded - I was actually refering to an Australian judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 In related news, I'm going to report everyone in my neighbourhood with children to the IWF, since they're bound to have one or two nude pictures of their kid in the bath or on the beach. Sick people, the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven_Q45 Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Sick people, the lot of them. More than enough. But some of them are born with this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Haha, yes I can see how the difference between "they should censor it" and "they should censor it" might not come across over the internet. I think what you're saying as that given the choice you would choose to have it censored, but you wouldn't want to impose censorship upon them right? I'm totally fine with that, as I say it's a cultural thing and you're totally entitled to your own particular culture. I've made my previous post clearer in case you thought I was calling you retarded - I was actually refering to an Australian judge. How about "they should censor it"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 More than enough. But some of them are born with this... Actually, I was attempting to be sarcastic. You see, the problem with this is, where do you draw the line? Are parents still allowed to show baby pictures to other people? Is art still allowed, and who decides what is art and what isn't? I'm not saying I've got a clear-cut answer, but I think this Wikipedia censorship could set a dangerous precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neon_git Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Sanity prevails! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven_Q45 Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 @Haggis With born I meant that you can´t change how you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJoe Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted December 12, 2008 Author Share Posted December 12, 2008 Youch... that's terrible! But what a story! And what great puns -- only on the internet... I think what you're saying as that given the choice you would choose to have it censored, but you wouldn't want to impose censorship upon them right?Right... better expressed than I did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Hmm, it seems that the reports of his near-death were greatly exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.