Wikipedia this month was placed on a child porn blacklist by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) for having an image on its site of a nude, pre-pubescent girl that may be a breach of the U.K. Protection of Children Act. The site has since been removed from the blacklist, as of this week, but the issue raises many questions about Wikipedia, its standards on questionable content, and censorship on the Internet.
The image is part of an entry about Virgin Killer, an album from a German heavy metal band, The Scorpions. Upon request from the IWF, a U.K. organization designed to allow people to report exposure to possibly illegal content on the Internet, six ISPs -- Virgin Media Inc. (Nasdaq: VMED), O2 (UK) Ltd. , Easynet Ltd. , PlusNet plc , Demon , and Opal Telecom Ltd. -- rerouted Wikipedia traffic to block access to the image and, in some cases, the page.
But in the process of blocking content, the ISPs, by placing non-X Forwarded For (XFF) proxies -- the standard for identifying originating IP addresses -- between Wikipedia and its users, caused editors in the U.K. to appear as if they were coming from the same IP range. As Wikipedia regularly bans IP addresses of those it considers "vandals," once someone in the U.K. misbehaved on the site, most U.K. editors were blocked from editing.
"The ISPs involved in this incident effectively scrubbed user IP identity [from] most U.K. users editing Wikipedia. That created a huge problem for us administrators," says Jonathan Hochman, an administrator for Wikipedia, in an email.
"ISPs need to be smart about Web 2.0," he notes. "We need more identity on the net, not less. If they need to proxy or filter traffic, they should not do so in a way that obfuscates user identity."
On the other hand, according to author and entrepreneur (and regularWikipediacritic) Andrew Keen, these consequences point less to the problem with ISPs and censorship, and more to a basic problem with Wikipedia.
"If they were a conventional media company and they had real editors, if it didn't run on anonymity and everything was transparent or accountable, then you wouldn't need any of this," says Keen. Keen credits the IWF for its work in England and expects that Wikipedia will "collide with more powerful, less sympathetic organizations than IWF" going forward.
"The IWF is a fantastic organization, and it's done a huge amount of good, and I don't think anyone could argue with fact that child porn on the Internet is a profound curse."
While this particular image wasn't "overt child porn," says Keen, it "came close to taking advantage of a pornographic image of children."
But as far as determining what is or is not appropriate, says Hochman, "Wikipedia is neutral."
"We publish whatever is legal in the jurisdiction where our servers reside. We can't reduce our content to the set of things that nobody anywhere on Earth objects to. There'd be very little left."
True , ideally there is no reason to find porn in an encyclopedia unless its on the human anatomy page. It shouldn't be anywhere where it catches you by surprise.
but, for wickedpaedia, as for any source you may refer to, it is well to check into the reputation of that source a little bit. "Jimbo" Wales isn't the sort of fellow you catch me spending time with.
Kicheko, good points, particularly about Wikipedia's reputation. I think as Wikipedia starts to run up against organizations like the IWF it will have to make some changes and a good idea might be, as you say, to issue a warning before displaying certain content. People should exercise their own discretion, but why would anyone expect to see something resembling child pornography in an encyclopedia?
Even though i believe it is the personal responsibility of the viewer to exercise discretion on what they view, it would be nice if atleast wikipedia gave an indication before showing the graphic that this graphic could be pornographic. Further it is important for its own reputation that it does not allow nude photos unless it is absolutely necessary. It is easier to destroy a reputation than it is to build one. Should it earn itself the pornographic tag ,even though it ends up not being blocked by ISPs when it gets down to different firms , academic institutions etc, it could still be blocked by admins.
I'm not sure I'm so onboard with that critique. In general, I do agree that Wikipedia should not expect the world to bend the way it works just for them, but I'm fairly sure that not blotting out identity is a fair request for them to make. IP's are information that we, at least passively, are willing to give out to internet services and they, in turn, makes use of them. For a third party (ISPs) to step in and unilaterally remove that information is the actual form of censorship, and I think you could even argue that it is not censoring Wikipedia but me personally.
I have a piece of data (my IP) that I want Wikipedia to recieve. How is blocking that any different than blocking my e-mail or any other information that I want to reach another party online? It is the online equivalent of the postal service blotting out my return address without my permission, in order to insure that I am not sending and recieving illegal materials.
Re: "Wikipedia makes choices - those choices (be they right or wrong) will
bring repercussions. It's not the rest of the Internet world that has
to change to make life easier for Wikipedia. Wikipedia makes choices
and they should be prepared to deal with the impacts of those choices."
Nice point, David. But this is the whole Web 2.0 mentality, isn't it? This way of thinking is what will continue to cause a lot of conflict for Wikipedia and others.
Censorship is not an easy question - as what one person or entity will censor is very different than what others might censor.
Governments have the "ability" to apply censorship. If it is not liked, people can vote them out, rebel, leave or accept it (though all too unfortunately in parts of the world people are too poor to exercise those options - but in those case censorship is not high on the list of their concerns versus more basic survival needs.)
Likewise, internet providers can apply forms of censorship. If my ISP blocks certain things I can choose to complain or go to another service provider.
I can personally execute the same censorship on my computer by using ad-blockers, spam blockers, porn filters etc. My wife can choose to learn how to use the software to override me, leave or put up with it. My kid's choices are obviously more limited.
Now if the "owners" of websites want to get the most number of visitors - they can choose to limit/control ads or content. They can also choose not too - and that means that some percentage of the population will not see/visit their site.
What amazes me is Wikipedia's wining. Wikipedia wants to allow anonymous editing - a conscious choice they make and they want everybody else to deal with it "If they need to
proxy or filter traffic, they should not do so in a way that obfuscates
user identity."
Wikipedia makes choices - those choices (be they right or wrong) will bring repercussions. It's not the rest of the Internet world that has to change to make life easier for Wikipedia. Wikipedia makes choices and they should be prepared to deal with the impacts of those choices.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been working with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) to look into the attacks on its Chinese servers.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Bad news! By eliminating the world’s digital divide we’re likely to create a new divide: the information divide, where we end up creating a two-tier Internet where access to 'quality' content is controlled and charged for by mega-corporations, and the gulf between information haves and have-nots is entirely dependent on how much money they have. This is, of course, an almost exact inversion of the current situation on the Internet – where access is expensive and content is free.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
Data mining of social networks means people might face unforeseen consequences as a result of their seemingly innocuous personal choices and associations.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
