Activists Use Wikipedia To Test Aussie Net Censors

pnorth writes "Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of the Australian regulator's own Wikipedia entry. The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content. The very same link motivated the regulator to serve Aussie broadband forum Whirlpool's hosting company with a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine. Last night, the link became the subject of 'warring' between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to its removal, with administrators saying they didn't want to be used to prove a point."

Comments

The entire list is now on-line at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Firehose story here

Error in story

[spazzm]

The link has not been removed. It is at the bottom of WikiPedia's ACAM article as "Prohibited link".
The story pretty much describes the opposite of what happened - the page was protected because a minority of users (many of them IP users without a login) kept on removing the link.

Re:Error in story

[broken_chaos]

Check the history. The link was removed when the page was protected, and then re-added by someone else seven hours later for reason: "Restoring state to prevent a witch hunt or anything. Could people please assume good faith in future?".

Definitely sounds like a bit of an internal edit war, etc.

Update: full block list available on wikileaks

[serps]

For those who are interested, the Sydney Morning herald reports that the full internet filter list has been leaked. It's pretty interesting - there's a lot of not-actually-illegal content on it (including a dentist's site?).

It's interesting to note that this is the minimum that will be blocked in Australia; the gov may (and will) add to this. This sounds like much more of a test of the censors than what TFA writes about...

• Article on Wikileaks

Links are there and locked, now

[1u3hr]

"Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to a blacklisted web site ....

You might hope that Slashdot editors would CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINKS THEY POST and see the story is wrong at the time of being published. The current version of the page does indeed include the links, and it's been locked. Of course, the part of it being the subject of an edit war was true, and the linked Discussion page is a warzone.

mirrors

[serps]

ppl have been having issues, so here's some mirrors:

• http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://wikileaks.se/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt
• http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt

Re:mirrors

[SpazmodeusG]

Errr... Australia is currently marked as red on that chart. It is the only country not to have access to wikileaks.
Iran, China, Russia are all fine. You can access wikileaks from there. We Australians can't though.

Re:mirrors

[julesh]

From the list:

www.goat.cx, 2girls1cup.com

So Australia's legislating for taste, then?

(lots of IP addresses including some with reputable hosting providers like Verio)

So hard luck if you got them after the original user whose content was blocked, then?

partypoker.com, www.pacificpoker.com, pokerroom.com, coralpoker.com

OK, the obnoxious advertising is more than a little annoying, but blacklisting them? Isn't that a little extreme?

hogtied.com

Well-known US BDSM site, complying with all relevant US laws. Almost certainly not illegal in Australia, although I'm not an expert.

encyclopediadramatica.com

OK, I know they're blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia (with good reason), but blocking the entire site for an entire country -- a little extreme for being obnoxious, isn't it?

biz

Huh?? Not sure how their interpretation of this list works, but with a badly written filter this would probably block all .biz domains. With a well-written one it would achieve precisely nothing.

myusenet.net

A usenet service provider.

churchofeuthanasia.org

A site that seems to be intended to make a political statement about population control, although doing it in a rather crude fashion.

satanservice.org

A site of information about self-identified satanic religious groups.

libchrist.com

From the site: "Promoting Positive Intimacy and Sexuality Including Responsible Nonmonogamy or Polyamory as a legitimate CHOICE for Christians and others."

18yopics.com

So, they're not even pretending to have underage models, yet they get blocked anyway? Presumably on the off-chance that some of their models are younger than they claim?

www.torrentspy.com/directory/1503/adult/videos+%2d+hardcore

A list of hardcore movies, 99+% of which are totally legal (although, in most cases, copyright violations).

http://xfreehosting.com/

A hosting service provider's web site.

pornspaces.com

Another one.

http://pornstarpasswords.com/

A site with a collection of pictures of well-known US adult stars and a 18 USC 2257 compliance statement.

www.bowwowlyrics.cn

A site that, when it existed, probably contained lyrics and images relating to a vaguely-popular 80s New Wave pop group, and in a mirror of the Wikipedia/Scorpions debacle was probably blocked for hosting a copy of this album cover, which shows the naked back of the band's 15-year-old lead singer.

torrentfive.com

A generic bittorrent links site.

legal-models.info

A collection of non-pornographic images of children.

pussy.org

An average, run-of-the-mill hardcore porn site with US legal compliance statement.

sensualgetaway.com

A swingers' classified ads site.

piratetourism.com

"a full service travel agency, operating with the full license of the Ministry of Tourism and a member of the Association of Travel Agencies of Turkiye"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n

Two collections of somewhat-risque pictures that appear in wikipedia articles. None of these images appear to constitute child pornography.

Re:There are some things we shouldn't see

[GrahamCox]

... aborted fetii...

Your speech is certainly free - very free. Hint: "Fetii" isn't a word. I think you mean foetuses (or fetuses, if you insist on using the bastardised version of the language that is American English).

A history lesson

[RockMFR]

Censorship is one area where the behavior of Wikipedia as a whole is very predictable. Virgin Killer, AACS encryption key, Jyllands-Posten, etc... If you try to remove something controversial from Wikipedia and it gets publicized, it will get added back, usually with administrator support. If you make a really big fuss, the censorship effort will get its own article and it'll probably get mentioned in one of the articles about Wikipedia itself. WP:V + pro-free-speech admins = you're screwed.

Time to Karma-Whore

[Quothz]

I have not, personally, checked any of these links out, but here y'go, folks. Visit at your own risk, and all like that: The ACMA blacklist March 19 2009 * http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008 * http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm Aug 6 2008 * http://tgpme.com/ * http://newthumbs.net/ * http://bbs12.mail15.su/ * http://cybermovs.narod.ru/ * http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey/browse_thread/thread/e8a2eb7b73335439 * http://hrdpdfl8.paginas.sapo.pt/2/main.html * http://imgsrc.ru/main/search_re.php?str=&tag=&butt=ya&where=ya&nopass=on&cat=24&page=5 * http://lolitacj.freepimphost.com/ * http://mclt-sites.net/latvian/main/?sid=1189 * http://myusenet.net/files/0/alt.binaries.pictures.wals/0/index96.htm * http://ourworldkids.info/ * http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=girl+12+year+old+fuck+with+boy+13+year+old+in * http://tinygev.com/ * http://trueincest.com/ * http://www.crazydumper.com/go-young_russian_guy_drug_her_and_then_fuck_her-639842.html * http://fulltiltpoker.com/ * http://www.kackarhatila.com/custom/config/new/index.html * http://nasty-virgins.org/ * http://pretty-pretty.info/ * http://realcruelfamily.com/ * http://www.sexologic.com/hosted/media/...now-watch-while-we-fuck-your-girlfriend!,111.php * http://vi5search.com/ * http://www.wetdump.com/hosted/1036/slipped-some-pillz-in-her-drink-and-fucked-her-while-unconscious.html * http://top.angels-list.com/index.html?97 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://ganja.vipzax.com/ * http://shave.vipzax.com/ July 30 2008 * http://forced-news.com/ * http://sweets.maximimage.com/?ft=brightgirls.net * http://littlevirginstgp.com/ * http://cutiesveta.com/ * http://youngwetmodels.com/ * http://preteenmasha.com/ * http://forbi-dreams2.info/ July 28 2008 *

WP:POINT

[pfafrich]

This seems to be a classic case of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the merits of of linking/delinking wikipedia is not the appropriate venue. The sole reason for including something in wikipedia should be its encylopedic value.