Quote:
Internet censorship
Main article: IWF block of Wikipedia
In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia." The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users." EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".
Wikinews has related news:
British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations
Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations
In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release. Nevertheless, the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK"). In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "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." Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.
and that's why it's been censored, typical consertive christian groups
notice how religion is once again trying to blind us from what's in the world? they don't want to remove the picture, they want to remove the entire article! in my oppinion, they're idiots.
_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal