Wikipedia child image censored

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#1

Wikipedia child image censored
A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.
Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.
Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.
They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.
But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.
The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.
An IWF spokeswoman suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.
Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.
Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.
"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.
The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.
Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.
I just did a Google Search thinking since many people complained, it can't be that bad... ... ...

... bloody hell, it is that bad. I can't belive the Scorpions would do that. :thumbdown:


EDiT:
Well done to the ISP's!!!
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
#2
Yeah, that's bad.

I think this is where the US law that allows it for scientific/artistic/political/literary value is nonsense. Would anybody miss it if the album had never had that artwork? Of course not. And even if it was art on the level of the Mona Lisa, I don't think it excuses the use of child pornography.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#3
Oh boy, not this crap again.

I guess I'm in the minority when I don't see this as a major issue or at least as big a deal as some people made it out to be. Her privates are not seen and it's not like she's getting ganbanged. I think this speaks volumes as to the level of shame people are taught about their bodies and it's kind of scary in all honesty.
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#4
The photograph itself is no more lewd or pornographic than the one on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind, which met with little, if any, public protestation or censorship upon its release. Had I seen this image in an coffee table art book I might not have given it a thought. What I do find disturbing, though, is the manner in which the picture is presented: the 'cracked glass' overlay makes a focal point of the girl's genitalia, evoking the subtextual spectre of pathological sexual violence toward children and, juxtaposed with the ambiguously interpretable motto "Virgin Killer," the material becomes not art at all but something much more prurient and altogether uncelebratory of the unclothed human form.

Would I have censored it? Probably not. The image is legal, by current American decency standards. But that doesn't mean that I think it holds any redeeming value as artwork. This is definitely not something I consider to have been conceived in good and responsible judgment and I damn sure wouldn't have it up on my wall. I agree with former Scorpions guitarist Uli Jon Roth, who later said that the 1976 album cover "was done in the worst possible taste."
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#5
Whether or not it is inappropriate is irrelevant. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a duty to report history as it happened- to censor this is to censor history. Sure it may be just an album cover, but there are plenty of aspects of more integral history that most people would find disgusting.
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#6
Whether or not it is inappropriate is irrelevant. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a duty to report history as it happened- to censor this is to censor history. Sure it may be just an album cover, but there are plenty of aspects of more integral history that most people would find disgusting.
Would you want pictures in their entries about child pornography and sexual torture, assuming those pages existed? I'm 100% sure the answer is no, and I'm not saying that the "Virgin Killer" cover is either of those things, but by an extension of your logic Wiki would be censoring a part of history by omitting such pictures. The issue of legality aside, I think that their 'duty' to provide unfiltered information is overshadowed by their moral obligation to not publish material that is generally considered to be offensive. While, as I've said, I might not have made the same decision as Wiki did in this case, I can nonetheless very easily see why they would pull the picture after having received a complaint. It's a grey area and they're simply erring on the side of caution.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#7
Oh boy, not this crap again.

I guess I'm in the minority when I don't see this as a major issue or at least as big a deal as some people made it out to be. Her privates are not seen and it's not like she's getting ganbanged. I think this speaks volumes as to the level of shame people are taught about their bodies and it's kind of scary in all honesty.
It's not about being ashamed of her body. If she was an adult, I might not want it easily accessible by little kids, but I'd see no reason to block it entirely. But she's a little kid.

The photograph itself is no more lewd or pornographic than the one on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind, which met with little, if any, public protestation or censorship upon its release. Had I seen this image in an coffee table art book I might not have given it a thought. What I do find disturbing, though, is the manner in which the picture is presented: the 'cracked glass' overlay makes a focal point of the girl's genitalia, evoking the subtextual spectre of pathological sexual violence toward children and, juxtaposed with the ambiguously interpretable motto "Virgin Killer," the material becomes not art at all but something much more prurient and altogether uncelebratory of the unclothed human form.
While Nirvana's album shows more, our society has decided that it's okay for babies to be naked.

And like you said, the cracked glass imagery, plus the not so subtle title, all add to the problem.

Whether or not it is inappropriate is irrelevant. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a duty to report history as it happened- to censor this is to censor history. Sure it may be just an album cover, but there are plenty of aspects of more integral history that most people would find disgusting.
It's possible to report history without including pictures. Many conquering armies raped and pillaged, yet I haven't seen any Wikipedia images of a rape.

At a minimum, Wikipedia could have an alert letting people know what they're going to be seeing, and that it might be objectionable.
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#8
As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.
An IWF spokeswoman suggested as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.
Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
What's ironic is that I'm sure more British users who were once unaware of the cover will go looking at the "famous" blocked picture now using another website. Will they block all other websites where you can find this picture?
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#9
My ISP has not blocked the page or the image! I've seen it before anyway in an all time list of worst Album covers and I'll be honest and say I do not see the image as pornogrphic, degrading or offending.

If she was an adult(or a baby) it would not be considered pornograhic or offensive. Take for example the "Two Virgins" John and Yoko album cover, they are grown adults and you can see a lot lot more, is that album pornographic. Does the boandary of what is pornographic or offending change because it is a child. Would that not be wrong of us to force an opinion of sexual depiction "just" because it is a minor of a certain age? Is that not hypocritical to the cause of concern by those who see it in that manner.
Why does a picture of a naked child have to be automaticaly linked with connotations of child abuse?


Wade, there are plenty of graphic and disturbing images on wikipedia, If you want to see one do a search for "Phan Thi Kim Phuc".