Presumably Google performs a search of image descriptions and surrounding texts, and gives results showing where other sites host the images. I don't think that Google hosts these images itself - but it would be interesting to see if the IWF would take the enormously public step of blocking access to Google in order to block access to a particular file. On the other hand, the IWF removed even the Wikipedia version of the file from the blacklist... So most likely they won't do anything about Google. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Richard Weiss <richard.weiss(a)tvgenius.net wikipeia way -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] them Facebook is a private company. They can do what they want. The same ability that allows them to censor your gallery allows Wikipedia to give Archimedes Plutonium the boot. If you don't like it you can leave or fork. Oh wait. You can't fork. The data you and your friends have submitted into Facebook is stuck there. You don't have a realistic choice, just like most UK residents don't have a realistic choice to choose an uncensored ISP. I don't have a solution for the UK's censorship other than to point out that perhaps sites like ours ought to find ways to be more friendly to user-controlled truly voluntary filtering if we want to avoid outright censorship. But for facebook, there is a path out of that: http://opendefinition.org/ossd?action=show&redirect=osd I don't have a high opinion of facebook, so I can't suggest an open alternative… there may not be one yet. I know there is identi.ca vs twitter. Of course, an open service doesn't change the fact that you are already invested in facebook, nor does it resolve all the problems, but it's a necessary start. The [[network effect]] of sites like facebook means that breaking from them is hard, but when you use it you're adding to the problem, compelling others to join in giving up control to the faceless-website-company. But… Change has to start somewhere, someone needs to raise concerns and advocate it. To me it looks like facebook as nominated you. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On the other hand, the IWF removed even the Wikipedia version of the file from the blacklist... So most likely they won't do anything about Google.

2008/12/10 K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au>au>:

> Don't forget that was after jimbo said he was considering sueing > because even the IWF had it checked and it was only "possibly" > illegal, they never got confirmation, it would the same in court say > if someone was stopping people from entering a store and claiming > their carrot cake had rat poison in it without checking.

I doubt that was a significant factor. Looking at their statement the decision was based on the pragmatic position that it would not be possible to filter the image due to it's very wide distribution.

David Gerard wrote: You go too far. We censor actual child pornography out of Wikipedia too. There are limits and someone enforces them.

2008/12/10 K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au>au>:

>> On the other hand, the IWF removed even the Wikipedia version of the file >> from the blacklist... So most likely they won't do anything about Google.

> Don't forget that was after jimbo said he was considering sueing > because even the IWF had it checked and it was only "possibly" > illegal, they never got confirmation, it would the same in court say > if someone was stopping people from entering a store and claiming > their carrot cake had rat poison in it without checking.

I hadn't realised he had said that - does anyone have a link?

2008/12/10 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia+may+chal…