2008/12/8 Artur FijaĆkowski <wiki.warx(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/12/8 K. Peachey <p858snake(a)yahoo.com.au>au>:
One
possible reason: these other sites are run by powerful corporations
with armies of lawyers.
That, or IWF is too dumb to realize that a album cover can
exist on a
site other than Wikipedia, To be honest to only block the site that
the issued report was about when the concerned image is a album/cd
cover is pretty stupid in my books.
It's very wise - attacking Wikipedia and only Wikipedia is great
method of promoting IWF itself.
I'm not sure that the IWF would want to be publicly recognised. They
already wield a lot of power as gatekeepers for 95% of UK internet
users, without any accountability or official standing. I'm not sure
what publicity and public awareness could achieve for them except
questions about their role and position. People tend not to like
unaccountable censorship and the organisations which carry it out.
In blocking the Wikipedia article and the collateral damage this has
caused, they haven't improved their standing, they have undermined
themselves. All of the news stories I have read regarding this are
either neutral or take an anti-censorship line (since this album is
available to buy in the high street and on Amazon, it doesn't make
much sense to blame Wikipedia, an objective encyclopedia documenting
the album).
Surely the IWF is the kind of organisation that would prefer to be
safely unknown, rather than publicised and questioned?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)