David is right, if they haven't a clue about techniques to manage a modern website - techniques that are over ten years old - then they are quite simply not fit to manage any sort of filtering blacklist.
I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers. Brian. -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 20 February 2009 19:47 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block 2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > 2009/2/20 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: >> They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of >> organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which >> one wikipedia uses. > > You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? > That seems pretty incompetent to me... Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px- Virgin_Killer.jpg but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
