Wikipedia 'may challenge' IWF ban
Updated on 09 December 2008
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales tells Channel 4 News that he is considering a court challenge to decision to block access to part of Wikipedia in Britain.
A number of British internet providers blocked a Wikipedia page referring to the 1976 album Virgin Killer after the online watchdog, the Internet Watch Foundation, described it as a potentially illegal image of child sexual abuse.
The block is meaning that millions of users in the UK are now unable to edit the encyclopaedia's pages.
'My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court'James Wales - Wikipedia founder
Commenting for the first time since most internet service providers in Britain blocked users from accessing part or all of Wikipedia, the website's founder Jimmy Wales spoke exclusively to Benjamin Cohen of Channel 4 News.
He said: "My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.
"The Internet Watch Foundation were clearly over reaching their remit when they blocked the text page on Wikipedia - there's nothing illegal about the description of the album. I'd also question their wisdom about trying to block the image itself."
Mr Wales, who was about to board a flight to India, told Channel 4 News: "There's no question that it's a dodgy picture, but it's an artistic protest made many years ago, but my concern isn't so much about the image - it's the ambiguous nature that they are acting in. It's not clear if they are over-reaching their authority.
'How do we draw up a boundary line that allows both routine internet expression and not paedophilia?'
When asked if it was unfair to single out Wikipedia, when not taking action against the other websites hosting the image, Mr Wales told Channel 4 News: "It's clearly unfair and reprehensible for them to go after some websites and not others. People are so up in arms now.
"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"
Mr Wales added: "How do we draw up a boundary line that allows both routine internet expression and not paedophilia? The Internet Watch Foundation's system has been in operation for a number of years. Is it out of date?
The knock-on consequences of their actions is that for many people in Britain it is now difficult to edit Wikipedia. 25 per cent of Wikipedia content originates in Britain, per head of population the UK is the largest contributor to the site.
He told Channel 4 News: "While in the long term, the UK won't go down the China route in blocking all the internet, it seems it's to me that we need to take a second to look at how the systems works. We seriously need a system that protects freedom of expression online."
What do you think?
Send us your views and links to news@channel4.com and we'll post the best online.
Your views
I am dismayed and amazed that the Wikipedia site has been affected by a so called censorship in the name of "protection against paedophilia" and yet not only are other sites with the same picture not being affected but also quite disgusting, offensive and, quite frankly, perverted and highly questionable pornographic web-sites are not at all "censored" in such a manner.
Perhaps THESE sites should be re-viewed as well as there are indeed some VERY questionable activities and sights freely available for view there. Abuse takes on a whole new meaning on those sites.
Geoff Bell
Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales can huff and puff all he likes, but he doesn't seem to realise there is more concern about potential child pornography in the UK than there is about a small amount of censorship.
Neil Baker
I think Wikipedia SHOULD take the IWF to court. What right does the IWF to censor an entire site based on one allegedly illegal picture? Is this the kind of picture that people like Langham, Glitter and many others are having their lives ruined for? This picture on the album cover and still available across the internet could be the chink in the curtain of propaganda that we are being bombarded with in the current wave of "paedo hysteria".
Presumably, a picture showing maimed children killed by RAF and USAF bombs in Iraq is absolutely fine, though. What a ridiculous nonsense this makes of the IWF and its claims to prevent child abuse!
Michael Mitchell
