Wikipedia Founder To Go To Court Over Scorpions Article?

Band Photo: Scorpions (?)
According to Computerweekly.com, the founder of Wikipedia has told Channel 4 News that he is considering challenging the decision to block access to part of Wikipedia in the UK.
Criticising the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) for blocking access in order to prevent UK users from viewing an image of a naked pre-pubescent girl taken in 1976, Jimmy Wales said IWF's actions have actually exposed more people to the image as it spreads throughout the web. The image in question was on the cover of an album by German rock band SCORPIONS.
The block has also meant that millions of users in the UK are now unable to edit the encyclopaedia's pages.
Commenting for the first time since most internet service providers in Britain blocked part or all of Wikipedia, Wales told Channel 4 News, "My first thoughts when I was told that the IWF 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 government has said that it expects all internet service providers (ISPs) to block sites on the IWF's blacklist. Wales said Wikipedia is still considering its position.
"The IWF was clearly over-reaching its remit when it blocked the text page on Wikipedia - there's nothing illegal about the description of the album. I'd also question its wisdom in trying to block the image itself," he said.
"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 way that [the IWF] is behaving," he added.
What's Next?
- Previous Article:
Alchemist Premieres New Video Online - Next Article:
A Perfect Circle Writing New Material
11 Comments on "Wikipedia To Go To Court Over Scorpions Article?"

5. writes:
Looking at this from a legal standpoint, Wikipedia cannot be liable because of what their users put on the site. Since anybody is legally able to put what they want on this site, much like Limewire in a different area, the service/website cannot be in danger of being fined unless they were given a take down notice.
Limewire has been sued in the past for the hosting of files but cannot be liable for what the users upload/download, even if they gave the vehicle that it can be done across. Limewire won the case.
If this actually goes to court because of something like this then it will not be wikipedia who gets charged. They have no way of monitoring everything that goes up on their website.
As for this album, it's an album cover. It's as if people are posting pornography on the site. All they should have done is removed it, but it can still be posted by other user(s). It's the internet, not a private website.
7. writes:
I would disagree with you Shredder - this is Wikipedia at it's best, fighting for information rights, something crucial for society. I love Wikpedia, not only for the info it gives me but for the ideals on which Jimmy Wales founded it on. Fight the good fight Jimmy!
8. writes:
I agree with the assessment about "the ambiguous way that [the IWF] is behaving." That's often an issue with people or organizations in power. And they need to be called on it to make them think a little more next time or get a second opinion from someone with a clue. The block of Wikipedia overreaching a LOT for one image. It's quite ridiculous. They could very easily have blocked the offending image itself.

9. writes:
Personally, I think it's dumb to block the page because, as with most things you shouldn't do, you'll want to do them anyway. So UK users and now anybody who reads this story will just look up the album cover on Google Images or any website that provides album artwork. Just by banning it, the UK will cause its internet users to want to see it, even if they didn't want to before. It's human nature.
To minimize comment spam/abuse, you cannot post comments on articles over a month old.
Supporter
1. BoltThrower writes:
The girl isn't very hot.