Wikipedia removes ACMA-censored link

 

Editors at Wikipedia have removed a link to an ACMA-blacklisted web site that sat uncontested for over 24 hours in the main body of ACMA's Wikipedia entry.

The link, which directs readers to a site containing graphic imagery of aborted foetuses, was inserted into ACMA's Wikipedia entry by a campaigner against Internet filtering to determine whether Australia's communications regulator had a double-standard when it came to censoring web content.

The very same link, inserted in a post on broadband forum Whirlpool, motivated ACMA to serve the forum's hosting company Bulletproof Networks a 'link deletion notice' and the threat of an $11,000 fine.

After many hours unnoticed on ACMA's Wikipedia page, the link became the subject of "warring" between several Wikipedia administrators in the lead up to it's removal.

Administrator 'Nunh-huh' deleted the link first and warned users not to "misuse Wikipedia by using it to tweak the nose of your local censor."

Referring to the article posted yesterday on iTnews, the administrator argued the link was only added to ACMA's page because Australian law forbids it.

As the link disappeared and re-appeared over the following hours, a user posting under the name 'Reasonwins' asked for some clarity from administrators as to why the link kept being removed. 

"Would you explain your reason for deleting content? I ask that you justify deletions so it's not viewed as censorship or frivolous."

The user argued on the Administrator's Noticeboard that the link was "actually very relevant to ACMA right now."

A Canberra-based user posting under the name 'Bidgee' again stepped in to remove the link, requesting protection of the Wikipedia page and asking users to "stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point."

"I don't believe it's relevant to add the web site link in the article as it's clearly trying to bring Wikipedia into the issue, which is something the community doesn't need."

"OK look, if you want to force your opinion on the page while ignoring three days of edits by 10+ people, I'm not going to war with you," 'Reasonwins' replied.  "[But] I do think it is poor form."

Finally, an editor posting under the name 'SoWhy' protected the page, disallowing any further edits until March 25, citing "excessive vandalism" and "disruption to prove a point."

Interestingly, the link still seems to have slipped in at the bottom of ACMA's page, listed as a "prohibited link".


Wikipedia removes ACMA-censored link
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Xero prepares for key feature coming in 2015
Dec 19, 2014
Xero users will be able to track how their business is comparing to other Xero users.
More 4G from Optus in Darwin
Nov 21, 2014
Click to see where Optus has expanded coverage to the suburbs near Darwin.
Optus steps up regional 4G coverage
Nov 20, 2014
Once 700Mhz services are working, Optus claims regional users will have a "faster and more ...
This Huawei 4G phone costs $99
Nov 12, 2014
The $99 Huawei Ascend Y550, available through Vodafone, enters the budget market as one of the ...
4G smartphones: Microsoft's Lumia 830
Nov 7, 2014
Microsoft has announced its flagship Windows Phone, the Nokia Lumia 830 4G, will be available in ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  3%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  7%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  2%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1778

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?