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
First look: Microsoft Outlook for iOS
[Update] Office productivity suite for iOS completed with Outlook.
 
NewSat defaults on $26m in overdue Lockheed payments
Jabiru-1 satellite build hits further hurdles.
 
IBM denies plans to cut 112k jobs
But admits to further restructuring.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest articles on BIT Latest Articles from BIT
Microsoft Outlook is now on iPhone and iPad: why could this be useful?
Jan 30, 2015
Microsoft today released Office for Android and Outlook for iOS - complementing the other Office ...
Franchisees, here's something you should know about
Jan 23, 2015
You need to know the Code if you are a franchisee or franchisor as the penalties are significant.
Xero users rejoice! Quoting has finally arrived
Jan 23, 2015
It has taken years, but Xero has at last added integrated quoting to its online accounting software.
You can now get a no-contract wi-fi tablet from Telstra
Jan 17, 2015
Telstra has began selling wi-fi tablets out of contract without paying extra for cellular ...
Get your business ready for 2015: mobile payments
Jan 2, 2015
These handy apps from MYOB, Xero and others can reduce your administrative load and improve ...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  36%
 
Your insurance company
  5%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  9%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  8%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  4%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  18%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  7%
TOTAL VOTES: 3084

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

   |   View results
I support shutting down the OAIC.
  27%
 
I DON'T support shutting the OAIC.
  73%
TOTAL VOTES: 981

Vote