Wikipedia removes ACMA-censored link

By on
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".

Tags:

Most Read Articles

You must be a registered member of iTnews to post a comment.
| Register

Poll

How should the costs of Australia's piracy scheme be split?
Rights holders should foot the whole bill
50/50
ISPs should foot the whole bill
Government should chip in a bit
Other
Flash is heading towards its grave, and that's...
Great! Good riddance
Sad! Flash had some good qualities
Irrelevant. I don't care
What's Flash?
View poll archive

Whitepapers from our sponsors

What will the stadium of the future look like?
What will the stadium of the future look like?
New technology adoption is pushing enterprise networks to breaking point
New technology adoption is pushing enterprise networks to breaking point
Gartner names IBM a 'Leader' for Disaster Recovery as a Service
Gartner names IBM a 'Leader' for Disaster Recovery as a Service
The next era of business continuity: Are you ready for an always-on world?
The next era of business continuity: Are you ready for an always-on world?

Log In

Username:
Password:
|  Forgot your password?