Wikipedia access blocked in Britain

The Last Word has exposed problems faced by American dissenters editing Wikipedia articles, but now this scourge seems to have spread across the ocean.

Great Britain is the home of the Internet Watch Foundation. The IWF is often described as a charity independent of government control or influence, but it gets funding from the European Union and in effect acts as the EU's Internet police.

The IWF maintains a list of websites for British ISP's to block. Although some of the blacklisted sites feature almost exclusively illegal material, the IWF added Wikipedia several days ago. This was prompted by a complaint regarding the entry about a Scorpions album from 30 years ago that featured a crude, tasteless, offensive sleeve.

As offensive as the album jacket was, the IWF went about the matter the wrong way on several fronts.

For one, the IWF doesn't just list content but blocks it outright. It literally censors content even before it's found to be illegal, thereby practicing prior restraint. This includes not just pictures but also written material.

The Scorpions album with the crude sleeve is still sold by music stores and online retailers in Britain. Why is a Wikipedia article about the album blocked, while it's legal to sell the sleeve?

The IWF blocks not just the picture but also the text of the Wikipedia article. The text itself is not offensive.

Further, the IWF isn't even honest about how it blocks Wikipedia. It makes it appear as if it's just a missing webpage and not blacklisted.

And finally, the IWF's blacklist prevents almost all customers of British ISP's from editing any article on Wikipedia - regardless of topic.

I suspect that the IWF actually wasn't too concerned about the album jacket and was actually trying to suppress information about political topics that people might publish on Wikipedia. After all, by keeping folks from editing Wikipedia, it also kept them from removing the offensive record jacket. (Wikipedia admins also refuse to remove it, as the sleeve has not been ruled illegal.)

Why else would the IWF block editing of millions of inoffensive Wikipedia articles and say it's because of an offensive picture that accompanies one entry?

The IWF's actions are a bit like what a prosecutor in my area did over some magazine or movie some years back. Instead of acting on citizen complaints (as he was supposed to), he happened to see the material at a store and prosecuted based on his own complaint. (The film or publication in this case would not have been considered legally obscene in most other American jurisdictions.)

Today, the IWF backed down from blocking Wikipedia, following complaints about this blockage.

Blocking of Wikipedia - coming to a land near you.

(Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html)