•Why the IWF was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page
Out-Law.com, UK -23 minutes ago
EDITORIAL: The Internet Watch Foundation faced a storm of criticism this week over its decision to add a Wikipedia entry to a blacklist of pages that ISPs ...
View the article
Thoughtful piece from someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about.
I think he's more upset that the IWF folded their tent right after they posted something on the reg praising it for a courageous action 
Perhaps, but the author of this piece states the essential case as succinctly as I've seen:
As Mr. Dogbiscuit pointed out, the guy knows what he's talking about - he's well aware that trying to get Wikipedians to show some self-restraint, adult responsibility, and respect for traditional morality is a non-starter. The issue is the ISP's and how they regulate themselves, because Wikipedia simply isn't going to.
QUOTE
Censorship takes place in Britain every day, for legal, moral and commercial reasons. When Wikipedia blocks those who vandalise its pages or deletes their hateful comments, it too engages in censorship. Internet companies engage in censorship because they have to –and they outsource part of that burden to the IWF. This incident has focused attention not just on a 1970s album cover. Clearly some people dislike our laws, our industry's preference for self-regulation and/or the operation of the IWF. If the critics seek reform they should suggest a credible alternative, one that the industry and government would support.
As Mr. Dogbiscuit pointed out, the guy knows what he's talking about - he's well aware that trying to get Wikipedians to show some self-restraint, adult responsibility, and respect for traditional morality is a non-starter. The issue is the ISP's and how they regulate themselves, because Wikipedia simply isn't going to.
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 14th December 2008, 6:14pm) 
Perhaps, but the author of this piece states the essential case as succinctly as I've seen:
QUOTE
Censorship takes place in Britain every day, for legal, moral and commercial reasons. When Wikipedia blocks those who vandalise its pages or deletes their hateful comments, it too engages in censorship. Internet companies engage in censorship because they have to –and they outsource part of that burden to the IWF. This incident has focused attention not just on a 1970s album cover. Clearly some people dislike our laws, our industry's preference for self-regulation and/or the operation of the IWF. If the critics seek reform they should suggest a credible alternative, one that the industry and government would support.
As Mr. Dogbiscuit pointed out, the guy knows what he's talking about - he's well aware that trying to get Wikipedians to show some self-restraint, adult responsibility, and respect for traditional morality is a non-starter. The issue is the ISP's and how they regulate themselves, because Wikipedia simply isn't going to.
I don't think that can be confined soley to wikipedia - he was talking about the widespread outrage all across the net.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.