Talk:Internet filter/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Internet filter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content filtering software products

I'm planning on removing the section Content filtering software products. Any objections? Josh Parris ✉ 02:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Question: Why? --Aurochs

The list of products is transient and non encyclopedic. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Surely there is a list of Content filtering software products already kicking around on the web somewhere. We could link to that instead. Josh Parris ✉ 01:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* I'm opposed, but I have no argument to counter yours... If you can find a list, I'll change my mind. --Aurochs, May 30 2005

I can't find a list. Which I find very surprising, and indicative that I've done the search wrong. So, I'm holding off. Josh Parris ✉ 07:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the long list of product links to censorware companies. Please note that wikipedia is not a web directory. External links sections should provide links to a limited list of pages that further discuss, or provide references for, the issues in the text. Including stacks of links to Norton Utilities, and other commerical, shareware and freeware products is not wikipedia's job. When we discuss automobiles, we do not then go on to include a long list of direct links to the pages of autbomobile companies. Etc, etc. Sdedeo 04:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, okay, but why didn't you put that in the section above? --Aurochs

Won't somebody think of the children?

Would it be possible to add a rating system to Wikipedia. It has been mentioned before that Wikipedia is used in schools etc. There are a number of pages that may not be suitable for school use. Maybe a checkbox on the edit form could be used to generate a SurfSafe header (http://www.safesurf.com/ssplan.htm) or other PICS header. I would suggest keeping it simple and having just "suitable for all" or "suitable for adults". Some schools can only see suitably rated pages. I know that some people would say that children should be able to see all facts, but in practice a school is likely to have complaints from a number of parents if it turns out that the kids are looking up Handballing, Autoeroticism etc. -- Chris Q 06:13 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh oh, can we have special markup to save the children from dangerous political ideas and information about crime and violence, too?</sarcasm> --Brion 06:37 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

Hm. That sounds like both a feature request and a policy change. A much better venue for that is the Wikipedia mailing list. Any mention of SufeSafe or its ilk gives me the creeps and I'm not sure we should feed those demons (and if we get black listed by them then shame on them, not us). This is a Free as in Speech webstie. But go ahead and give it a whirl on the list. ---mav

This issue was a very divisive one at the Open Directory Project, where adult content was eventually cordoned off into a separate hierarchy that was labeled with PICS tags. This compromise did not please anyone, as coverage of legitimate topics was obscured from view and unabashedly blue content was still readily available to children.

No doubt there will be Wikipedia licensees who will filter and censor Wikipedia content to suit their needs and wants. However, our focus should be on generating Wikipedia content and making it freely available. -- NetEsq 07:49 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

OK, I can see that the concensus is against this. I guess NetEsq is right, anyone that wants to copy a subset of Wikipedia for open use will probably do so. -- Chris Q 08:07 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

I think that thay ar all educational so you shud be able to look up all uv them at the scool. This is a ensiclopedia -- 24.207.69.51 21:45, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No lets not have this feature. Wikipedia wont be accomplishing it's mission of being a free encyclopedia if it starts censoring itself. Sure some things shouldn't be looked up at school but I don't trust censorware programs. --Arm

Yeah, you can't burn it since it's not a book, so censoring it is almost as good, right? Good idea. Brilliant. I think it's been tried before. Xinoph 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong anti-censorware bias

Is the opening phrase 'The term "censorware" is valuative [sic]" thereby intended to justify what follows as a strongly anti-censorware article? Is this within the limits of objectivity which Wikipedia strives for? (Note that "internet filter" redirects immediately to "censorware")

Any mention of a positive view on censorware is immediately followed with a counter-argument, whereas anti-censorware views are left to stand. The picture showing blockage of whitehouse.com by one filter seems designed to show that censorware is ridiculous. The section on bypassing filters seems inappropriate to include in such an article, and perhaps should go elsewhere. The final section "Opinions for and Against Censorware" seems like a joke, given that the whole article seems to be an argument against censorware, and the inclusion of one link to a few articles showing the pro-censorware point of view seems like a scant offering.

I'm not some kind of pro-censorware activist or software manufacturer. I'm just an average guy who looked up "internet filtering" for some *information* and instead what I got was *indoctrination*.

The usual line of "You don't like it? Then edit it!" isn't much encouragement, since it seems the whole article (and whoever's committed to maintaining it) is entirely and adamantly supportive of only one view of the subject.

Really? I haven't done much on the article myself (a link or sentence tweak, one of which got reverted). But maybe in terms of where one stands depends on where one sits, my perceptions are certainly affected by my own views. Don't you think sentences such as (again, not mine) "Choosing an internet service provider (ISP) that blocks objectionable material before it enters the home over software run on their own computer can help parents who worry about their children viewing objectionable content." are fair to the pro-censorware viewpoint?

I would strongly argue that "censorware" is the correct term and base article, since "filter" can mean anti-spam program or mail-sorting program. So "censorware" is more precise (which helps the goal of an encyclopedia). Blocking whitehouse.COM is not ridiculous, it's not whitehouse.GOV. It used to be a porn site (whitehouse.COM, not whitehouse.GOV). So I don't think there was untoward intent in that screenshot - Seth Finkelstein 12:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As always, fix what you feel is wrong! I haven't looked at this for awhile, but please do your best to soften or remove "editorial" content -- I don't see why that's an impossible task. Looking over the article briefly, it does cover criticisms more than "positives", but the fact is that there are numerous downsides to using a piece of software to decide what people should see -- a task more suited to another human being -- and the article reports them: false positives, questions of censorship, restrictions regardless of age or maturity, first amendment questions, court challenges, etc. etc.. Sdedeo (tips) 14:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You mention that there are numerous downsides to using a piece of software to decide what people should see - and then you say that it is a "task more suited to another human being". Which makes me wonder - if another human being decides to install a piece of software to aid in the task of deciding what people should see, where are the downsides?

Mindful of the anonymous user's criticisms, I've modified the text that's with the DansGuardian image to explain why whitehouse.com was being blocked, and changed "censored" to "blocked". It felt more NPOV to me. 70.136.194.199 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked the site -- [whitehouse.com] seems to be a political site -- risque yes, but not actually plain porn. Sdedeo (tips) 19:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, it's risque politics. It used to be outright porn, it was changed a while back [1]

Anyway, that's a good edit. My point was the anonymous user's criticism was misinformed in seeing any anti-censorware bias in using it as an example. In fact, back when it was a porn site, it was something of a poster-child for a site that should be on a censorware blacklist, due to the potential name confusion. -- Seth Finkelstein 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can someone add in the site www.ibypass.com into an appropriate section (means of bypassing or external links)? Thanks, Draculix 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another request. Seth Finkelstein made useful edits today, but one phrase is troubling. He says the US v. ALA case "made the legal debate extremely complicated." That is not encyclopedic. Further, it is wrong.

Seth, please explain exactly how the case "made the legal debate extremely complicated." Even your addition talked about "as-applied" challenges. While no such challenges have yet been made, to my knowledge, "as-applied" challenges as necessarily factual in nature, not legal in nature. So, while it may be true that the Court left potential factual circumstances unexplained, the Court clarified the issues based on law, leaving issues of fact for the future. Therefore, I say the phrase "made the legal debate extremely complicated" is incorrect.

Legally, it is now clear thanks to US v. ALA that 1) filters do not violate the law, 2) filters are not facially unconstitutional (they may be as-applied unconstitutional but that remains to be seen), it is "legitimate, and even compelling" to keep minors from inappropriate material. We also know legally that public libraries are not traditional public fora, and we know other things legally. So I'll make some kind of change in accordance with my comments here.

Now people have been after me not to make certain edits because of my possible bias or soapbox. In this case, I think your edit, only as to the 6-word phrase in question -- not in its entirety -- is your bias and/or soapbox. Why? In making it appear that "the legal debate [is] extremely complicated," that may cause people to steer away from the case precisely because it is so "legally complicated." And that has been your goal from your so-called "Censorware" work, your amicus curi (or whatever) briefs to the Court, etc., etc. Your side literally benefits if people think US v. ALA is "extremely complicated" and can't or shouldn't be followed. If you have a side, of course. You will likely argue you don't have a side. I guess I can't blame you. I likely make the same arguments. That's the problem with bias. So understand that I think the phrase "made the legal debate extremely complicated" is not encyclopedic and is not even correct and may be based on your bias. So please don't take this personally. Thank you. --SafeLibraries 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to accurately describe the state of the law and the meaning of the CIPA decision. While I fully acknowledge the defeat of the facial challenge, I would contend your description overstated the facial challenge as the whole of the law. To quote Souter's dissent: "If the Solicitor General's representation turns out to be honored in the breach by local libraries, it goes without saying that our decision today would not foreclose an as-applied challenge. See also ante, at 56 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment); ante, at 1 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment).". This is what I'm trying to sum up as "extremely complicated". It means, colloquially, that it's not over, and an as-applied challenge (which is also a legal challenge) could someday be before the Supreme Court. Of course I'm on one side of the issue, as you're on the other. But nonetheless, I also think I am more often correcting public misconceptions at variance with the facts, as free-speech activists labor under huge publicity disadvantages.

The CIPA decision is predicated, per above, on certain representations by the government, and depending on how the situation evolves, the issue could be legally revisited. That's not my opinion, it's the Justices' opinion. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Seth, I see what you mean. I was looking at it more narrowly. You were saying "legal debate" as any law suit, while I was comparing "legal debate" to "factual debate" since the legal/factual distinction was laid bare by the dissent and by your edit. And that quote is exactly what I had in mind. So I agree that future factual debate will be extremely complicated, but it is, after all, in the future. This page is about the now, and the now in the case is clear as to the law. I see now that you and I agree on this. (I see that my saying filters are "perfectly legal" did not account for the future "As Applied" cases. Perhaps CIPA-compliant filters are perfectly legal would have been better, but your edit looks better anyway.)

By the way, I have not seen any "as applied" cases yet, have you? I think there might be one on the horizon. In Texas or Louisiana or elsewhere, a certain group was labeled as a "hate group" although they say they are not but the filters filtered out hate groups. I think they are suing over this. This could be a future As Applied case. If I recall it, I'll post it here. --SafeLibraries 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Wording Changes

Folks, I'd like your thoughts on changing the following:

Content-control software, also censorware and web filtering, is a term for content-filtering software, especially when it is used to filter content delivered over the Web. Content-control software determines what content will be available on a particular machine or network; the motive is often to prevent persons from viewing content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable. Common use cases of such software, at least in the United States, include parents who wish to limit what sites their children may view from home computers, schools performing the same function with regard to computers found at school, and employers restricting what content may be viewed by employees while on the job.

That's how it exists now. Let me save this then say what might needed in my next edit. --SafeLibraries 00:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The above strikes me as somewhat muddy, though it hasn't been worth my time ot try to hash out something else. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Use of the word "web" and "Web" might be short for the Internet or the World Wide Web. As a shortened word it might not be encyclopedic. It's sort of a collocialism? What do you all say? --SafeLibraries 00:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2) "Content-control software determines what content will be available...." Not exactly. People use it in that fashion. People can make it tighter or looser. People control this, not the software. My opinion, of course. Wording could be changed to something like "Administrators use content-control software to determine...." --SafeLibraries 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people? :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

3) "[T]he motive is often to prevent persons from viewing content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable." Is motive ever not POV? Can motive be proven? Is it encyclopedic? Besides, the motive is often something else as well that is more citable, such as compliance with laws, community standards, whatever. Maybe the a librar already has a policy restricting inappropriate material and the motive of using the filter is to enforce existing policy on the Internet. I think the choice of motive given about people finding things objectionable is somewhat argumentative and POV. What do you all think of that? At least the sentive could say something like "motives often claimed include preventing persons from viewing content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable, compliance with existing laws or regulations, or enforcement of existing library book collection policies on the Internet." --SafeLibraries 00:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say describing a common motive is NPOV here - it's simple fact of the world, and it's qualified as "often". Your rewrite strikes me as a bit soapboxy. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

4) And the Common Use examples are again POV, again pointing out only certain examples that are more controversial than other examples that are left out like I mentioned in the paragraph above. --SafeLibraries 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're embedding some assumptions into descriptions, especially with phrases like "enforcement of existing library book collection policies on the Internet" -- Seth Finkelstein 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seth, I'm happy you responded. Regarding your guns statement, I was thinking the same thing! Regarding your last statement about "embedding some assumptions," I thought you would especially go for that since it is not an assumption. It is sourceable to, well, there's so much stuff packed in ours heads I'm sure this slipped your mind, but the source is the US Supreme Court case of US v. ALA, 2003. I hope that refreshes your recollection or I'll go and get the exact quote. Did you submit an Amicus Brief in that case? I can think of no better source, except maybe if it was in the Constitution itself (courtesy Marbury v. Madison).

Seth, I know you really protect this article, but it does have an overall tone of someone biased against filtering software. Let's be honest. And I'm not going to crash your party. I'm here to build consensus that the article needs the Seth glasses taken off and the Wikipedia ones put on.

Everyone else, I ask you to consider what I have said and respond without being swayed by Seth's comments. What do you think on your own? Seth, and we all love him, regards himself as a great expert over this Wikipedia page, yet his comment that I was "embedding an assumption" when indeed I had in mind the words of the US Supreme Court which is where I got the idea in the first place shows that he is not infallible. And I really say this very respectfully; pobody's nerfect. So please, let's all hear what you think about improving the wikiworthiness of this article without being swayed by Seth's protectiveness. Might you have other suggestions as well? --SafeLibraries 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"The District Court disagreed because, whereas a library reviews and affirmatively chooses to acquire every book in its collection, it does not review every Web site that it makes available. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 462-463. Based on this distinction, the court reasoned that a public library enjoys less discretion in deciding which Internet materials to make available than in making book selections. Ibid. We do not find this distinction constitutionally relevant. A library's failure to make quality-based judgments about all the material it furnishes from the Web does not somehow taint the judgments it does make. A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source. Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason."

"Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not. While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review. Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything they do make available has requisite and appropriate quality."

"The same is true here. The E-rate and LSTA programs were intended to help public libraries fulfill their traditional role of obtaining material of requisite and appropriate quality for educational and informational purposes.5 Congress may certainly insist that these "public funds be spent for the purposes for which they were authorized." Ibid. Especially because public libraries have traditionally excluded pornographic material from their other collections, Congress could reasonably impose a parallel limitation on its Internet assistance programs. As the use of filtering software helps to carry out these programs, it is a permissible condition under Rust."

US v. ALA. Shows filters are used for more lofty reasons than the POV reasons currently appearing in this wiki page. Shows my claims were accurate and Seth's protestations were inaccurate. Lends support that my observation of this page not being totally wikiworthy may be accurate and based on impeccable sources. --SafeLibraries 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX - "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.". Note Justice Rehnquist, who you are quoting above, is not exactly a neutral viewpoint either. He was an extremely conservative moralist. To correct some of what you write above, while I do watch this article, and have made some contributions from time to time, it's hardly all my work, and there's several aspects of it which I believe could use improvement. Though we are obviously on opposing sides of the topic, it is factually incorrect to make the current state of the article a personal issue -- Seth Finkelstein 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry if I implied that. So to all I'll be clear that per policy no wiki page (except a very select few I guess) is anyone's personal issue. The point is, of course, a collaborative effort. And also to be clear, Seth is a major contributor who has added a lot of significant content here and on other pages. Indeed he has significant subject matter experience as well. To that end I appreciate his input and even thanked him for it, and this is collaborative as demonstrated by my request for others besides just me and Seth to make comments about my concerns that the page could be better reworded. Even Seth said it was "muddy."

I try very hard to follow Wiki policy. Sometimes, however, my jaw drops in amazement as people use any excuse possible to excuse efforts to prevent my input on wiki page. Case in point is right here. I said filters may be used to enforce existing library policy and that language could be added to the page as the page seemed one sided. Seth responded that I was "embedding an assumption." I responded that the idea came from my reading of US v. ALA. To be clear, I then quoted US v. ALA. Then, and here's the jaw dropper, Seth implied I was on my "soapbox" again because "Justice Rehnquist, who you are quoting above, is not exactly a neutral viewpoint either. He was an extremely conservative moralist." To Seth, the holding in US v. ALA is "not exactly a neutral viewpoint"!

If the US Supreme Court is not exactly neutral, is anything? If my use of the US Supreme Court to support statements is a "soapbox," is anything I can ever say or cite not a soapbox? Am I missing anything here about excuses being used to curtail certain efforts to edit wiki pages or to maintain existing Points Of Views? --SafeLibraries 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I respect your willingness to discuss these issues. Justice Rehnquist was not writing for an encyclopedia. His statements are of course relevant to the US v. ALA decision, as representative of the winning side. But they do not take on neutrality when describing policy.I don't regard that distinction as partisan, it's just keeping contexts properly separate. -- Seth Finkelstein 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this "brief reply" as noted in the history an "Amicus Brief" reply? ;-) --SafeLibraries 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I editting the page again, and, while Justice Rehnquist's statements "do not take on neutrality," according to Seth, there does, however, appear a quote by Seth in the article and a citation to his own personal web site! The only conclusion we are led to reach is that Seth is neutral and wikiworthy while the US Supreme Court is not neutral and not wikiworthy. --SafeLibraries 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History and citations

"Gskuse" added "cite needed" tags to the history. I could supply the cites. But, to be immodest, I *MADE* a great deal of the history, so I'm wary of a WP:COI charge. That section has always bothered me a little, since there are some flaws, but I've never wanted to go through hassle to rewrite it. I worry about the minefield it can become. -- Seth Finkelstein 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My "cite needed" tags were mainly appied to areas where, I assume, some written account of the arguments must exist online (preferably without too much commentary). If they exist, I'd say link to them. If you feel that they may violate COI or NPOV, then perhaps link to them on the Discussion page so that others can validate. The article indirectly quotes the EFF, accuses the Censorware Project of copyright violations and, later, indirectly quotes "the content-control software companies" - let's make sure it's accurate. Please note: I'm not suggesting that the history section is incorrect, only that it may be lacking in detail (ie: which software companies?). Thanks, -- Gskuse 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, written accounts exist - many of them archived on my website :-). The EFF history is very, very real, but we tend not to talk about it nowadays vis-a-vis EFF since they had a management change in 2000 where the people responsible for the censorware touting left the organization, and much better people took over. But ... it did happen. Part of my story was flat-out being told I wouldn't get legal help, and it got worse from there.

The copyright violation part really should be better phrased as something like "although facing a potential lawsuit from ...". One would hope to ultimate prevail in court, but it should be inarguable that there's an enormous legal risk involved. The key legal case (so far?) is Microsystems v Scandinavia Online. More later. -- Seth Finkelstein 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seth- I've been to your site. It's very informative. It's probably not a good idea to link wikipedia to the arguments presented there unless the opposing view can be represented (via some other site). Perhaps links to some of the ".gov" articles linked from sethf.org could be used as citations?

As the numbers of citations in the article grows, it might be good to migrate to the newer citation format (with "References" at the bottom) - this would give us a better indication as to the quality of the references. Thoughts? Gskuse 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding citations, I find the detail needed for the "cite web" format to be burdensome - or am I misunderstanding? I have no strong feelings if someone wants to reformat the existing citations, but I don't have the time to do the conversion myself. -- Seth Finkelstein 06:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't new edits be added to the bottom? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved. Gskuse 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gskuse, if you want a cite for the section "The companies' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid", you can use http://web.archive.org/web/20060419190143/http://www7.nationalacademies.org/itas/whitepaper_1.html for a government-site (for sourcing purposes on specific project, even though it's a .org). I've used the web archive for a stable URL, as I can't find it currently. The paper's also available at http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/20010306_eff_nrc_paper1.html , but that might be viewed as not preferable to the National Academies. Since I'm a co-author of this paper, I'm wary of adding it to the article myself. -- Seth Finkelstein 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add that as a cite as it merely puts the critism in the opponent's own words. I've used the National Academies link, but either would probably have been fine. Thanks. Gskuse 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Optics", as the phrase goes. You're welcome. In case this all blows up on me, I want it very clear, and in the record, that I'm responding to a non-meatpuppet's request for citations, and taking much care in terms of conflict-of-interest rules.

For "decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked", http://sethf.com/pioneer/tyre.php contains an account of earlier decryption history. That's arguably self-promotional, and it's on my site. But everything in it is true, and it wasn't written by me. It's hard to find good accurate accounts of the early years cite-able to standard media, since I had to be anonymous for such a long time. -- Seth Finkelstein 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm leary of linking to a e-mail by a third party which seems to exist only only your site. I'm searching to see if there were any news reports which we could use. As we're talking about an individual's action (and not merely the motivation), I'd hope to see it described/reported by a more authoritative (and neutral) source. I've found a few news articles which might suffice; I'll keep looking. Gskuse 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a WP:RS for you. http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2044595,00.html

"In 1995, I performed the first investigations into what was actually blocked by censorware, exposing the blacklisting of sex education, feminism, gay rights sites and more." -- Seth Finkelstein 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

COPA - District Court discusses filters

All. ACLU v. Gonzales, US District Court E.D. Pa., 22 March 2007, spends pages discussing filters and the ACLU expert saying how wonderful filters are. The judge agrees. Someone should update this page with information from the case. Indeed the material presented in the case may call for significant changes to this page. This post is to get everyone thinking in that area about what changes could/should be made. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You raise a fair point, but just as a thought, maybe that topic should be split off into another page. It's tied into a US law case, and might be too detailed for the general page. Perhaps something like "Censorware and the COPA litigation". -- Seth Finkelstein 04:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Naw. There's already a COPA page. My point is not COPA and not the case itself. My point is the information contained in the case about content-control software (not censorware since SCOTUS said using filters is NOT censorship) is placed on no better page than this one right here, and the information is fresh. I haven't read this page through yet so I have no idea what might be changed, but read this new COPA case and you will see much information about the latest facts about content control software belongs right here on this page. I'm not looking to add my bias--just to add the facts and judicial opinions that appear in that case. And let's face it--the ACLU's own expert talked about the wonders of modern filters. Since the judge approved, that belongs on this page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - I'm very familiar with the topic :-(. In fact, if you'll wait a few days, there will be a "reliable source" discussing it. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I'm in no rush. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See next edit for article discussing issue :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2044595,00.html right? Will evaluate soonish. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently too US based. It also doesn't really consider filtering at the ISP level - which is the scary stuff imo. Secretlondon 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Content ratings

I've posted a policy question regarding "Wikipedia is not censored" and content ratings to the Village pump. Morphh ^(talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Bias

The article shows heavy bias against this software. It's kind of understandable since it goes against the philosophy of this community. But still, don't you think you should tone it down a little?

For starters, do you really think it's appropriate to have a "Bypassing filters" section in the article? Tsk, tsk! I s'pose it would be cool for me to go on to an article about DRM and post links to sites that help you defeat that? I'd like to see how long that lasts. Ok, there is probably legal implications to that one, but I'm just using it as an extreme example. --124.171.72.75 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Me

Dropped long quote

Mr. Finkelstein argued convincingly that he was not wp:notable, and including the quote seems wp:UNDUE. Leaving the source, as it supports the paragraph, dropping the quote.- Sinneed 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

*sniff* :-( -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Globalize tag on examples for public libraries

The subsections specify the nations with examples. The tag seems specious... if an editor is interested, they will see the country of interest missing and add it. If a reader does not see the country of interest they will either learn and edit, or seek elsewhere. Easily restored if (there is) disagreement.- Sinneed 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC) edit to add "there is" - oops - - Sinneed 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this?

There was a direct link in the article to [[Category:Content-control software]], and I had turned it into an Also. However. I question the value and need. Unless there is an objection, I am going to drop it entirely.- Sinneed 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) - mod - Sinneed 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section and a NPOV?

I removed the "Criticism section |date=May 2010" template:

from the Criticism section of the article since there has been no action to resolve any issues and there is no recent discussion of the issues on the talk page. I'm adding this section to provide a place for such a discussion, if it is in fact still needed. Jeff Ogden (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Content filter in Raffles Institution blocking jailbreakme.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Content filter in Raffles Institution blocking jailbreakme.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Content filter in Raffles Institution blocking jailbreakme.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge "Content filtering" with "Content-control software"

Support. This wasn't my suggestion, but it seems like a good idea. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
~~Support~~ Initially seemed like a good idea to me too, but after looking at the other article, it's very, very poor and completely unreferenced, so I'd prefer a redirect without any of the dodgy content being transferred to here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. I merged some of the content from the "Content filtering" article into this article and will convert that article to a #REDIRECT to this one. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)