On Sat, December 6, 2008 22:47, geni wrote: > 2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late >> on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could >> get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be premature to announce >> anything further at this present moment whilst further investigation is >> carried out. eg. why this particular album cover but not Houses of the >> Holy? What other pages are blocked? Indeed, why is not just the image >> blocked but the whole page as it would be as easy to block the image >> only? >> etc. > > Stop thinking you are looking to talk to a bunch of free speech nuts. > You are not. We are considering the UK media. Ideally they won't pick > it up. If they do the story will be "wikipedia hosting child porn". > Trying to tackle that head on is suicidally stupid. Their readers > either won't care or won't understand the case that the images are not > indecent. The same applies to the free speech argument. > > I hope you are an Eric Clapton fan because about the only defense line > we have that might just might reduce the damage is comparing the thing > to the [[Blind Faith (album)]]. Sure we still get hammered but may be > slightly reduced. > > -- > geni >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
