Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover

Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia after the site was added to an Internet Watch Foundation child-pornography blacklist, according to Wikipedia administrators. As of Sunday morning UK time, certain British web surfers were unable to view at least one Wikipedia article tagged with ostensible child porn. And, in …

[Winkypop]

Ban wikiwhacky completely

It's of no real use anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be Unlimited... or not

I'm on Be, and the Wiki article is indeed returning 404. Very irritating as mentioned above that they feel the need to lie.

[David Mullen]

No thanks

Talk talk are blocking it. Just been and looked via google and I wouldn't have said it was sexual content

[jon]

cache

check google cache... it's a young lady, naked, with a shattered glass effect covering her nether regions... what's the big deal?

People need to grow up and stop seeing demons in every shadow

[Anonymous Coward]

Misuse of 404 error page

Christopher Martin Posted: "it's a lie. 4-- errors indicate a client error. We're going to need a new error code. 506: Server returned censored content."

Demon appear to be up front, honest, and show a page clearly stating that it is blocked and that to go further might break UK law. Most of the others lie, because "they" do not want us to realise how pervasive are the checks and controls until it is too late to do anything about it.

Anonymous Coward (0734) Posted: "I just clicked on the link and there was the page without any censoring. Does this mean they decided to allow it? I'm on Plusnet."

They seem to allow the page with a small version, but block the link to the larger ones.

AC for all the obvious.

[Hubert]

Virgin Media filter bypass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin%5fKiller

I find this scandalous, I don't want my browsing to be inspected or filtered in any way. The way it works appears to be literally like the great firewall of China, the connection is reset when you request the banned URL.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so now simple nudity is always porn then

It is no wonder that parents are now scared to take pictures of even their own childeren. Maybe we should make all art galleries over 21 only.

The rules were, or at least what I thought they were for, to protect children from abuse and exploitation, this is now going way too far.

If this is now the new norm any parent allowing an under 16 to get their ears pierced is now an accessory to abuse and the piercer is a child molester. Getting measured for first bra, again an adult may have to see or touch parts of a child.

We cannot live in such a paranoid world, the only way forward seems to dont look at, discuss, create, or be present near any children.

Maybe the album cover is extreme porn too, but who would decide that one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Appeared as thought it wasn't censored on Demon at first..

You can see the small version embedded in the page. However, if you are determined to double-check that it really isn't blocked, and click on the damn thing, you get:

Page Error!

Access Denied (403)

We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.

What To Do

If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this.

This blocking service is provided solely for the protection of our customers. We have not recorded that you attempted to visit this site, nor will we be taking any further action. You can find more information about the IWF list of URLs to block here: http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm.

Demon is a brand of THUS plc

[Destroy All Monsters]

What about a mass naked child event

It's all very nice to give Wikipedia the customary lashing for being a cult and all but the *real* problem is evidently the fact that Internet Vigilantes have had their little self-censoring neurons triggered and found "Child Pornography" the same way some people are finding antichrist messages in time-mirrored audio tracks -- and then then we have ISPs update their blocking lists (hopefully automatically) from there.

The image may not be in the best taste, but one should stop at some point with the Moral Panic or risk looking like an ass. We can of course go the whole way and have the big Common Internet Blocklist, where old ladies, politicans and religious authorities can inject their own idea of what's unhealthy for the sheep to see.

Maybe it's time for an Internet Mass Naked Child Event where sites post a random naked child image (but not Porn) at a given day of the year. People excited by that can spend their day at the races or something.

[Anomalous Cowherd]

British Library

The British Library has to keep a copy of everything published in the UK by law - been a while since I worked there but my understanding is that includes every porn magazine. I heard they kept them in a room under lock and key and you needed a good reason to go in :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Traceability

The next thing will be anybody viewing the image will receive a vistit from the "we know better than you" police and you will get charged with viewing child pornography.

Bearing in mind our current knee jerk reaction "we know better than you police" pehaps wikipedia should remove the offending image from the front of the artical. Place it in a secure area, censor an image thumbnail and link via a warning message "your local police may arrest you for viewing this image".

If the "we know better than you" police want to block internet access they can block it to the secure area rather than the whole of wiki. If you want to run the risk of arrest you can click on the thumbnail.

To be fair this "issue" is only going to get worse. Artists have already had images impounded and released on "peodophilia grounds" and recent changes in UK law will mean viewing anything more than a ladies bare ankle will put you in prison.

God help those people who view whole naked table legs. Welcome back to victorian times. Anti-maskers on everything, "no sex please we are british". If you are going to do anything make sure its the chamber/scullery maid in a darkened cellar, don't take any photos, ensure there are no witnesses etc..etc..

[Anonymous Coward]

Im happy

Thankfully there is someone out there that thinks peado pics should not be visible to the public of the UK. I personally am glad, I dont want to accidentally visit wikipeodo and then get a stretch in jail. In this instance the Gov has protected me from jail. Right On.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are they really protecting?

It is blatantly clear that this is only going to prevent the viewing of the page by those less technically savvy in the use of a browser. Anyone with a small amount of knowhow can view this page in its entirety without too much difficulty. Google cache, is the first that springs to mind, then there is the Way Back Machine, not to mention a whole host of anonymous proxies.

The people who pedal the real child porn go to great lengths to ensure they remain uncaught, and I imagine the technology they employ to do this is far more complex than the crude method these ISPs have employed to block a page. The point is, the real pedophiles wouldn't even bat an eyelid at this particular image. So, is there any real point to blocking it?

The most worrying thing is that this may be the first step down a long road to censoring anything deemed inappropriate by any "independent self-regulatory body". Just who are the IWF and what makes them authority on deciding what's acceptable and what's not? It would be a little easier to swallow if it was a government body, as opposed to government backed body. I'm all for removing the rubbish and unacceptable material from the Internet but it should be removed at source, and not censored. Censoring suggests its okay for some, but not okay for others. If Wikipedia were forced by law to remove the image, then it would be deemed inappropriate for all. The fact that Wikipedia is not forced to remove the image suggests that someone, somewhere in authority doesn't see things the same way the IWF does. Who's right?

[Ed]

Nevermind

As people have touched on before, there is a photo of a little boy naked here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

It is not censored. The lack of consistency is the issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any non-standards-compliant behaviour probably deliberate

"If this is true, then either the proxies are not following http or the wikipedia is making an elementary mistake in parsing the http headers. HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR or HTTP_CLIENT_IP are almost always included by proxies, transparent or otherwise."

I'm guessing that they deliberately don't include them. The setup seems to be designed for stealth - for example, I know that the transparent proxy Opal Telecoms/TalkTalk use has a reverse IP lookup that looks just like an ordinary end-user IP.

(Of course, Wikipedia doesn't take any notice of HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR etc when it's checking if an IP is banned, at least by default anyway. There are obvious security issues with doing so - can anyone say "ban evasion"?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "There is no sexual intent here so it is not pornography"

"There is no sexual intent here so it is not pornography"

Doesn't matter to the UK police state. Naked / Semi-Naked = Porn. Regardless of intent. Including cartoons! ("simulated porn").

Just even looking at a child these days in the UK marks you as a kiddy fiddler anyway. On the news they blur out children and just show pictures of their feet (must be a plus for foot fetish freaks though!). Point a camera at a child in public and you'll be arrested (though likely they'll use anti-terror laws to justify it).

Feel sorry for kids these days, as they must get very little contact with adults. Even their own parents can be suspects.

Anyway, On Plus here and yes the image is blocked. However it's only the full size image. The article is fine and the smaller clip is fine.

I'm waiting for ISPs to filter on CapAlert. That'll block the vast majority of the internet on the basis of extreme Christian moralities!

[mark l]

record shops

I've seen this album in a few record shops over the years and the police havent seen the need to raid them for 'kiddy porn' so i dont see why it needs to be censored on wikipedia.

Nudity does not necessarily = porn.

I've seen pre-pubesent children naked lots of times on beaches while on holiday and don't suddenly feel the need to go and molest a child. Its another example of the nanny state and has probably come about because 1 daily mail newspaper reading twat has been a bit offended and made a complaint

[MikeG]

Silver lining

Well, it's not all bad - it's put a temporary stopper on the incessant Wiki messing by anonymous UK dingbats :)

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Im happy

"In this instance the Gov has protected me from jail."

The Gov protected you from an imaginary crime they've made to hunt people with the wrong age preferences. It used to be people with the wrong religion or wrong gender preference (homosexuals) but today, pedophiles.

Will we, the human race, ever learn to tolerate those that are different?

I say, stand up and defend the weak, don't let this taliban-wanna-be government continue this madness.

[Daniel Evans]

Just to add to that list...

Talktalk's blocking that link too.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "extreme porn"? Religious hate? Supporting terrorism?

No, Wikipedia will get away with this scot free, and they should.

The problem here, is that the IWF have a great firewall in place that many UK citizens are totally unaware of until now. Sure, protecting us from the evil of child porn is all well and good, how about when it's used to protect us from "extreme pornography"?

The Register has already come out in opposition against "extreme porn" laws, and the possible role of the IWF to enforce this - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/policing_internet_one, yet Cade Metz can't resist another cheap shot at Wikipedia, when it's the UK Government and the opaque procedures of the IWF who should be held into account.

How about when the firewall is used to protect us against "Religious Hate"? What about sites which "Support Terrorism"? How do you define "support terrorism"? If you go by the government definition, that's essentially everything. Copyright infringement supports terrorism, littering supports terrorism, opposing ID cards supports terrorism...

[Philip]

404 - Integrity Not Found

Authoritarian behaviour more redolent of our disgraceful Government than a group of private telecoms companies

This appalling Government are the most authoritarian, fascistic mob that have ever ruled over us - and these cowardly, lying ISPs are its enablers. China-style censorship is now reality in the Shittish Isles.

The technique of sneaking creeping surveillance and censorship through the back door whilst waving the false flag of kiddy fiddling is now well-established practice in a country that used to stand for free speech and democracy.

Shame on Be O2 for signing up to that fat cow Smith's control and surveillance agenda. I see boom times ahead for 3rd party paid proxies.

[Matt Ryan]

Blame the government as well

The government told the ISPs that they either voluntarily block (using the IWF list) kiddie porn or that legislation would be bought in to force them to. The gutless one's (like VM) went and did it without any thought as to what the long term consequences would be - that's their bad. However the government are the thought controlling muppets that started this.

[Brian Ribbon]

UK law prohibits child nudity

Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant. Garda (the Irish police) reported that, between 2000-2004, 44% of "child pornography" cases in Ireland involved images which depicted no sexual activity whatsoever. Child pornography laws in Ireland are very similar to those of the UK.

In a strict legal sense, this censorship is justified; the problem is the law itself, which should not define nudity as "pornography". The term "child abuse images" is used to invoke strong emotions and discredit those who disagree with the current laws. Don't forget that if the IWF fail to maintain outrage over child pornography, they'll lose their funding.

See http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children#Indecency for a detailed summary of child pornography laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, and:

"If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this."

So should we report El Reg en masse to the Mary Whitehaus Redux that is the IWF, and show just what a bunch of total ninnies they are?

[Anonymous Coward]

No nudes is good news?

The law deems images to be inappropriate if they are INDECENT. See the Sexual Offences Bill at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/026/2003026.htm

Of course there is no legal definition of indecent, and what you find indecent is different to what I find indecent.

So newsreader Julia Somerville was arrested by Scotland Yard's child-pornography unit because a photo technician found "innocent family photos" to be indecent, see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19951105/ai_n14016171

And more recently, Australian photographer Bill Henson's was questioned over his "art" photographs of a nude 12- and 13-year-old boy and girl, see http://edstrong.blog-city.com/sex__art_teenage_sexuality_photos_censored.htm (warning: potential child porn).

But today, it is presumed that if you have an image of a nude child, then YOU are a potential abuser and pedophile. Soon, owning cans of beer will make you a potential alcoholic, and videos of Arnold Schwarzenegger will make you a potential murderer.

[Dodgy Geezer]

What's the REAL reason for this...?

"I'm on Demon, and can see the image fine. No filtering for me then!"

Nope. Just a police visit.

If we are interested in criminalising the entire British population, a simple and poor method of censorship does the job perfectly. It indicates that the image is illegal (WTF am I writing?), and then leaves it quite easy for anyone to circumvent. By circumventing the censorship you are committing two crimes, avoiding censorship and viewing a forbidden image (which you knew was forbidden because you had to avoid the censorship). Bingo! Life imprisionment unless you want to commit suicide like the unfortunates wrongly accused in Operation Ore.

Of course, it could also be that the IWF has found that its blocking list is actually catching no one, and its customers are demanding a bit of proof that filtering is productive. This litle episode should enable the IWF to claim several million hits for its flagship product. Does anyone know if the government or the ISPs pay the IWF a figure based on the blocked access numbers?

[Robert]

whoa, hold your horses

"Whether it removes the naked prepubescent or not, the Foundation will receive an uncensored Web 2.0 tongue lashing. Wikipedia isn't a user-generated utopia. It's a cultish self-contradiction that can't help but undermine its own ideals. ®"

what the? where did that come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's broken!

On Virgin Media the page for that specific album is gone... but the image itself quite clearly isn't, as it's found on other places on the site related to it. Expect this'll be fixed by first thing on Monday, not even Virgin Media are stupid enough to block wikipedia, especially with the number of complaints they'll get.

Policing child porn = good.

Banning encyclopedias = bad.

[Andrew Taylor]

Wrong issue

Whilst not a fan of Wikipedia, it seems to me that this is an issue with IWF not with Wikipedia and I am more concerned that the guardians of our internet morals find the picture sexually stimulating than the fact that Wikipedia have the cover on their site.

Black helicopter, what else

[Martyn]

Next google indexer crawl..

How many sites will be linking to this next time google updates?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_lq=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVirgin_Killer&btnG=Search

Place your bets now!

[Mark]

"Extreme" Images to be censored too, from January?

Whether or not that image should be considered child porn should be up to the courts to decide.

And from January, it seems the IWF are going to be handling reports of "extreme pornography" ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/ ), which is broader and far vaguer than child porn law - so if they start blocking anything that might "potentially" be extreme, I worry that this could mean a lot more sites being blocked.

This also shows that they are willing to blacklist mainstream sites - well, at least they get points for being consistent I suppose (there`s nothing worse than selective enforcement) - but the point is that images that might "potentially" come under the extreme porn law have been found on mainstream non-porn sites. Now even if it may be the case that such a site would never be prosecuted, this shows that the IWF may happily censor any site that has a potentially extreme image on it, no matter what site it is on, or for what purpose it is there for.

It is also wrong that the site returns a fake 404 message - Virgin Media do this, although apparently Demon do not (see the Wikinews article). Is this something decided on a per-ISP level, and something worth complaining to them about?

@Leo Davidson - whilst you are correct, I think that's being a bit pedantic. Their policy page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_censored#Wikipedia_is_not_censored ) clearly states that they remove content in some cases. Moreover, that illegal things are removed is an issue to take up with the US Government (or Florida state), as obviously it isn't something that Wikipedia can change. The point is that many editors argue that Wikipedia should be censored even in cases where the images are not illegal, so beating them with the "Wikipedia is not censored" stick is useful.

[Tony Paulazzo]

Censored Title

Isn't Europe going to introduce some form of US like Class action thing for consumers - well now is the time to start fighting back for our freedom. The only reason the copyrighters / moral brigade / government / fun haters are getting away with trampling over every freedom we've attained since WW2 is because we sit there and take it.

Maybe this economic recession is a good thing, because it's only when the material 'good times' end do we, as a nation, find our voice again.

The internet watch foundation... Ok, went there, and while there is a link for reporting websites for suspected child abuse, there is no link to query why certain websites might not be child porn. Also, one of the first things on the FAQ is how to make cartoon child images illegal - and you start to realise that witch hunts are not an evil event that happened in the past.

I haven't even checked out the site, not being interested in German music or semi naked children, but I'm beginning to think the only way through this present stunted part of civilised non thinking is to keep your head down and ride the wave - oh yea, and if you can afford it, move out of the cities.

Not anonymous, just very very sad that the sceptred Isle has apparently fallen into the Illuminatus hands... (and I believe Jaqui Smith is one of their agents) - paranoid much? only when I see the knives out.

[Long Fei]

Not blocked.

I find it amusing that I can access the page from China unfiltered whilst my poor stifled comrades in the Socialist Big Brother State of Repression (UK) can't.

[Anonymous Coward]

kiddie diddling

Guys and Gals,

You have missed the point of these rather basic filtering rules the ISP's follow.

The Gov is trying to protect children from being exploited in a life changing way, if you want Peado stuff, time to emigrate or face the big bloke of 30stone in your cell who likes chaps each night.

In protecting kids from being exploited, they need some firm rules, and that means they must NOT dick around having months of debate about whether something is 'intended that way'. I am glad they have not wasted 500k£ on focus groups and legal discussions over one pic. They have done the right thing, this pic is of a naked kid that is inappropriate and deemed illegal. If you don't like it or believe it incorrect, then you have the right to challenge the law! And please do.

And now for the most important part:

This censorship is being done to prevent people accidentally stumbling upon a pic that could get them a jail term and a life of hell after with that paedo label. If you REALLY want to risk you freedom, you can still google cache, proxy, TOR ...etc... the pik. But thats reduces your chance of getting away with the 'ohhh i didn't realize it was kiddie fiddling porn when I accidentally bumped into it'.

And as for 'its not in the T&C' when I signed up. Two things, firstly the T&Cs may change as and when they like, tuff! Secondly, the LAW does not need to be in any T&C.

And finally, most T&C will already mention this because it will mention 'and stuff thats illegal'.

You guys need to get out more than worry about a little bit of legal censorship!

[Anonymous Coward]

Libel case coming?

I mean the photographer, the band and the wikimedia foundation have been pretty badly libelled by the IWF here.

[John Ozimek]

A warning

I have been following the story this morning and may - editors allowing - add to it tomorrow. Be aware that under UK Law, POSSESSION of an indecent image of a child is an offence.

Your intention (research, rubber-necking, whatever) do not count.

Having spoken with the IWF, they are reasonably happy with their conclusion that this image breaches UK Law. Therefore, be very aware that downloading the page could have consequences.

I am sure I don't need to point out to the technically-minded on here that simply opening the page will probably leave a copy of the image in your cache somewhere.

Options: don't access the page. Or access it with images turned off.

Or be prepared to argue the toss before a court. A highly unlikely outcome - but maybe one that those who pay attention to NSFW categories should bear in mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

what

about the nirvana - nevermind cover? im outraged, outraged, that this isn't banned as well.

Im also outraged my isp hasnt banned me from seeing this filth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems we definetely have drifted into a christian Iran

Ukonline shows the page but clicking on the thumbnail brings up the 404,

I wonder if the black and red cross flags (a la V for Vendetta) have been ordered by Wacky and her bible thumping, red top reading minions.

This country is a hell hole, civil liberties being tramped on constantly and 90% of people bending over yelling "harder, harder I know its for my own good mr/mrs politician"

Kids are going to be less and less safe and more badly behaved due to the lunacy that prevails in this country that single women and men of any type are ready to snatch kids away from their parents for rampant rape and murder.

I wish these dumb cunts would realise that (in order) parents/ family members / family friends commit the VAST majority of child abuse. But then that would require a lot of people to admit that their partner/aunt/uncle/cousin etc do act odd around their kids and the kids seem uncomfortable around them. Instead......"burn the man in the van, he is a PEEEDOO!!11!!, he looked at me kids in a funny way"

Also most of the so called "child porn" stashes they find tend to be photos from naturist sites (explaining why they are described in court as "indecent images of children" which the red tops and any other "newspaper" brand as PAEDOPORN!!!"), rather than kids being abused, but then the police try to hide that fact as much as possible so to keep themselves in a job when the reality is that while they sit and fanny about online, crimes are being committed in the real world, kids are being abused etc but thats too much work so lets just sit in front of the computer and pretend we are doing "research"

At least the Soviets had a sensible concept regarding nudity instead of all these insane hang ups about nudity. Hell sometimes I wish they had just pressed the big red button, would have saved me from living in a paranoid, religion obsessed police state

Flame as some moron will pipe up claiming that I'm wrong as they dont want to face facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

How we love our legal system...

From the IWF's FAQ:

"If the complainant appeals against the reassessment decision the

assessment on whether the content is potentially illegal according to the

relevant UK legislation made by CEOP or the Metropolitan Police will be

final."

So suddenly a legal decision can be made by the police, with no potential to appeal in court?

[Anonymous Coward]

does

this also mean that anyone who has a hard copy of the album with said cover, is breaking the law and can be arrested.

they should have an 'images/art/music/books we have suddenly deemed to be offensive amnesty day'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's my Sunday afternoon ruined then

how am I supposed to vandalise stuff when anonymous editing's disabled? And no, I'm not about to use my socks

@ Im happy [sic]

nice trolling ;-)

[Keith T]

Wikipedia should use the solution the record labels did

The other solution would be for wikipedia itself to do what the original record labels did: Serve up one image of the album cover in countries that have weaker kiddie porn laws, and another image of the album cover in countries that have stricter kiddie porn laws.

[spacealien]

What to do about it?

I'm not happy about that at all! Is it really acceptable they do this sort of thing?

I was banned from editing wikipedia because someone else had vandalised it, I got tarred with the same brush because of this censorship!

Any suggestions how to make sure that the ISPs don't do this sort of thing to us? (Other than complaining to them)

[Anonymous Coward]

you have got to question the motives...

.. of the sheer amount of effort that has been expended by el-reg readers to view said child porno...

lets face it, the uk child porn laws make it illegal to posess an argos additions catalog if you dont have a child you might be buying child underwear / swimwear for...

also those ceop inspired proxies log all blocked pages to therell be a lot of el-reg resders on variious watch lists now...

as el-reg pointed out in an earlier article. when plod comes and lifts yout pc youl be waiting a fe years to get it back

[RW]

Nekkid kiddies

Anyone who thinks depictions of naked people are inherently pornographic has at least two problems: a dirty mind and too much time on their hands. They are dirty-minded busybodies, in a word. In the case of apparatchiks, a further problem: a willingness to seize any excuse to diminish personal freedoms in the name of Correct Thought.

In fact, maybe the complainers in this case are the ones needing police investigation. Their unease with an innocent picture of a naked child strongly suggests a seriously screwed up sexual impulse.

Further, my sensitive nose for hidden ideology detects whiffs of the "radical feminist" p.o.v. that all men are monsters, all intercourse is rape, and similar nonsense that can be laid at the door of the late and unlamented Andrea Dworkin. I spit on her memory, though I can feel sorry for someone who so obviously never had a happy sexual experience in her sad life.

What ever happened to the concept that naked children romping around are a symbol of carefree innocence? Freud's comment "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" is, with generous lashings of mutatis mutandis, applicable here.

[Anonymous Coward]

not on the big 6

Checked out the site, have had access difficulties to the wiki when using openDNS, but the site and the picture are visible.

Guess the ISP's ought to ban naturist sites, baby sites

The picture has something across the lower body and suspect anyone can goto google images and search for naked girl.. Lets ban all search engines just in case they find something not wanted ?

[James]

KCom

Kingston Communications/Karoo whatever have blocked this page with a standard 404 error page:

------

HTTP Error 404

404 Not Found

The Web server cannot find the file or script you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct.

Please contact the server's administrator if this problem persists.

The rest of wikipedia seems to work fine.

------

This is another problem of censorship, who decides what to censor and what not to? How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi ? Is this worse?