Talk:Australian Communications and Media Authority

message: Agree. --Adbabypenguin 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger with ACA 

message: As this is an article on an Australian government body would it be better to use Australian spelling of words? An example is licence instead of the US spelling license? Ozdaren 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: According to the article, "Some people strongly disagree with this approach. They say the Australian constitution does not clearly provide either the states or the federal government power to censor online content, so internet censorship in Australia is typically an amalgam of various plans, laws, acts and policies."
I don't know if this particular criticism is sensible enough to be included. The reason I say that is that the Australian Constitution does not allocate powers to the States, only to the federal government. In some very particular cases the federal constitution does restrict the rights of states, but certainly not when it comes to censorship. The State Parliaments are basically free to legislate on anything else, whether it is mentioned in the Constitution or not. Should this be removed or, better yet, replaced with a more sensible example of criticism? Troyac 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! I fixed this as part of a general clean up. The error emerged from a 2006 edit to correct the flow of the paragraph but, in fixing the narrative, it introduced errors. It looks like the original claim was trying to show how Internet regulation fit into the broader landscape of content regulation in Australia... but then this got flipped around in a subsequent edit. LegalReckoning (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Censorship and Criticisms

message: The ACMA currently maintain a filter which can be used voluntarily in private homes.  The aim of that filter is to provide a clean feed to children.  The feed is kept private.
Currently there are discussions to make it mandatory for that "potentially prohibited" content to be forced upon all ISPs.  Therefore this discovered blocked page issue has ran around all of our major news companies.  Google "acma abortion australia" to get an indication of the coverage.  The main issue of contention is they currently only maintain a list used voluntarily by people in homes that want a censored internet. So nobody previously cared.  But now that it is proposed they may apply that to the entire population suddenly everyone is interested in what they actually censor.  IS it just child-porn and ultra violent material?  No.  The ACMA guidlines let them block content above MA15+ ( that is, content rated above suiltable for a "mature audience, 15 years+).  This is the only site that has been published by our news websites as one that is blocked, and it is quite mundane.  And, by the way, not prohibited content in any other western country, including the USA where wikipedia is hosted.
The url in question, the issue, and the two bouts of blacklisting have been heavily referenced here in the article, with extremely reputable sources.  They have recently added wikileaks to the blacklist which is also starting to get similar news coverage, and may be a second article.
It has been suggested by one user here quoting a non-reputable news source, that the only reason to add the link here is to bait the ACMA.  That isn't necessary, and frankly is a bit offensive. For a start, since they currently maintain a black list of content that isn't suitable to under 15 year olds, an enormous part of wikipedia would already be candidates.  There is no need to rely on this page.  Much of the internet would be.  But it does make an interesting news story for a magazine company that runs an itnews section. (  That site is run by http://www.haymarketmedia.com.au/, who publish magazines. ).  But most importantly, it discredits the relevance of this issue which *has* been in all of the real mainstream news, such as fairfax media and news limited, and our own ABC.
RELEVANCE
The ACMA are the body that classify internet content, and can add it to blacklists.  Therefore the only example known to the public of content they have blacklisted is extremely relevant to an article about them and their activities.
How to include it?
Having had the external links rules pointed out, I believe the best way is to make it a reference, alongside text similar to "have blocked this web page".  I note wikipedia contains numerous pages with graphic content that can be quite shocking, and also points out that wikipedia does not censor content for that reason.  So the question comes down to relevance, as I understand it.
Happy to see more discussion here.  But please do view the edits over the past 3 days.  I've put together a list of those that added the link and came up with 7 unique users who directly put it in, and 3 users who enhanced it with references or clarifying text.  I'm just saying that because 3 people now have come in and assumed this is the actions of one person, which is a little odd since the edit history is clear --Reasonwins (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section reads more like a point of view forum. You should keep a neutral point of view and help improve the article rather then attack people/organisations. Bidgee (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion censored page 

message: The ACMA currently maintain a filter which can be used voluntarily in private homes.  The aim of that filter is to provide a clean feed to children.  The feed is kept private.
Currently there are discussions to make it mandatory for that "potentially prohibited" content to be forced upon all ISPs.  Therefore this discovered blocked page issue has ran around all of our major news companies.  Google "acma abortion australia" to get an indication of the coverage.  The main issue of contention is they currently only maintain a list used voluntarily by people in homes that want a censored internet. So nobody previously cared.  But now that it is proposed they may apply that to the entire population suddenly everyone is interested in what they actually censor.  IS it just child-porn and ultra violent material?  No.  The ACMA guidlines let them block content above MA15+ ( that is, content rated above suiltable for a "mature audience, 15 years+).  This is the only site that has been published by our news websites as one that is blocked, and it is quite mundane.  And, by the way, not prohibited content in any other western country, including the USA where wikipedia is hosted.
The url in question, the issue, and the two bouts of blacklisting have been heavily referenced here in the article, with extremely reputable sources.  They have recently added wikileaks to the blacklist which is also starting to get similar news coverage, and may be a second article.
It has been suggested by one user here quoting a non-reputable news source, that the only reason to add the link here is to bait the ACMA.  That isn't necessary, and frankly is a bit offensive. For a start, since they currently maintain a black list of content that isn't suitable to under 15 year olds, an enormous part of wikipedia would already be candidates.  There is no need to rely on this page.  Much of the internet would be.  But it does make an interesting news story for a magazine company that runs an itnews section. (  That site is run by http://www.haymarketmedia.com.au/, who publish magazines. ).  But most importantly, it discredits the relevance of this issue which *has* been in all of the real mainstream news, such as fairfax media and news limited, and our own ABC.
RELEVANCE
The ACMA are the body that classify internet content, and can add it to blacklists.  Therefore the only example known to the public of content they have blacklisted is extremely relevant to an article about them and their activities.
How to include it?
Having had the external links rules pointed out, I believe the best way is to make it a reference, alongside text similar to "have blocked this web page".  I note wikipedia contains numerous pages with graphic content that can be quite shocking, and also points out that wikipedia does not censor content for that reason.  So the question comes down to relevance, as I understand it.
Happy to see more discussion here.  But please do view the edits over the past 3 days.  I've put together a list of those that added the link and came up with 7 unique users who directly put it in, and 3 users who enhanced it with references or clarifying text.  I'm just saying that because 3 people now have come in and assumed this is the actions of one person, which is a little odd since the edit history is clear --Reasonwins (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section reads more like a point of view forum. You should keep a neutral point of view and help improve the article rather then attack people/organisations. Bidgee (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  bidgee, this area is a discussion area and is used to help mash non-NPOVs into NPOVs.  So unless you are going to engage in doing that, you aren't helping. --Reasonwins (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion censored page 

message: I have extended the full protection of this page by another 5 days.  I have done so because the matter of inclusion of the link is still being debated and I see it as my duty to protect wikipedia and its editors.  That is especially the case following some of the events by Australian Police today in relation to another organisation.  I should also like to add that I have been in contact with the Wikipedia Foundation by email and they have asked me to de-escalate the on-wiki situation if possible  - I see 5 more days of protection as assisting in the de-escalation.  I hope that those AGF'ing me in this matter will agree with my actions today.--VS talk 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A sensible and justifiable move in my view, well done.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended protection 

message: Let us please focus on the real issue here, which is whether or not the link is relevant to this article.
Many users opposed to the inclusion of the link seem to be second guessing the motives behind those who want to include the link. This is not relevant to the discussion. They may well have certain motives behind their point of view, but the only thing that matters here is the relevance of the link to the article. 
Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it's relevant to this page though, specifically to their efforts in classifying internet content.  To remove it would not be NPOV, but a biased view.  But can we stay on topic.  This question is very specifically about the URL of a prohibited link.  edit: by that i mean, even if your suggestion was done the URL issue would still exist.  So can we address the primary issue first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonwins (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok well maybe some admins need to intervene here then, I was simply suggesting an alternative to constant re-edits and reverts and having the article locked. Also as a note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia doesn't include a link to the abortion websiteso maybe it should be added there first before the ACMA article can be sorted out. Forest rd (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  well lets see how the discussion goes first, then get to the finer points.  I'd like to stay on topic on if the URL is relevant specifically to the ACMA, not a broader topic. --Reasonwins (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. We didn't allow Wikipedia to be used to "spread the AACS" key. But now the key is still part of the article in the proper way. No hurry, and not a political platform. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's problematic when an editor here has explicitly admitted elsewhere that he is part of a group that has "targeted" Wikipedia as a "great site" to use in their campaign against the ACMA and then complains when he is found out.  WIkipedia is not for your personal use as a protest vehicle. Wikipedia is also not a link farm.  It's silly to suggest that encyclopedic coverage of a censor necessarily involves linking to each site they censor; the impetus behind the inclusion of the link is not because it's encyclopedic, but because it would be useful - rhetorically or otherwise - to a given set of political activists. - Nunh-huh 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I agree that is problematic.  It's the first I've seen that, and is undoubtably the source of the article quoted earlier.  But lets put it in perspective.  As one user already stated, "Claiming that certain users are manipulating Wikipedia to make a point does not prove that the edits of those users are in any way contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines".  That is, one users bad motivation does not make something automatically invalid.  Many good arguments have been put forward.  It would be just as easy to say that a user somewhere decided that censoring wikipedia is the way to counter it, and therefore that is reason to include it.  That argument wouldn't stand either.  So the way to resolve this is to argue on merits of relevancy.  --Reasonwins (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What is the justifcation for accuseing me of vandalism?Geni 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Umm, Leo, you might want to actually have a look at the diffs before you go charging around accusing people of vandalism. Or even read the lead-in (hint: "improving" != "removing"). The three of us you accuse of vandalism did not in any way reduce the position of the link on the page. AntiStatic (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should hope not, given that Wikileaks is not the document repository attached to Wikipedia. For that, you want either Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons. Wikileaks has no relation to Wikipedia, except for running the same kind of Wiki software. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The common ground with AACS and this is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to make a point. It's an Internet Encyclopedia, not a forum. And whereas possibly including this link in 2 weeks, after proper discussion will give us a good article in the end, including it now, mostly serves the primary goal; to make a point. The AACS key even made it to the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Not because we/Wikipedia were censoring the information, but because people were using Wikipedia as a way to make their point, instead of writing good articles. I'm not saying that this is gonna happen in this case, but it is a valid concern by the Wikipedia community and taking 2 weeks to decide on it, is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  for the record, I would be perfectly happy to include it in two weeks.  I'm not here to make a point.  I do seriously oppose the censorship proposal.  What concerned me is I came to this article after reading about it in the press, and there was very little information about what or how they censor.  Then I see that the very first(!!) proof of what they do censor came out in the press.  Contrary to being "child porn" and "ultra violent" material, as our government has suggested, it was quite mundane.  I suspect more will come out too.  For example, from reading the article do you realize they are empowered to issue takedown notices on material not suitable to people under 15 years of age? ( we call it M15+).  There is information missing here and people who are driven to improve it greatly. Perhaps a section on the guidelines they follow to classify internet content would be appropriate ( i have found many sources, on their own website, including the legislation they follow ).  And, where appropriate, some examples would be very encyclopedic, relevant, and of great interest to anyone seriously researching this institution.  --Reasonwins (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As having been very involved in the IWF & Wikipedia controversy, I definitely appreciate the fine details of these kinds of issues, and I can understand that a better article is desired by many folks, unfortunately, it does not seem we have skilled editors engaged in this article that can provide this. Lets hope someone shows up who knows how to write articles. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: These are just a few of the reasons why you should stop waving the same flag over and over again dear Leo. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See point 5. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It should be clear that the goal for some is to include the link anywhere in Wikipedia, so they can use that link to make a point (as in this edit), which rather undercuts the notion that the link is being included because it's important to this article rather than their campaign. - Nunh-huh 14:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No, that edit was decidedly WP:POINTy, and efforts to propagate your link by adding it to other articles would probably violate our policy against WP:SPAM, and perhaps conflict of interest. Given your off-Wiki statements, it's not immediately clear that these edits are made in furtherance of Wikipedia's goals rather than your own.  The discussion about this link belongs here; don't seek to avoid the need for consensus by spamming it elsewhere.  - Nunh-huh 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I can't provide any meaningful commentary on your authority issues. -Nunh-huh 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's generally considered good form not to forum-shop or decentralize discussion - here, or on almost any wiki. You're free to ignore good form, of course, though I would expect doing so would not engender a lot of sympathy for your position. - Nunh-huh 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I suspect, and would hope, it will be a more nuanced discussion that avoids classifying the world into two opposing camps. But I suppose we'll find out. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The link is relevant. There's no good reason that it shouldn't be included here and at Internet_censorship_in_Australia. Whether or not the original editor added the link in good faith isn't relevant to what content should be here. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the whole name calling of "vandals" about either the URL adders or deleters is unhelpful. can we please steer away from that. The main thing is for this article to be NPOV. There was an earlier compromise between editors to include the link in the footnotes I believe. Does this solution not seem acceptable? Forest rd (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not name calling. It's the name we use for people who engage in unconstructive and/or disruptive behaviour within the Wikipedia community, be it intentional or not. Personally, the whole article seems of such low quality to me, that I would say it would be better if people focused on the core content of the article; the organization, before they spent time discussing wether or not the link should be included. Proposals for alternate versions of the article can be discussed and written here on the talk page or in a personal sandbox. The fact that this does not occur is truly a shame. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Suggest you read WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a host Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise the link was added sole with the intent to challenge the Authority to block Wikipedia from all Australians it should be removed from this article as it has no relevance to the article subject., nor does it offer any further information about the subject as per WP:EL Gnangarra 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm familiar with SOAP. The fact is that someone who would come to this page would expect to be able to find the link in question. Whether the initial user who added it intended to make a point or not isn't relevant to evaluating that issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: they would have maybe some reason to see the issue discussed in the article and links to citations about it, but that doesnt necessarily mean a link to the actual site in question. Gnangarra 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? If one were talking about the context of X, you wouldn't expect a link to X? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Personal attacks deleted] -- Plausible argument (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If in an article you were discussing a video of me from 10th grade then yes, linking to it would be expected. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plainly it's a cheap shot. But, lacking a clear WP policy against bringing up off-wiki personal information in the context of a discussion, it appears on the face of it to fall short of a personal attack. Maybe it's time to begin to develop and implement such a policy. But either way, IMO, JoshuaZ has every right to be livid about it. Nonetheless, lacking a clear policy about such things, I think it's time to move back to the substantive issues. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see the point in separating such things. A point has context and cannot be stated without that context. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DJ, look at the mess above this list.  This is what it will become, uncomprehensible.  If you want to discuss a point:  create a new section.  Link the piont to it.  And we can discuss it there.  -Reasonwins (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there is a lot to read does not make something incomprehensible. People repeating the same points that were said one paragraph higher up in the discussion, and people requiring repeated explanations of the workings of the Wikipedia community and it's policies make something incomprehensible. And in the end a hotly debated issue will always be difficult to make "comprehensible". Don't fear it, embrace it and work with what you have. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  DJ, do you think my suggestion would make it more readable?  And more clear?  If so, why fight against it?  I'm a little confused here by your arguing. --Reasonwins (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on the real issue: relevance of the link to the article 

message: Good morning people.  You guys have been arguing, but losing focus of the issue and getting a bit sidetracked.  Can you argue on the merits of whether the link is relevant to the article.  The motivations of 1 person is really irrelevant.  If you could dot point your reasons against that would be very helpful.
Points to include the url, either in full or merely as a reference link:
# wikipedia does not censor content for MA15+
#:The ACMA does.  To argue over this link would also be arguing over a large amount of wikipedia content. Reasonwins
#::Wikipedia does censor content, but only in cases that are privacy sensitive, non-educational, non-useful, defamatory and illegal content as defined by Florida law. Not for age or religion reasons. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point in separating such things. A point has context and cannot be stated without that context. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DJ, look at the mess above this list.  This is what it will become, uncomprehensible.  If you want to discuss a point:  create a new section.  Link the piont to it.  And we can discuss it there.  -Reasonwins (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there is a lot to read does not make something incomprehensible. People repeating the same points that were said one paragraph higher up in the discussion, and people requiring repeated explanations of the workings of the Wikipedia community and it's policies make something incomprehensible. And in the end a hotly debated issue will always be difficult to make "comprehensible". Don't fear it, embrace it and work with what you have. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  DJ, do you think my suggestion would make it more readable?  And more clear?  If so, why fight against it?  I'm a little confused here by your arguing. --Reasonwins (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet point refocus 

message: Also, could you keep your points to the second list please.  Or feel free to discuss them above.  I want these lists to remain uncluttered, and you ahve come through and cut them all up.  How about if you have a comment on a point, make it a new section, link it, and we discuss it outside the list.  Could you move your edits please? --Reasonwins (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point in separating such things. A point has context and cannot be stated without that context. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: DJ, look at the mess above this list.  This is what it will become, uncomprehensible.  If you want to discuss a point:  create a new section.  Link the piont to it.  And we can discuss it there.  -Reasonwins (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there is a lot to read does not make something incomprehensible. People repeating the same points that were said one paragraph higher up in the discussion, and people requiring repeated explanations of the workings of the Wikipedia community and it's policies make something incomprehensible. And in the end a hotly debated issue will always be difficult to make "comprehensible". Don't fear it, embrace it and work with what you have. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  DJ, do you think my suggestion would make it more readable?  And more clear?  If so, why fight against it?  I'm a little confused here by your arguing. --Reasonwins (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: Please restore. I wish to be able to see the issue and make my mind up for myself. Being able to visit the link that is banned will help me make up my mind. ~~
:You need a better set of eyes. The fact that you complain about something that is no longer the case, suggests you are here to make a point instead of using or contributing to Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a wiki administrator. I was arguably a bit tired when I wrote that. Besides, I have little ultimate interest in inclusion of this information. In Wikipedia, that is a healthy approach. One link on one issue is not the end of the world. Not being Australian, the whole article can be deleted as far as I care. But I do care about Wikipedia and I have some experience with articles on similar issues. That's why I'm here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of links in the discussion above that go to the edit history where you could find the link. Also there is a link to the EFA web site in the references section, and they link to it. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not being Australian, the whole article can be deleted as far as I care." Excuse me? How offensive and narrow minded of you. What _are_ you doing on this page, or are you just here for the revert war?  124.170.244.85 (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here for Wikipedia. I contribute to many articles that sometimes don't belong to my primary interests. And care is relative. I care enough to discuss things, but i don't care enough to get myself into a burnout when someone "deletes an article". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Link 

message: I came to Wikipedia from a news article to see what the fuss was about. I wanted to learn more about the ACMA, their guidelines and agenda. If the link can be verified, it would help me make up my own mind about the necessity for censorship within Australia. Although I can also understand your reluctance to make this Wikipedia article a primary source in the controversy - the recursion would make our heads explode. 61.88.56.214 (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's High Wiki Drama at its best! 75.172.33.167 (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reader 

message: Given that the link in question is just one link in a thousand and given other Governments (e.g. Italy) routinely censor URLs to illegal material, then wouldn't it be better to list the URLs in a separate article with who censors it ?
Then we can just say that the lists of URLs that the ACMA censors is found here. This is similar to the list of areas that have been obscured by google or the list of "terrorists" or the many other lists that Wikipedia has. A suitable filter should be able to then add that specific Wikipedia URL to any blacklists rather than the issue now of a recent story promoting a URL by embedding a banned URL in an article. This taints the articles from any substring searches and so actually promotes censorship. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This link is clearly a distinct situation in that this specific link has become an issue which has gotten international coverage. It isn't some random link that happens to be on the list. Listing everything that they have censored would not be consistent with Wikipedia policies. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Use common sense in what I have said - the Wikipedia policy of Notability always applies - as with list of areas that have been obscured by google we do not report any random blurry area that piques someones attention but we must have media references. If a link doesn't have a relevant reference then it is not notable. This link is clearly notable and so should be in it's own article (or list) rather than the ACMA: why I think this is so is, for instance, we do not put details of terrorists in the US article because the US calls them a terrorist but we have a separate list of terrorists or an article on the terrorist. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it a seperate list of URLs then. 

message: The situation is simple. A particular URL was used. There is plenty of verification of it. The current article references http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/acma-anti-abortion-prohibited/, which links to the blacklisted URL.
All the discussion of whether there is a list and what other pages might be on it are totally irrelevant to the particular incident being described.
There should be only one issue here: Does wikipedia link directly to the page it is discussing, or does it only link to other pages which themselves link to the page. Personally, I think wikipedia should link directly. From a usability standpoint, why should users have to click through another source to see the page itself if they wish to do so? What if, years down the track, the intermediate site goes away? Then, the information, despite being verified and known to be true, becomes lost to the wiki reader.
Kremmen (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is should WP even bother at all. It is recentism and feels like a case of guerilla marketing to push some clicks. Oddly enough if it was goatse I'd be happy to link as that is so old-skool we all probably have copies of goatse in ASCII art on some backup somewhere. Heck this isn't even meme to be relevant. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop getting so far off the track! 

message: The link to dead baby pictures is still at the bottom of the page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's still there because we're not supposed to remove things from the article that aren't BLP vio's or vandalism (while protected). ScarianCall me Pat! 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fetus link stilll there 

message: There are many people that think that the link is relevant.  That is enough.  While we do not want Wikipedia to be filled with noise, this is obviously not noise because it provides tangible evidence of the type of rules ACMA uses.  It is also a media headline.
But more generally, it is far better to have a few sections that some editors may think are less relevant than to delete content that may be relevant to the reader.  Disk space is cheap, we are not restricted to any particular number of pages.  The fact that many editors think that it should stay is enough.
Let the reader decide whether they want to follow the link.  Deletionists should spend their time producing new good quality content rather than focusing on destroying other people's work.  Tuntable (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To want to keep a link because it is "tangible evidence of the type of rules ACMA uses" feels like it fails WP:SYNTH in that you want the reader to draw a particular conclusion regarding the functioning of the ACMA. I am no deletionist as I suggested that such URLs be placed in a separate article just like we already do with the obscured Google map data. If we placed dozens of obscured GPS fixes into the Google article then the Google article would be a complete mess. We do not put links in say the Australian government article to the banned The Peaceful Pill Handbook but we list it in one place in a List_of_banned_books. But I do not seem to have got much traction for my idea even though we already do things that way for stuff governments want to hide. A separate article of these URLs would allow people to wikilink to the article from within this ACMA article to show examples of URLs. Only URLs that had suitable media coverage need be included. The link to any wikileaks data could then be from that separate article rather than ACMA. So much tidier and easier to find banned URLs. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: This single link is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the existence of the list and the process of how it is constructed (which seems to be a manually entered tiny selection of crap). Ttiotsw (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the anti-abortion link belongs anywhere in Wikipedia it would be in the Internet censorship in Australia and possibly in a Anti-Abortion article but not in this article. The article should be about the Department/Organisation in terms in what its roles are (other then censoring the internet)and what it controls (again other then censoring the internet). Bidgee (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, note that the link is actually in the article about Australian internet censorship. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it matters if there is common information between the Internet censorship in Australia article and this one as long as it's relevant to the article's subject matter and not given undue weight.  In fact, there is a lot of stuff about ACMA in that article, and the relevant legislation, which perhaps would be better off in this one. cojoco (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better to Keep than Delete 

message: In addition to the "abortionnow" link, I propose we include the following blacklisted link:
http://www.cartoonnow.net/
The reason being that this domain is on a blacklist despite having lapsed and been reregistered by a legal entity for legal purposes.
118.208.40.183 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  that link isn't confirmed as being submitted by the ACMA.  While the ACMA continue to deny that all links on the leaked list were as a result of an investigation by them, the only single confirmed link we have is the abortion page.  As for whether the abortion page is confronting, there is plenty of other similar graphic imagery on Wikipedia.  That might come as a surprise to some australians, who are used to the overbearing censorship in this country, but have a look around and you'll see.  --Reasonwins (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain Blacklist contains lapsed domains. 

message: Resolve these issues by focussing in this article on the ACMA institution. There is an entire Internet censorship in Australia article which goes into (probably too much) detail on the Great Australian Firewall itself; examples of blacklisted sites should go there (if the volume of necessary examples justifies it, split to a subarticle). A short summary of Internet censorship in Australia suffices here - ideally one without recentist detail. Something like the summary at the top of Internet censorship in Australia would do fine. Rd232 talk 13:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. You have my support. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yup OK with me. It is a nicer arrangement. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Something to keep in mind is to what extent the secondary sources talk about the blacklist in the context of the ACMA specifically, versus Australian censorship in general. AfD hero (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Not really. It should only briefly summarize the main points of the Internet censorship in Australia article. Bidgee (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. I don't understand why wikipedia keeps pretending the leak of the blacklist is unimportant and unrelated to the ACMA. Its one of the single most important things that has happened in ACMA's history. Sure this article shoudn't go into indepth (save that for the censorship article), but it deserves at LEAST a mention. Booksacool1 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that the ACMA article deserves some information about Internet Censorship in Australia, as it is currently the most notable thing that ACMA is doing, from the perspective of media attention, anyway.  There is information about ACMA in the ICIA article, but a lot of it was written a long time ago, and as far as I know nobody with a strong knowledge of ACMA itself has consistently been editing that article in recent times.  It would be great if the ACMA information could be beefed up and brought up-to-date in ICIA, but at the moment I don't think it is of sufficient quality to replace the discussion of censorship here. cojoco (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can see what you're getting at but we have the tread carefully with this issue. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why exactly do we have to "tread carefully" with this issue? cojoco (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tread carefully? No, I don't think so. Assuming you mean what I think you mean, doing so would be entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Firdous e Bareen (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Tread carefully" is about keeping a neutral point of view and not turn the ACMA and ICA articles into news articles. Bidgee (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is reporting the facts not a "neutral point of view"? The leaking of the blacklist is one of the most significant, not to mention interesting and entertaining, events to have occurred in the debate on ACMA and ICIA.  WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem relevant here, as we're talking about material that is highly relevant to the subject of the article, although I agree that it should not have undue weight. cojoco (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on how it's reported and the way it's written. ACMA has said it's not it's blacklist by has said that some of the links have been blocked but it still doesn't mean that it's ACMA's list. WP:NOTNEWS is relevant since some of the stuff out in the press or other sites is just one event type stuff. I'll try and give more detial later as I'm currently at TAFE. Bidgee (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't we just report the material as it is presented in reliable sources, which is what we should be doing anyway?  There is obviously some disagreement about the provenance of the lists, although there is probably not nearly as much disagreement as it may first appear, as Wikileaks does not imply that the original list is the ACMA blacklist, and has posted a second list.  Why are so many getting touchy about this issue? cojoco (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think by "tread carefully", we need to be careful because any Australian adding that link could be liable for heavy fines, or possibly even getting Wikipedia added to the blacklist.  Being morally in the right won't help in the least if Conroy and the ACMA decide to throw the book at us.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's the spirit!  Let's just lie down and die whilst the Labor party walks all over us, our freedoms, and our beloved Wikipedia. cojoco (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, I'm Australian but am living outside the jurisdiction of the Aussie government at the moment - quite happy to add the link as many times as necessary, but the greater wiki community should decide if it is required in the article or not - it's not just about aussies. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't much care if the link is added to the article or not, but it does seem a bit silly that the article is locked after several days over such a trivial issue, especially when there is so much material that should be added.  The disagreement had not even reached edit-war status: it's not as if we're editing the Gaza conflict.  I think we should just unlock the article and let the editors do their usual thing. cojoco (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  You're missing the point; being morally in the right will be a cold comfort if my savings get wiped out over a link on a website.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I have noted the above comments about inclusion of other material - particularly by Cojoco (here and at my talk page). Editors who wish to add material during the protection period (other than matters closely related to the disputed item) can at any time put their properly referenced etc contributions under a separate sub-heading below this point and if there have been no concerns raised as to that inclusion over a 24 hour period I will be happy to add that component. --VS talk 20:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding material during protection phase 

message: Here's a timeline from ICIA which I think contains the main events relating to the release of the ACMA blacklists.  This should probably be massaged for the ACMA article:
*March 18, 2009: WikiLeaks publishes a list which is "derived from the ACMA list for the use of government-approved censorship software in its "ACMA-only" mode."Purported ACMA list on Wikileaks Included in the list were "the websites of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator".http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25214413-3102,00.html
*March 19, 2009, Australian media sources report that the ACMA blacklist has been leaked to WikiLeaks "The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence." http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25214413-953,00.html
*March 19, 2009, ACMA stated that the list which appeared on the Wikileaks website was not the ACMA 'blacklist', as it contained 2300 URLs: the ACMA list contained only 1061 URLs in August 2008, and has at no stage contained 2300.http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311669  
*March 20, 2009, WikiLeaks published another list, this time closer to the length published by ACMA. Wikileaks believes that the list is up-to-date as of the time of publicationhttp://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_18_Mar_2009
*March 25, 2009, Stephen Conroy has stated that this list closely resembles the ACMA list.Stephen Conroy says leaked list of banned websites 'seems like ACMA's blacklist' (news)
cojoco (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A timeline 

message: I think the current description of the ACMA blacklist leak misrepresents what occurred.  Wikileaks posted two sets of blacklists, from two separate sources.  SC stated that the first was not the ACMA list, and that the second looked like the ACMA list.  It probably takes a few reliable sources to puzzle this out, but it's all there, and if you look at WL it doesn't even require any interpretation. cojoco (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I wrote "it was reported that..." Got any links to news stories about the 2nd list? Salmanazar (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's the primary source, which has the updated list, and this newscorp article, which says that the "updated list" is "like the ACMA list". cojoco (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Salmanazar (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two blacklists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Australian Communications and Media Authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321072649/http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/2013/august/convergence_review to http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/2013/august/convergence_review
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127011552/http://www.holdingredlich.com/in-the-news/over-regulation-is-stifling-australia-s-media to http://www.holdingredlich.com/in-the-news/over-regulation-is-stifling-australia-s-media
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140321054924/http://www.gtlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/The-state-of-convergence-regulation-in-Australia.pdf to http://www.gtlaw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/The-state-of-convergence-regulation-in-Australia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625072246/http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Internet/Internet-content/Internet-content-complaints/acma-hotline-frequently-asked-questions to http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Internet/Internet-content/Internet-content-complaints/acma-hotline-frequently-asked-questions
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212082819/http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/ACMAi/Investigation-reports/Statistics/online-statistics to http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/ACMAi/Investigation-reports/Statistics/online-statistics
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Wikileaks-spills-ACMA-blacklist/0%2C130061744%2C339295538%2C00.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002101335/http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12031.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12031.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625072246/http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Internet/Internet-content/Internet-content-complaints/acma-hotline-frequently-asked-questions to http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Internet/Internet-content/Internet-content-complaints/acma-hotline-frequently-asked-questions
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813103131/http://iia.net.au/family-friendly-filter-0 to http://iia.net.au/family-friendly-filter-0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805201608/https://www.donotcall.gov.au/news.cfm to https://www.donotcall.gov.au/news.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130805121734/https://www.donotcall.gov.au/dncrtelem/index.cfm to https://www.donotcall.gov.au/dncrtelem/index.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625123103/http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc%3DPC_9150 to http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc%3DPC_9150
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second of the three "External Links" "ACMA's AM/FM/DTV broadcast station listings" is broken. I don't know how to fix it. ACMA's new layout seems to be rather different, but I suggest
https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/TV-Radio/Television/Lists-of-broadcasters/list-of-licensed-broadcasting-transmitters
Could someone who knows how please fix it?
Solong2go (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: مرحبا اسمي جوان جوان صوفي علي (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  مرحبا 

message: لدية فكرة قد تساعد السلطات للتخلص من الحرائق جوان صوفي علي (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  مرحبا