71.203.10.104 (talk) |
|||
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
: This is a very interesting conversation, however I'm having an issue with the line of reasoning here. We are arguing that because the site hosts illegal content, we should not provide a link. However, has anybody here presented evidence that the website itself still endorses the distribution of illegal content? As far as I can tell, the 8chan moderation team has cracked down on the distribution of illegal content and made it against site rules to distribute said content. If we are talking about removing a link to a site because users, against the wishes of the site's administration, break the rules and upload illegal content, then would that standard not be applicable to sites such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan, Pornhub, etc...? Even though those sites clearly outlaw the posting of certain types of illegal content, illegal content is still often posted and sometimes it takes a very long time for moderators to remove said content. What makes 8chan different? Somebody above also mentioned sites like thepiratebay, which actively takes part in what many censors would call illegal, yet we still keep the site link active. Overall, I would argue that it doesn't make sense to remove links to sites like 8chan, and, frankly, it would also send a bad precedent. If Twitter says it does not allow for minors to post nudes on it's website, yet somebody finds a minor's nudes on the website, does that mean Twitter is complicit in the distribution of Child Pornography and should have it's link removed? Or does it mean that Twitter moderators were not alerted of that minor's nudes quickly enough? I think that we must determine that 8chan is STILL endorsing the distribution of child pornography before we remove their link on the basis that they endorse the distribution of child pornography. [[User:Sixfish11|Sixfish11]] ([[User talk:Sixfish11|talk]]) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
: This is a very interesting conversation, however I'm having an issue with the line of reasoning here. We are arguing that because the site hosts illegal content, we should not provide a link. However, has anybody here presented evidence that the website itself still endorses the distribution of illegal content? As far as I can tell, the 8chan moderation team has cracked down on the distribution of illegal content and made it against site rules to distribute said content. If we are talking about removing a link to a site because users, against the wishes of the site's administration, break the rules and upload illegal content, then would that standard not be applicable to sites such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan, Pornhub, etc...? Even though those sites clearly outlaw the posting of certain types of illegal content, illegal content is still often posted and sometimes it takes a very long time for moderators to remove said content. What makes 8chan different? Somebody above also mentioned sites like thepiratebay, which actively takes part in what many censors would call illegal, yet we still keep the site link active. Overall, I would argue that it doesn't make sense to remove links to sites like 8chan, and, frankly, it would also send a bad precedent. If Twitter says it does not allow for minors to post nudes on it's website, yet somebody finds a minor's nudes on the website, does that mean Twitter is complicit in the distribution of Child Pornography and should have it's link removed? Or does it mean that Twitter moderators were not alerted of that minor's nudes quickly enough? I think that we must determine that 8chan is STILL endorsing the distribution of child pornography before we remove their link on the basis that they endorse the distribution of child pornography. [[User:Sixfish11|Sixfish11]] ([[User talk:Sixfish11|talk]]) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
::Agree completely, and articulated better than I did previously. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
::Agree completely, and articulated better than I did previously. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
There is a difference between "Free Speech" which is constitutionally protected and "Unprotected Speech" which is not constitutionally protected. Unprotected speech is expressly forbidden under law. |
|||
A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution. |
|||
There is an obligation on the part of Administrators and Wikipedia to remove Child Pornography and other unprotected speech immediately on receiving notice. |
|||
If you are linking to Child Pornography: why are you doing so? Why are you doing so here? Are you aware of the potential ramifications to yourself and others? |
|||
This is a very complex issue in law v freedom. '''There is enough depth on the 8Chan Wikipedia page to provide a reasonable overview of the topic.''' A link to unprotected speech in the form of Child Pornography does not add to an overview; instead it creates law breakers. (some intentional and other unintentionally) |
|||
Wikipedia is supposed to be a group process but '''for this kind of issue takedown has to occur swiftly from the point of notice.''' without discussion or time lag. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever in removing a link to Child Pornography. I was obligated to report this matter via the process established by the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation as a courtesy. |
Revision as of 00:26, 14 November 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Antisemitism Sidebar
The Antisemitism sidebar should be removed, 8chan is an imageboard, nothing about it purposely attracts certain types of people or ideology. There's plenty of users and boards on the site that didn't talk about Antisemitism, it's misleading to users to include the sidebar. Even 8chan ownership and moderators didn't actively encourage this behavior, as it has a hands off approach with monitoring. 172.101.174.177 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- It is cool that you believe that, but it's not the case.--Jorm (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- This was my first instinct too, having not looked at Template:Antisemitism sidebar closely recently. But, since 8chan is currently on the template, the template does belong here. -- Kendrick7talk 21:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Motion to have page protection upgraded to Semi-protected status
header
- Edit warring directly mentioned 2 times, referanced 1 time, appeares a total of 3 times on talk page to date.
- Starting in 2019-08 and continuing to 2019-10 (present), there has been a high rate of edits from either young accounts or not logged in users which were then subsequently reverted after the edit had been added.
It's up HardeeHar (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It's up/active HardeeHar (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
main
I would like to moviton for the page 8chan to be upgraded to Semi-protected status. Currently the page has Pending changes protection. The suggested change is inline with the conditons for what Semi-protected status is appropriate for and the conditions observed in the page being nominated for the status. 8chan is a very contraversal topic and can attract less the good-faith edits. Such edits have already been obsered on the history page. Given the further likely hood of the page's topic to garner Anti-social edits, changing the Protection status is warranted.
Seamus M. Slack (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Antisocial edits? What does that even mean. -Splinemath (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
New site
Apparently they had a new sight - 8kun HardeeHar (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- See the above section. The key word here is "apparently". I've just had a look at https://8kun.net/ this morning and it still isn't up. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Following the links in Wikipedia directs to content which is illegal both internationally and in th United States. Wikipedia should have an 8chan entry but it should not redirect (and thereby become a search engine) for child pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
8kun.top
Re this edit: it seems uncontroversial that the site has returned at https://8kun.top and also on Tor at jthnx5wyvjvzsxtu dot onion which is also working OK. The only problem is that the MSM doesn't seem to have caught up with this yet. They have noted that 8kun.net went offline a few days after its launch [1] but don't seem to have found 8kun.top. 8chan's official Twitter page still says 8chan.net, which isn't very helpful.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Wayback Machine removal of 8chan archived images following the El Paso Shooting
So, I noticed that Wayback Machine/Internet Archive removed all the 8chan images files that they had archived (the images under the https://media.8ch.net address), the archived posts themselves are still available but without the images. Isn't this worth mentioning? I think so, but I usually don't write wikipedia articles, just some info that I found out and couldn't find anywhere in this article. You guys can check for yourselves:
Try to access any 8chan image archived on wayback machine, like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20190705152625/https://media.8ch.net/file_store/266b0f66d9fbc4e10ea018bc52e8c924427c44db82ecfa4b60ec699ccbc42557.jpg
And you'll see the following message: "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine."
Since there were people archiving the Wayback Machine 8chan archived posts in other services, such as Archive.Today, until at least 7 August 2009, they obviously allowed images to be archived on wayback machine before the event, as you can see here: https://archive.li/35nIh
Anyway, what you guys think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric120212 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The message "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine" could have various possible reasons, and deliberate censorship is only one of them. Sometimes a robots exclusion standard (often known as robots.txt) specifies that some things should not be archived. There is original research here, and it is hard to say why the images do not show up on the Wayback Machine. I've come across some archived websites on the Wayback Machine where the images did not display correctly, but did not assume that censorship was the cause.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about "deliberate censorship", I simply state the fact that the images were archived there and now they aren't. Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't? The archived images were available on wayback machine until before the shooting (again, we know that because there were people re-archiving 8chan images archived on wayback machine on other services, such as Archive.Today), and then all of sudden are taken down? If you don't want to state "oh, wayback machine censored the image", ok, but isn't worth to mention, at least, that "hey, the images were there until X days and sometime after this day they were removed for some reason?" Eric120212 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've seen that happen, too, especially with websites that use a different address for storing images. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- It would be original research to discuss the removals if they have not been discussed elsewhere in reliable sources. It is not up for us to look at an event like that and decide it is relevant to the Wikipedia article -- if a reliable source decides it is worth discussing then we can consider adding it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this is noteworthy at all, and including it would absolutely be original research.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine admins may remove material such as terror propaganda videos, or if the copyright owner objects.[2][3] However, there is a clear WP:OR problem with the El Paso material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- This certainly fails WP:OR because there are no secondary sources for the phenomenon.-Splinemath (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine admins may remove material such as terror propaganda videos, or if the copyright owner objects.[2][3] However, there is a clear WP:OR problem with the El Paso material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Eric120212:
Although the time-frame is very suspicious, isn't?
-- see RationalWiki's "Just Asking Questions" for why we're going to assume you believe there was deliberate censorship. Now, you might say "but I really don't," but then why does it matter that the images aren't there anymore? Like I said, it happens pretty often with websites where the images were stored separately from the main website -- which wouldn't be a particular issue for this article but maybe (if a reliable source complained about this oversight by Internet Archive) for the article on Internet Archive. I can't begin to think of any stance from which this issue would be relevant to this article except from the perspective that there's censorship going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Move article from 8chan to 8kun?
The new name of the site is 8kun, so the article should be moved to reflect that. 8chan will continue to exist as a redirect. Any objections? SebastianTalk | Contrib. - 23:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I object. Per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES I think that would be premature. Even the sources discussing the name change (DailyDot, CNET, Vice) address that the site is trying to rebrand, but then continue to refer to the site as "8chan". A redirect from 8kun -> 8chan makes sense, but I oppose moving the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense. You are right that is is still commonly referred to as 8chan, so it should go by the common name. Thanks for the info! SebastianTalk | Contrib. - 23:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's a strange situation, because 8chan is still the WP:COMMONNAME even though the domain is now 8kun. The site's official Twitter page still shows 8chan, but they haven't updated the domain. Overall, I would keep the current article title per COMMONNAME..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- That makes sense. You are right that is is still commonly referred to as 8chan, so it should go by the common name. Thanks for the info! SebastianTalk | Contrib. - 23:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Russian hosting
{{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:
- For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
- If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
- If the page is protected, use one of the following:
If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. It ought to be mentioned that VanwaTech worked with a known cybercriminal to get 8chan briefly back online, and 8chan has used predominately Russian hosting since then.
Sources
- https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/11/breaking-the-law-how-8chan-or-8kun-got-briefly-back-online/
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/8chan-new-name-8kun-web-forum-hate-speech/
Thanks. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 08:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Trains2050: Please justify your closure of this WP:ER. Both Ars Technica and CBS News are reliable sources. Outdated information is already in the article, at the end of § "August 2019 removal from clearnet". § "November 2019 return to clearnet" relies entirely on a WP:SPS and is {{cn}}-tagged. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: sorry wrong template, i was meaning that it does not meat Wikipedia natural point of view. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Trains2050: What sources did I miss? Is there a reason to think that Ars is wrong on how 8chan got back online? What reason would that be? Ars is one of the strongest sources we have for internet-related content: it has editorial control, a neutrality policy, and its authors are all subject matter experts. Remember: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. If the sources are clear on an issue, we can be clear. See also User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: sorry wrong template, i was meaning that it does not meat Wikipedia natural point of view. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto:after reviewing the article further I am convinced that this is valid and i give the go ahead for you to do the change but please adhere to a natural point of view. thanks Trains2050 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC) ps: i am sorry for any inconvenience caused. I just want to be make sure everything on Wikipedia is true.
- @Psiĥedelisto: (edit conflict) Could you provide specific wording you were hoping to see added? See Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations #1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed—and I do apologize for not having wording here the first go round. I opened this one a while ago. I got better at it as I went, and opened ones against Talk:Fredrick Brennan, Talk:QAnon and Talk:4chan which were all accepted.
- So, I'd strike the entire § "November 2019 return to clearnet" for relying on WP:SPSs and being {{cn}}-tagged, and rewrite it as:
After being blocked from Alibaba's network, and with their upstream host in legal trouble, Watkins packed 8chan's servers into a van and took them to an unknown location.[1] This was later revealed to be in preparation for a move to the network "VanwaTech", owned by the founder of BitMitigate.[1] Watkins claimed to have "no input in how [VanwaTech] [sets up] their routing".[2] On November 5, 8chan, as 8kun, came briefly back online by using a bogon IP through Media Land LLC, known to be owned by Russian cybercriminal Alexander "Yalishanda" Volosovyk.[3] Trouble getting online continued in the subsequent weeks, with Ronald Watkins telling The Wall Street Journal, "8chan is on indefinite hiatus," on November 16.[4] That same day, the domain, 8kun.net, was suspended by its registrar, Tucows; it moved to a .top domain.[5] As of March 3, 2020, Russian hosting providers are still in use.[6]
- @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your consideration. Please note that I collaborated with Robert Evans (journalist) on the Evans2019 Bellingcat ref, but Evans wrote all the words. However, there was editorial control exerted both by him and Aric Toler, who I never met or spoke to. Thank you also Trains2050, no problem. Thank you for being reasonable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Evans, Robert; Brennan, Fredrick (2019-11-04). "The State of California Could Have Stopped 8Chan. It Didn't". Bellingcat. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
They [8chan] cycled through a variety of hosts, including Alibaba Cloud and Zare, using fake names in order to try and slip through the cracks.
- ^ Gilbert, David (2019-10-18). "Inside the War to Kill Off 8chan — And Crush QAnon". Vice. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
- ^ Gallagher, Sean (2019-11-05). "Breaking the law: How 8chan (or "8kun") got (briefly) back online". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
- ^ McMillan, Robert (2019-11-16). "Notorious 8chan Forum Is an Internet Nomad". The Wall Street Jorunal. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
- ^ Keane, Sean; Gonzalez, Oscar (2019-11-25). "8chan's rebranded 8kun site goes offline days after launch". CNET. Retrieved 2020-06-09.
- ^ Levinson, Charles (2020-03-03). "With super PAC, QAnon's con chases mainstream — and money". Protocol. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The site reappeared in November, renamed 8kun with a new Russian hosting service.
- @Psiĥedelisto: Thanks very much for the well-written suggestion. I'm working through verifying it now.
Can you clarify theNevermind, just realized this is referring to Centauri. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)with their upstream host in legal trouble
claim? I assume this is referring to VanwaTech, but I'm not sure I see any mention of legal trouble in the Bellingcat source.- @GorillaWarfare: (edit conflict)
Sure! I meant Centauri, their old upstream with the tax paperwork issues, not VanwaTech, their new one. It's somewhat confusing...technically, if we want to get into the gory networking details, they have two upstreams. They have an upstream out to public, (a reverse proxy,) and then an upstream out of their server to the reverse proxy. So, when 8chan's servers were in N. T. Technology, Centauri brought the data from N. T. to CloudFlare. Centauri was, for a time, bringing the data from N. T. to Zare, Alibaba, Tencent, and so on. But after the tax issue, and the looming possibility of intervention by the State of California, they packed their backend servers up and stuck them elsewhere. See → Centauri is one of the few businesses that have not yet been shamed out of working with Jim Watkins due to his association with 8chan. In September, Brennan was able to verify through the California Secretary of State’s website that the business was listed as “SOS/FTB Suspended”. According to the California Franchise Tax Board, this means Centauri is “…not in good standing and loses its rights, powers, and privileges to do business in California.”Hehe, no problem. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: (edit conflict)
- @Psiĥedelisto: Thanks very much for the well-written suggestion. I'm working through verifying it now.
- @Psiĥedelisto: I've worked your suggestions in to 8chan#Rebrand to 8kun and return to clearnet. Let me know if I've omitted anything important, or made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Done—Looks good to me. Thanks! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello GorillaWarfare! I was wondering if you would be so kind as to update it? The Guardian has reported that the Russian connection remains active as of October 2020. (Today.) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/19/far-right-online-forum-8chan-loses-internet Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: Done. Changed the wording to "service providers" rather than "hosting providers" since it sounds like this is discussing DDoS protection specifically. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Inclusion of the link to 8chan
Some IP editors have recently begun edit warring over the inclusion of the external link to 8chan, so I figured I'd start a discussion here. I'm inclined to agree with them that we should not be linking to a website where we know child porn is hosted; while Wikipedia is not censored, we also don't want to be directing our readers towards viewing content that could put them into legal trouble (not to mention the personal moral implications of viewing such content). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, 8chan does have a bit of a reputation in this area. Due to the nature of image boards, it is hard to say if and when child porn is hosted, but 8chan may not always be careful or prompt about removing it. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, 8chan is best known for the controversies over its links to mass shooters. 8chan is not a dark web site requiring a special browser, so anyone can click on the link to access the site with a standard browser.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well it's certainly easy to say that child porn has been posted there, as we do say so in-article. Whether or not there is currently any there, I have no idea and certainly no intention of going to find out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree. While indecent images have been hosted there it's worth mentioning that they are actively removed by moderators given that it's against the site's rules. Yes, it gets posted too often and sometimes the moderators are too slow to remove them, but calling the site explicitly a host for child porn is inaccurate. Furthermore, I think this an issue of the past rather than one of the present. Keep in mind that 8chan isn't the only site that has been guilty of this: 4chan itself has also been known to have CP posted and be slow to act on it, and yet we still link to them. — Czello 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the stuff posted on 8chan either. The moderators at 4chan are very strict about child porn and will remove it quickly. The problem is that the content on image boards is changing constantly, so you never know exactly what you will get.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- They're certainly more strict than they used to be -- at one point 4chan suffered similarly to 8chan. The content still is being removed on 8chan, however. I suppose the best comparison I can make is to say that 8chan isn't 12chan -- the later of which was explicitly there for child porn, whereas with 8chan it's an imageboard with slow-to-act moderators. — Czello 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on the stuff posted on 8chan either. The moderators at 4chan are very strict about child porn and will remove it quickly. The problem is that the content on image boards is changing constantly, so you never know exactly what you will get.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Czello: Do you have a source for that? If that's the case we may need to update the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: Sorry, a source for which part specifically? — Czello 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Czello: All of it; that moderators actively remove it, that the site is not a host of child porn, and that it's a past issue rather than one of the present. The article currently says
The site is also known for hosting child pornography
and your comments suggest we should mention that that impression is based on a past version of the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)- (edit conflict)No, I'm afraid not. The only thing I can say in their "defence" is that illegal content is against the site's rules. Everything I've said is what I've heard anecdotally about the site (which I realise isn't proof of anything). I suppose what I'd be interested in is knowing whether it's an active distributor of CP. — Czello 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks for clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, I'm afraid not. The only thing I can say in their "defence" is that illegal content is against the site's rules. Everything I've said is what I've heard anecdotally about the site (which I realise isn't proof of anything). I suppose what I'd be interested in is knowing whether it's an active distributor of CP. — Czello 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Czello: All of it; that moderators actively remove it, that the site is not a host of child porn, and that it's a past issue rather than one of the present. The article currently says
- @GorillaWarfare: Sorry, a source for which part specifically? — Czello 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Czello: Do you have a source for that? If that's the case we may need to update the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
A link to 8chan should definitely not be included and there really isn't any legitimate reason to do so. That site (and its offshoots) is actively monitored and surveilled by multiple law enforcement agencies around the world that most likely log each and every visitor. Whatever the mods there do or don't do is irrelevant. 8chan is viewed by international law enforcement on the same level as ISIS/ISIL and other terrorism sites. This shouldn't even be an issue as a simple Google search will reveal the extent of international law enforcement surveillance and monitoring of sites like 8chan. Laval (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, considering the nature of 8chan, I'm surprised this article isn't locked to prevent IP editing. Laval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Query: is there actually any Wikipedia policy that would forbid linking to 8chan? — Czello 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ELNO includes "Sites containing ... content that is illegal to access in the United States". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough; if the site is still prone to hosting illegal content then it's appropriate to remove the link. — Czello 17:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ELNO includes "Sites containing ... content that is illegal to access in the United States". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Czello and GorillaWarfare: WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly overrides ELNO so I don't see anything that would forbid linking to it. There have been plenty of other discussions about legally questionable sites e.g. pirate bay, sci-hub, silk road which have concluded that we should include links to the sites. In this case, there's probably even less reason to not link, as I imagine that CP would only constitute a small portion of the content there. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is an excellent point; I didn't realise that WP:ELOFFICIAL takes priority here. In which case I'd like to reiterate my belief the link should be included. — Czello 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Czello and GorillaWarfare: WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly overrides ELNO so I don't see anything that would forbid linking to it. There have been plenty of other discussions about legally questionable sites e.g. pirate bay, sci-hub, silk road which have concluded that we should include links to the sites. In this case, there's probably even less reason to not link, as I imagine that CP would only constitute a small portion of the content there. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- User:Czello, there is no harm in leaving the link out while we are discussing things--and next time, please do not revert without an explanation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- My reversion was to undoing edit warring; the IPs had been instructed to discuss this on the talk page and had clearly refused, so my actions were appropriate. — Czello 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but "reversion to undo edit warring" is a Contradictio in terminis, and all I am asking is that you EXPLAIN what you are doing. In an edit summary. That's not too much to ask. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dude, relax. When there's an edit war going on it's pretty standard to revert to the status quo as per WP:BRD; and I think it's fairly self evident that's what the edit was (especially given that the IP had already been asked to take it to the talk page). It's not a big deal. — Czello 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but "reversion to undo edit warring" is a Contradictio in terminis, and all I am asking is that you EXPLAIN what you are doing. In an edit summary. That's not too much to ask. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- My reversion was to undoing edit warring; the IPs had been instructed to discuss this on the talk page and had clearly refused, so my actions were appropriate. — Czello 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the article for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This is one of those "err on the side of caution" debates for me. What hurts the project more: Removing the link, or leaving it? in this case, leaving it does open the can of worms slightly, as even Google will not return a link to 8chan when searched. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The reason why they are currently on the somewhat weird .top domain is because they were having difficulty finding any domain and web host that would have them after the various mass shooter controversies. The site is controversial to the point where even search engines are reluctant to tell you where it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a very interesting conversation, however I'm having an issue with the line of reasoning here. We are arguing that because the site hosts illegal content, we should not provide a link. However, has anybody here presented evidence that the website itself still endorses the distribution of illegal content? As far as I can tell, the 8chan moderation team has cracked down on the distribution of illegal content and made it against site rules to distribute said content. If we are talking about removing a link to a site because users, against the wishes of the site's administration, break the rules and upload illegal content, then would that standard not be applicable to sites such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan, Pornhub, etc...? Even though those sites clearly outlaw the posting of certain types of illegal content, illegal content is still often posted and sometimes it takes a very long time for moderators to remove said content. What makes 8chan different? Somebody above also mentioned sites like thepiratebay, which actively takes part in what many censors would call illegal, yet we still keep the site link active. Overall, I would argue that it doesn't make sense to remove links to sites like 8chan, and, frankly, it would also send a bad precedent. If Twitter says it does not allow for minors to post nudes on it's website, yet somebody finds a minor's nudes on the website, does that mean Twitter is complicit in the distribution of Child Pornography and should have it's link removed? Or does it mean that Twitter moderators were not alerted of that minor's nudes quickly enough? I think that we must determine that 8chan is STILL endorsing the distribution of child pornography before we remove their link on the basis that they endorse the distribution of child pornography. Sixfish11 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agree completely, and articulated better than I did previously. — Czello 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a difference between "Free Speech" which is constitutionally protected and "Unprotected Speech" which is not constitutionally protected. Unprotected speech is expressly forbidden under law.
A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution.
There is an obligation on the part of Administrators and Wikipedia to remove Child Pornography and other unprotected speech immediately on receiving notice.
If you are linking to Child Pornography: why are you doing so? Why are you doing so here? Are you aware of the potential ramifications to yourself and others?
This is a very complex issue in law v freedom. There is enough depth on the 8Chan Wikipedia page to provide a reasonable overview of the topic. A link to unprotected speech in the form of Child Pornography does not add to an overview; instead it creates law breakers. (some intentional and other unintentionally)
Wikipedia is supposed to be a group process but for this kind of issue takedown has to occur swiftly from the point of notice. without discussion or time lag. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever in removing a link to Child Pornography. I was obligated to report this matter via the process established by the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation as a courtesy.