cleanfeed and wikipedia

[David Hansen]

On 8 Dec 2008 at 9:47, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> On a date in July 2004 when I analysed the complete list (with the 
> knowledge of IWF):
> 
> - - about 34% were hostnames with no path (meaning block the entire site)
> - - about 28% had a path but no extension at the end
> - - about 30% ended in .html or .htm (of which about 30% were 
> index.htm[l])
> - - just under 3% had image extensions
> - - just under 6% had other extensions such as .php or .cgi
> 
> A brief scan of the current list suggests that the percentages are now 
> 28%, 18%, 10%, 32%, and 12%.

Do IWF let plebs such as myself scan this list, so we can verify their 
claims, or do they have something to hide?


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54