cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Michael Procter]

On Mon, December 8, 2008 10:19 am, David Hansen wrote:
> 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?

>From the Wikipedia article on IWF:

The IWF makes available to supporting ISPs a blocklist of URLs which must
be blocked, as part of the contract to obtain the list, the blocklist must
not be reviewed by any human being[citation needed], posing questions
regarding accuracy and transparency.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation

Yes, there is clearly a reason to prevent people scanning the list, but
you are right about the potential risks of automatic block lists without
the possibility of review.

Michael