Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China Blocks Wikipedia

Posted by timothy on Mon Jun 14, 2004 09:41 PM
from the favored-nation dept.
Censorship Privacy
Lemmingue writes "China government is, again, restraining the access to internet. Ars Technica says they are now blocking the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

China Blocks Wikipedia 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Speaking of blocking... (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_other_one (178565) * on Monday June 14 2004, @09:43PM (#9426355) Homepage

    How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?"

    Slashdot is already blocked in China and India. Geeks are still productive overseas. This is the main reason for the offshore outsourcing frenzy.

    How soon can Slashdot be blocked in North America.

  • Slashdot not going to be blocked (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a (568518) on Monday June 14 2004, @09:46PM (#9426381) Journal
    How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?

    Slashdot *does* criticize Chinese policy, including information control and the like.

    However, it's also extremely critical of the current US administration, which China's current administration is not a tremendous fan of.

    Also, Slashdot (at least the English slashdot.org) is not in Chinese, limiting the number of people that can read it. Wikipedia is translated to Chinese.

    I do agree that this sucks. Technically, China is still communist, and Wikipedia is about as fine an example of the triumph of successful communist principles (community-owned, from according to assets, to according to need) as you could ask for. Seems like a stupid idea on the part of China.
    • "I do agree that this sucks. Technically, China is still communist, and Wikipedia is about as fine an example of the triumph of successful communist principles (community-owned, from according to assets, to according to need) as you could ask for. Seems like a stupid idea on the part of China." Guess what China has never been a communist country. In fact there has never been a communist country per Marx. China is a not free and seeks to control every aspect of the life of the people that live there.
      • In fact there has never been a communist country per Marx. China is a not free and seeks to control every aspect of the life of the people that live there.

        China would not necessarily have been any freer if it had been "a communist country per Marx." I think it's time that people finally accepted that the Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing. Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets; history has s

        • Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing

          Free Markets like Singapore? or Pinochet's Chile? Or how about Revolutionary France, with guarantees to property? [hrcr.org]

          I know none of these are perfect examples, but simply because a place has free markets, does not make them inherently free.

          I believe many people should remember that all countries which have declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-

          • Re:Slashdot not going to be blocked (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Distinguished Hero (618385) on Monday June 14 2004, @11:16PM (#9426863) Homepage
            I never stated that a free market guarantees complete and utter freedom; I merely stated that a free market is closer to freedom than a centrally planned economy, a claim which you did not refute. Given two hypothetical countries, both with brutally despotic rulers and the same amount of rights, with the exception of one being centrally planned, and the other possessing a free market, which country is freer?

            My point was "Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets." Rebutting this statement by listing states which possessed a free market and yet were not completely and utterly free does not disprove my point; implying that I stated that societies with free markets are always free and then disproving that point it a straw man fallacy.

            Furthermore, there is evidence to support the fact that free market economies eventually lead to the downfall of oppressive regimes (see East Asian Tigers excluding Singapore, etc.). Certainly you will agree that a free market economy is far less hospitable for tyrannical rulers and oppressive regimes than a centrally planned economy.

            Perhaps there is a reason why all the countries which "declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships." Sure, correlation does not imply causality, but given enough examples, perhaps one should begin doubting the divinity of communism. There are certainly enough beliefs within the dogma of communism (must be attained through a revolution, forcefully taking controll from some and giving it to others, etc.) which would be conducive to the sort of "one-party dictatorships" that have historically emerged.

            • Re:Slashdot not going to be blocked (Score:4, Informative)

              by tobar mersa (785890) on Tuesday June 15 2004, @12:11AM (#9427081) Journal
              Given two hypothetical countries, both with brutally despotic rulers and the same amount of rights, with the exception of one being centrally planned, and the other possessing a free market, which country is freer?
              They are equally unfree. Simply because a person is free to own a factory in one land does not make it more free than a land where a person is forbidden from owning a factory. The fact that a person is free to accumulate great wealth in this scenario has nothing to do about the freedom to speak out against the crimes of the Government.
              My point was "Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets." Rebutting this statement by listing states which possessed a free market and yet were not completely and utterly free does not disprove my point
              I probably misread your comment. You also wrote: I think it's time that people finally accepted that the Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought [emphasis added] is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing. Thus, I assumed you considered economic and societal freedom, if not causal, at least correlational. I was simply trying to point out that Free Markets do not require Free Societies; thus, a Free Society could easily slide into a non-Free one, whilst the market still went about its work.
              Certainly you will agree that a free market economy is far less hospitable for tyrannical rulers and oppressive regimes than a centrally planned economy.
              I agree it is far less hospitable than other forms of economic systems. Just it is also not wholy inhospitable. After all, a dictator could easily permit a free market for anyone who does not oppose the regime.
              given enough examples, perhaps one should begin doubting the divinity of communism. There are certainly enough beliefs within the dogma of communism (must be attained through a revolution, forcefully taking controll from some and giving it to others, etc.) which would be conducive to the sort of "one-party dictatorships" that have historically emerged.
              I think this is more a result of having nearly all Communist countries that lasted any appreciable length of time outside the U.S.S.R. modeled their development after the U.S.S.R. This means that the Coup d'Etat launched by Lenin often termed the October Revolution provided the effective base for single-party governance, as the Coup was mainly Bolshevik in character, and the following Civil War effectively quashed the other parties. Then Uncle Joe Stalin (or, as I prefer to call him, Tsar Josif) took over after Lenin's death, and squashed any rights which interfered with his outlook on how the country should be run (N.B.: this included economic rights. Lenin established the New Economic Policy, which broke up Government owned industries into different sections, which were then ordered to compete along pseudo-Free Market Lines; also, the ownership of small factories and of small stores of under, iirc, ten people was also legalized. Stalin made an alliance with the Old Bolsheviks promising to keep the NEP if he is installed into power instead of Trotsky, who vowed to rid the U.S.S.R. of the NEP. Then, after gaining power, Stalin did away with the NEP and the Old Bolsheviks both.) Then, when other forms of authoritarian Communists were trying to gain power, they followed the way that had worked in the U.S.S.R.
            • Brutally despotic rulers are not much favored by most people. So I think your set up was a bit artificial. But let us suppose we have some brutal and despotic rulers and also that public stock corporations were discrimated against by the brutal despotic rulers, let us say by high taxes and heavy regulation. Compare that to brutal despotic rulers who let the corporations run wild, break unions, monopolize, cook the books, rig prices, etc. etc.

              Now it seems to me given your free trade ideology you would pr
            • There are no free market countries that I know of. U.S. industries are so heavily protected and subsidized by taxpayers it's ridiculous to think we have anything approaching a free market. Our aerospace industry is subsidized to a stunning degree by taxpayers, as is the communications sector, agriculture, and the energy sector. The U.S. steel, auto, and tech sectors are receiving, or about to receive, huge anti-competitive protections that go against all free trade theories. People in the U.S. don't wan

      • Big freaking clue (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday June 15 2004, @10:59AM (#9430624) Homepage Journal
        Roosevelt in a speech in January 1941 talked about the four freedoms. They have very little to do with economics. It is much more simple and human than Marx.

        "In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
        The first is freedom of speech and expression --everywhere in the world.

        The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way
        -- everywhere in the world.

        The third is freedom from want
        --everywhere in the world.

        The fourth is freedom from fear,
        --everywhere in the world."

        What a world it could be. But China is not it. It is not even close. The US is not living up to this totaly but at least a lot of people in the US know where it should be going. I get sick to my stomach when I see all the idiots on Slashdot hold up the right to download kiddie porn and swap mp3s as freedoms. There are places where you can not teach your children about God if you do beleive in God with out worrying that your door will get kicked down and no one ever see you again!
        I do not care if a country is capitalist or not if they do not at least try for those four freedoms they are HELL. I know that some people belive trading with China will help it become free someday. I pray that they are right. Start with those four freedoms and then we can work on which system of ownership works the best!

          • Nope it really doesn't seem to but if it bugs you the final paragraph should drive you right over the edge.

            "This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

            To that high concept there can be no end save victory."
            So go nuts. Most l
          • Believe it or not I do agree with you. How ever the freedom of religion is such a fundamental freedom that to talk of freedom and not bring religion up is next to impossible. It does not matter if it is the moron in California that shoots up a jewish kindergarten, Nazis, the Klan, the USSR, modern China,or the idiots that want to ban Darwin from the schools the freedom to think and to wonder about the universe and about nature of God are fundamental freedoms and they are tightly tied together Hitler did not
    • I think **reason|logic** doesnt speak here. The government will block whatever it deems right and its ourselves who invent those various reasons why why why.

      if i say u down , u down
    • do agree that this sucks. Technically, China is still communist, and Wikipedia is about as fine an example of the triumph of successful communist principles (community-owned, from according to assets, to according to need) as you could ask for. Seems like a stupid idea on the part of China.

      Agreed, communism isn't as great as democracy (although, it (communism) may have some hidden advantages), and I don't know enough about Communism in general to make a statement about this.
    • "Slashdot *does* criticize Chinese policy, including information control and the like."

      Additionally, Slashdot rarely reports the news error free, then it drives so many people to any given site thus blowing it out of existence. Maybe Slashdot isn't blocked because the Chinese gov't is saying "Heh, we don't have to worry about them learning anything new there."

  • Just another reason why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Read Icculus (606527) on Monday June 14 2004, @09:53PM (#9426415)
    We need to develop tools to share and distribute information securely, anonymously, and efficiently. Government control in these matters is not in our best interests, and in the best interests of the rest of the world. Sure this sounds like your normal "information wants to be free" rant, but when the government here in the United States tries to send someone to jail on trumped up Terrorism Charges [slashdot.org] for running a website... well it's quite clear that freedom of speech and the rights I hold dear mean nothing to those in power. "Even" in the "freeset nation on earth".

    Sure there's freenet and what have you, but when it comes to oppressive governments I'd rather not have anyone know I'm functioning as a freenet node and a relay for certain information.

  • They are so fragile (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ericandrade (686380) on Monday June 14 2004, @09:54PM (#9426418)
    If the chinese government thinks that wikipedia is a menace to their power, I wish them good luck in the years to come.

  • Is slashdot.org blocked in China? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jsse (254124) on Monday June 14 2004, @09:57PM (#9426435) Homepage Journal
    See it yourself [harvard.edu].

  • zh.wikipedia on Tianenmen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beeplet (735701) <beeplet@gmail.com> on Monday June 14 2004, @09:57PM (#9426436) Homepage Journal
    I thought it was interesting - but not terribly surprising - that the access was cut off just prior to the anniversary of the Tianenmen Square massacre. It's odd to be able to access a Chinese site from the US that is blocked there... (Or has the block been lifted?) In any case, I was poking around and found their page on Tianenmen [wikipedia.org]. Some of the pictures are familiar - I wonder how many people in China would find them as familiar as I do? Too bad they can't see them.

    Still, I think this is a stopgap measure at best. The wikipedia is an easy target because it's a clearing house for links to information, but as long as there is any internet, there will be a way for this information to be passed around. A better model for disseminating information underground would be a highly decentralized system - harder to navigate, but more robust.

    I also thought it was odd that there were only 100 regular contributors, out of a country of 1 billion+ people. Is it lack of computer access? Or fear of reprisals? I have to have admiration for the people who put the zh.wikipedia together in the first place.
  • Having a look at the article text is states "Ten days ago the Chinese government blocked Internet access to the Chinese version [wikipedia.org] of the Wikipedia".

    To me that seems to imply that the English version of the site has not been blocked. Can anyone confirm if this is true?

  • Totalitarian societies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Warrior (637634) * on Monday June 14 2004, @10:02PM (#9426468) Homepage Journal
    can't abide free flow of information.

    All governments rely on the consent (or at least aquiesence) of the governed. As soon as the majority really BELIEVE that there is something better possible, it's all over.

    • Re:Totalitarian societies (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > All governments rely on the consent (or at least aquiesence) of the governed. As soon as the majority really BELIEVE that there is something better possible, it's all over.

      Depends who's holding the guns. I'm sure a great percentage of folks living in Stalinist USSR believed there had to be something better - getting that without getting killed or shipped off to Siberia, that's a different problem.

  • Why block Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)

    by duffbeer703 (177751) on Monday June 14 2004, @10:05PM (#9426483)
    Any subversives looking for information to undermine the Communist regime would instead find themselves posting inane posts about dead operating systems, hot grits and beowulf clusters.

    Hmm... maybe /. is actually a mind control device.

  • Wikipedian discussions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by teslatug (543527) on Monday June 14 2004, @10:27PM (#9426579)
    For some discussions have a read at the wikipedia-l [wikimedia.org] mailing list.

  • It had to be said (Score:3, Funny)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Monday June 14 2004, @10:58PM (#9426760) Homepage
    IN COMMUNIST CHINA, Wikipedia blocks YOU!

  • Pro-China posting (Score:5, Funny)

    by GuyMannDude (574364) on Monday June 14 2004, @11:09PM (#9426832) Journal

    How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?

    We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.

    • Lucas should have cast Jet Li as Jango Fett!
    • I'll bet the upper levels of Starfleet Command are all Chinese. That's why you never see them on the Enterprise. They're too important to be in harm's way.
    • Chun Li could totally kick Guile's ass!!!

    There, I've done my part.
    GMD

    • We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.

      Given the political leanings and the level of historical knowledge of a large portion of Slashdot' s posters (just like most of Western civilization's inhabitants), this will probably occur naturally.
      Why are there so many anti-Israeli protesters and yet so few Free Tibet protesters.

  • How China Edits /. (Score:4, Funny)

    by jazman_777 (44742) on Monday June 14 2004, @11:33PM (#9426938) Homepage
    How much time will it take for to Slashdot be blocked?"

    All Chinese accounts read at mod level 6:Confucian.

  • me chinese, me play joke... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NanoGator (522640) on Tuesday June 15 2004, @12:36AM (#9427167) Homepage Journal
    I'm in China right now, and I just wanted to let you all know that Slashdot is still avai-0x$942k29482... [NO CARRIER]
  • This issue has been raised on wikipedia-l mailing list and there were some opinions [wikipedia.org] that they should try to resolve things quietly before making headlines. Posting on the Slashdot at this point of time sure won't help anyone (OK, so people have the right to know).

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.