Wikipedia Won't Bow to Chinese Censors 504
truthsearch writes "Jimmy Wales has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive Wikipedia entries. He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia. 'We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information.'"
Defiance Versus Inability (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering China's regulations [hrw.org] I don't think it'd be possible for Mr. Wales to accomplish censoring all of Wikipedia from what's on the list from China's Article 19 of censorship policy. This that China requires to be censored:
- violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
- jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's unity;
- harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
- inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
- disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
- spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
- spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
- insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
- inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
- conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
- any other content prohibited by law or rules.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.In other news all Chinese residents will see a new homepage for Wikipedia [hrw.org]. Just another reason why Tor should stay up and the recent news about it being used as a child pornography shield is terrible.
*All information in this post was gathered via irony [wikipedia.org].
As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I'm aware the US doesn't usually force sites to shut down unless they're participating in something actively illegal (child porn, gambling). It's not uncommon for them to take down organizations by charging them with a crime, and that results in the removal of a web site, but I'm not aware of them merely ordering an ISP to remove a web site without also pressing charges against the organization or individual putting it up.
So if you can cite me some examples it would be appreciated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Holistic medicine is a voluntary and chosen practice, people who choose to practice it do so upon their own beliefs and choices, you can no more claim it to be murder than to say companies that sell butter or cars are killing people because they cause increased rates of heart attacks or car accidents.
Your contention that goverments inherently attempt to censor information contrary to their intrests holds weight and is exhibited consistently throughout history, one has only to look at wars to note how often... and important the practice has been used.
the real question is extent and content. No system can be completely "good" and/or "benevolent" as the very act of censorship restricts the rights of some for the benefit of others, however speech in concerns that render grave or immenent and real danger to a multi-tude of people are commonly restricted under what is generaly understood to be a common sense and practical public safety concern.
When the public safety aspect is over-extended beyond the real of "real" danger we begin to see the abuse... which is nearly inevitble, but the issue is the extent. China is without much question a hallmark of severly over extended censorship which goes ridiculously further beyond the bounds of reasonable public safety in comparison to the US.
To put the two on equivilent terms is spurious and intelectually insulting.
Hezbollah and other organizations like it, or closely affiliated with it... actively procure funds and engage in violent attacks without forwarning on civilian populations againts the wishes of their domestic populations. While they enjoy support of their respective publics as a symbolic resistence to the west, their methods are generally NOT supported and regularly denounced by those communities.
Falon Gong simple DOES NOT COMPARE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then you talk about things sometimes being "black and white"? Your Hezbollah fog isn't just "nuanced", it's a deranged lie. I'm curious what you have to say about the "few bad apples" among Americans torturing Iraqis in Abu Gh
Re:As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break. "McArthur era"? Don't you mean McCarthy era? Which is yet another bullshit comparison.
Even that Mandela (who you can't even spell) comparison is bullshit. You want the ultimate form of your bullshit? The American revolutionaries who ditched the British were "terrorists", too. There is a difference between terrorizing civilians and terrorizing military or political leaders. And Hezbollah is terrorist of the worst kind.
And you are helping them with your bullshit. Don't hand me some more bullshit about how that fact is somehow something I saw on CNN. Just because Bush has equated the Terror War with anything he wants to do doesn't mean the reality he's hijacked isn't still true. Saying that Hezbollah is just some "bad apples" is a disgusting lie that ignores their sworn mission to kill everyone who stops them from taking over Israel, Lebanon, anything they think god told them is theirs. And you are working with them in their campaign to gain political success. You're sick. And you won't get any more help from me validating you by arguing with you, when you can't even get simple facts straight and make outrageous lies about Hezbollah terrorists.
Re:As if the US doesnt censor internet (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW the US has become a police state on the issue of Israel. You cannot criticize the Israeli government without being labelled anti-semite which is probably the worst disservice to to the larger Jewish community as I have met many Jews both inside and outside Israel who do not agree to the Israeli governments policy of de facto apartheid. Most secular Israelis who have lived in Israel for generations would have no problem giving the Arabs equal rights but they are outshouted by the vocal minority which migrated recently from the USSR and who have been granted land in the settlements. Of course these settlers (most of whom were dirt poor before they got free grants of land ) dont want to leave the West Bank and go back to a life of poverty in Israeli cities. If it was a choice between my family being poor and Arab families being poor I would make the same choice.
But the external world should understand these issues and realize that Israeli society is not a monolith. Just like we try to promote change in Iran by supporting the reformers we should try to promote change in Israel by supporting the Labour and other pro peace parties (if needed with covert funds - it would be still cheaper than having to spend billions on defending a small country in an hostile neighbourhood)
Re:Defiance Versus Inability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Wikimedia foundation blocks Tor nodes, at least from editing (for understandable, if not agreeable reasons).
Hasn't Google already justified it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then Google need to google. (Score:2, Insightful)
They need to google "False Dilemma"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because it's an excellent way for people to blow off steam, without havnig any effect on the real world.
Re:Hasn't Google already justified it? (Score:5, Insightful)
How wonderful it is to act nobly when one has not simply nothing to lose but actually nothing to gain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much more noble would it be for those (Yahoo!, Google) who have much to lose ($$$) but relatively little to gain to Do The Right Thing?
Re: (Score:2)
But now? What results returns Google, when it encounters a Chinese IP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know the reason Google set up google.cn was because for most people in China acce
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that in North America, most people would opt to eat crap. And it shows.
Re:Hasn't Google already justified it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business or Foundation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Salute.
what? of course it does. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, yes, it's the right thing to do to rescue princesses, but lets not be throwing the word 'heroic' around for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
While in the other valley, Tommy tells the dragon where the knight is hiding out, and tells the princess he had no choice, it was the only way to be able to access the dragons's hoard... er I mean to slowly convince the dragon of the error of his ways...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, I didn't make any assertions about Google's behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm a leftist, and I have a better impression of capitalism than most of the Reagan-era "libertarian" idiots here.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the first day. Due to cost-cutting, we forgot to send you a schedule. Terribly sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, As an individual, or a charitable organisation, I can decide not to go there because I do not approve of censorship etc...
However a business can't just ignore 1.3 Million potential consumers. Not when it tells it's shareholders that it is on a global growth trajectory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please stop perpetuating the myth that corporations are inherently amoral because their shareholders demand nothing less. This is a cop-out that some corporations would like you to believe because it gives them cart blanche to do whatever they want. But it is a dichotomy with no basis in reality. I challenge you to provide an example where shareholders have sued a corporation because the corporation m
Re:Business or Foundation (Score:5, Informative)
While I can't cite an example of a shareholder suing management for fiscal malpractice for doing something ethical, there are examples of companies whose share prices are depressed because of the effects of them behaving ethically.
One example I can cite off the top of my head is Ben and Jerry's, who couldn't find a competent CEO because of their ethical decision to pay nobody more than seven times the price of their lowest-paid employee. In the end they had to abandon their ethical principles to hire competent management, and their stock price went up because of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I challenge you to provide an example where a corporation made an ethical choice that wasn't required (or thought to be soon required) that cost more than a trivial amount. I can't show you the consequences of a choice when no one made that choice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about the billions and billions of dollars that most major corporations give to charities each year? Yes, many get tax breaks from the donations, but many do not. I know a company that donated a $20 million radio station to a local non-profit and didn't get a dime back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just thought of another one -- how about the millions that Dell and others spend on computer recycling programs that are not required.
You're just grumpy or lazy. You could come up with your own list if you bothered to try.
Re: (Score:2)
Da Facts (Score:3, Interesting)
But in practice, it turns out that this is true.
The root of the problem is the entire concept of what the purpose of a publicly held corporations is. I don't know a whole lot about what the principles behind the "official" purpose of incorporation are, but I thought that the trade off was that in exchange for certain benefits to the corporation, somehow there was a benefit to society beyo
Re:Business or Foundation (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. You've never heard of something. Great research there. No one's ever walked up to you and told you something, so your assumptions must be true!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
# of employees in Chinese censorship office
1,500
# of chinese nationals who want to correct the offficial bullshit
~100,000+
# of non nationals wanting to correct the official bullshit
~1-2 million
clearly even with cheap labor they couldn't compete. So they banned it.
That's a great belief, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd sure call that freedom of information!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(a) something that would help you find this information but hides information about your governments human rights abuses or
(b) no help
Re: (Score:2)
(a) something that [dispenses some low-grade crack] or
(b) no [crack]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's a great belief, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
And hopefully that *nothing* will help to spur social change for the Chinese, rather than putting a bandage over the problem by allowing censored content.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, you'd have to have a broad coalition for this to work. You're talking about MSN, Google and Yahoo all agreeing on something. Good luck with that.
Secondly, it's not like search utilities are some magical things that no one understands. Even if item 1 comes to pass, there's still all the homegrown search sites lieke baidu (sp?).
Thirdly, if you honestly think that it's lack of a really good search engine that'll be the last straw that incites the Chinese to rise up
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your points may all be true, but it doesn't make it right to help a government censor information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather not live in a society where the government controls my access to information. If you want to create a censored version of Wikipedia, have at it, but I applaud Jimmy Wales for refusing to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia does NOT block access to Chinese users.
China's government blocks access to Wikipedia. I would not be surprised if China's government blocked access to Slashdot.
Does that mean Cmdr Taco should prevent posts from people who are commie bashing? I think not.
Bravo... if it holds up. (Score:5, Insightful)
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One big difference between wikipedia and others... (Score:5, Insightful)
So while wikipedia can take the high ground and just not exist in China, for-profit companies have to justify this to their shareholders. If you were invested in Google and heard they decided not to expand into the large & growing market of China... well you can see how one could begin to question if the company's leadership had the shareholder's interests in mind.
Re:One big difference between wikipedia and others (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no requirement that a public corporation must do anything it can to maximize its profit. I cringe every time I see this argument used here.
Re: (Score:2)
Information repository vrs information search tool (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Wikipedia is more than a tool for finding information. It IS information, and one of it's highest goals needs to be accuracy. (let's not debate accuracy vs. Wiki's here tho)
If they were to censor information that is valid... well it would be incredibly wrong. You can't have just a 'little' bit of censorship of information in an encyclopedia, it violates the whole spirit of the thing.
New mod system for Chinese Wikipedia (Score:2)
Rate: Double-plus-good.
Rewrite History (Score:5, Funny)
Quis cusodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Quis cusodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy your button here [ala.org]
Re:Quis cusodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you didn't expect it, but over the last few years I've seen more evidence that the Librarians are doing more to protect civil liberties than many other groups.
Some quck examples coming from a google search for "librarian civil liberty"
http://www.alternet.org/rights/36953/ [alternet.org]
http://www.kbcafe.com/politics/?guid=200601280728
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/ecp/2003/epoli
http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/437/437_04_
There have been numerous stories on Slashdot over the years showing examples of this. There seem to be quite a few people in that profession who fight very hard to prevent the erosion of rights.
Hats off to them.
Cheers
Easy to do when not a public company (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy to do when not a public company (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm trying to understand what your point is. Is it OK for Google to do bad things, because it is "less easy"? Does it being "easy" for Wikipedia mean its actions have less merit?
It's a strange set of morals you appear to be describing. We should live our lives based on what's easiest? Is that what you are saying? If doing the right thing is difficult, it's OK not to do it?
Many people find it hard to resist sexual temptation. So, is it OK to have an affair, and then lie to your wife about it, because it's easier than telling the truth or not having the affair?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, that appears not be true. Many companies blatantly ignore what their shareholders want, but continue to stay in business.
Also, there are other options. They could quite their jobs when the company is headed towards questionable ethics. Or, the owners of Google could have kept it a private company. I don't see where there is a law that companies have to be traded on the stock market. I don't think the board of dire
Hmmm (Score:2)
He'll be (Score:4, Funny)
Chinapedia (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets see how much he'd like a Chinapedia...
Pretty simple there Jimbo (Score:3, Insightful)
He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October
Yeah, I think the second sentence pretty much gives him the answer to the question in the first.
Which one of those two (Google and Wiki) is a... (Score:2, Redundant)
It's easy to take the moral high road when you're not responsible for anything or anyone.
No information == Freedom of information (Score:2)
*Giggle (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not if he's being intentionally dense, or if he honestly belives that the Chinese government is interested in neutrality.
If so, I'd ask Mr. Wales to compare the following three links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&inl
http://www.google.com/search?q=Tiananmen+Square&i
Just a thought...
Flip It (Score:4, Insightful)
Donaters shy away from a non-profit that DOESN'T take the higher moral ground.
Yay! (Score:2)
The Wikipedia approach VS. Microsoft/Google (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that Wikipedia's approach accomplishes nothing - although neither does it compromise the organization's stated principles. Microsoft and Google's approach of censoring on request has still created a raging torrent of information within, into, and out of China, one that the Chinese government can only barely police. Wikipedia's outdated reactionary protest model will not coax China to change anything, after all, China has the resources to churn out competing products with ease. Microsoft and Google are showing China the rest of the world, and giving Chinese dissidents great, albeit limited, tools for proactively attacking totalitarianism.
Actual Policy in China (Score:2, Interesting)
(Google != Information)&&(Google == Advert (Score:2)
Google is a glorified advertising business.
Wikipedia is in it for the information. They want to share knowledge by leaveraging the power of the masses.If the billions of people who are online visit and read Wikipedia
Easy. (Score:2)
#2 hit for "democracy" on google.cn (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes it's easy to be idealistic (Score:2)
While I do applaud Jimmy Wales for taking the moral high road on this one, I also have to acknowledge that it looks like his decision was much easier to make than the decisions that Google, Yahoo, and others have faced.
How could Wikipedia comply with anyone's demand for censorship, even if it wanted to? Its core structure makes that impossible. What, would each article have a little NFCNNN button that any of us could push? ("Not For China No No No")
have you considered.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia, obviously, by its nature is not beholden to these interests.
More than slightly conflicted (Score:3, Interesting)
First, that their stance of "freedom of information," rather than of individual liberty. Accept the latter, and the former can only follow. Accept the former without the latter, you live in a paradox where an individual can be expected/obligated/forced to make disclosures of information about something or another; he has no freedom to keep that information (or its benefits) to himself if he so wishes, (This is also my problem with "Free Software," Richard Stallmin [misspelling intentional. Think "Stalin."] and the GPL, but that's another discussion for another time) or a person is forced to keep his mouth shut if what he wishes to share (or not) doesn't fit the political agenda or dogma of the day.
Second, given the tug-of-war that most articles of a political nature on Wikipedia face, that is, with leftists and rightists engaged in a constant back-and-forth to spin them to suit their agendas, most articles are effectively controlled by a tyranny of the majority, or at the very least, a tyranny of the last person to change it -- rather than articles having a basis in fact. On such articles, I would argue that Wikipedia is only playing lip service to "freedom of information", much less to "freedom."
If Wikipedia has a stance to take, it _should_ be a belief in individual liberty and freedom to do whatever he chooses to better himself (without placing any obligation on others, of course) -- including learning the accurate, honest, objective truth as it's known about any subject available to him so that he can make his own best decisions about them.
It makes no difference if the information's free, but people aren't.
ERZ
Re:So Says the Charitable Foundation (Score:2)
Now does anyone have any rational suggestions?
Hmm... more charitable organizations, less reliance on money making businesses? Especially where free exchange of information is the goal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So I went to a seminar on doing business in Chi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except your government. You can't leave your house and they control everything coming in.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have a myriad of news sources available to you. You can watch CNN, read Drudge, read the paper, and spend half the day on
I don't know if China would be happier unde
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't an issue of people in America imposing their beliefs on China. If the Chines