Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Ban on Wikipedia Prevents Research
An anonymous reader writes "China has banned access to Wikipedia for the third time, outraging students and intellectuals." From the article: "The latest blocking of the website, the third shutdown of the site in China in the past two years, has now continued for more than 10 weeks without any explanation and without any indication whether the ban is temporary or permanent ... Others said the blocking of Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects and even to their prospects of passing civil-service exams. 'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."
I guess we wait for another Tiananmen Square to happen again. It kind of makes one wonder what exactly was accomplished in 1989 when 100,000 protesters marched in Beijing. Appearantly not much.
While the U.S. is concerned with this, maybe we should instead be concerned with that?
Either way, if you're interested in what the U.S. is concerned about, maybe you should read documents made available by the Freedom of Information Act.
What are people supposed to do if they cannot free themselves from a suppressive government? It's not worth violence to be able to read wikipedia but it's clear that non-violent protests in the past did very little.
My work here is dung.
Soap, Ballot, Ammo; yes, of course.
Unfortunately the first use must often be in reverse order.
I do enjoy using Wikipedia for day-to-day use but I would not have used it for either of my Masters Thesis' as I don't think either oral defense committee would have accepted Wiki as an authoritative source. Perhaps that is different from school to school. Still, I wonder about the student puzzling how he/she will finish a thesis. I would suggest using mostly journal articles.
http://www.busyweather.com/
That wikipedia blamed John Seigenthaler for the Tiananmen Square conspiracy.
then one has to question the quality of Chinese degrees.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Does that mean China is serious about competing with the world, thus imposing the ban to ensure quality graduates in the future?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
They may have blocked wikipedia, but they still have the uncyclopedia as a backup, so they should be good to go on their research- especially considering today's WotD;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Use a paper encyclopedia.
//Sorry, the quote made me laugh.
Using a satellite modem or Satmodem, you can bypass the censors.
Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_modem
Or, maybe not.
For anyone who can read this in China...try http://www.zensur.freerk.com/
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"'How can I do my thesis now?'"
Journals?
Beetle B.
They could also do some research on HTTP proxies.
Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects...
Unless their researching social networking and open content systems that's really sad. I can't believe the content on Wikipedia should serve as a very significant source to any research other than to it's social influences. That would be like saying Britannica was a major source for a research project... that couldn't possibly be taken seriously.
It's certainly a blow to free speech. But if this hurts any unrelated research projects those projects should find much better sources anyway.
Developers: We can use your help.
perhaps wiki was part of the subject and not the sources?
A real encyclopedia? What the hell are you thinking? That'd require getting off one's ass for 30 seconds.
How did all grad students complete their theses before the Wikipedia era? As a matter of fact, grads don't refer to encyclopedias when doing research. They refer more often to the literature (books, scientific journals, conference proceedings, etc.)
There's even sites dedicated to research literature. Try CiteSeer http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/, or even Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/.
Of coures Wikipedia can help a lot when you want to have a quick reference on subject matter, but there are also much more comprehensive avenues of research that can be used.
Just curious, but wouldnt it be simple to just use the nyud.net:8090 "trick" for viewing wikpedia? Or is that blocked in China as well?
#include bier;
Unless, of course, their thesis is on the unreliability of Wikipedia....
Indeed. Read through the disclaimers sometime. I can see how Wikipedia could help with some types of research. It does usually provide references to real sources, but (*boggle*) government service exams? I use Wikipedia for checking out technologies, fads, people, expressions, etc, but I wouldn't ever rely on them as a credible source.
that you're not supposed to use wikipedia for "real research"(tm)?
yes, but wikipedia is often a very handy springboard. well-written articles are essays in of themselves, and thus have several referenced sources, ranging from books, to published scientific studies available on the web, and such studies are often very difficult to find using normal search methods (Google, for example), as they're buried deep in various databases, and sometimes aren't indexed by Google due to the robots.txt being configured to prevent that.
and also, even if the study is in the results, the whole "sifting through the crap" in a web search makes it further problematic.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
that you're not supposed to use wikipedia for "real research"(tm)?
c ture)
*AHEM*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trees_(stru
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining
doo dee dum...
They'd be doing the world a favor by blocking access to anon. SMTP servers.
Wikipedia is a great source of information for research papers, specifically the Wikipedia citations. Wikipedia allows a broad overview of a subject, which is helpful in guiding the author, but overall its principle value is a collection of relevant, human-verified links, many of which lead to primary authorities on the subject matter.
I almost always head to Wikipedia before Google when doing research, for this reason. (I work in SEO, by the way)
Every government official in China editing a Wikipedia entry - talk about re-writing history! Perhaps Wikipedia should be blocking China.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
That's a nice thought. Too bad someone who does that in China is subject to going to prison if caught. The U.S. government isn't too far behind if we keep letting it get away with assuming more power.
True, but what if his thesis is about Wikipedia itself?
I don't know if China as we know it is more doomed by their absurd governmental policies, or by the fact that their uyounger generation's research seems to depend on the archived wisdom of random people on the street. I'll grant Wikipedia is getting better, but (a) to depend on it as a primary source of scholarship at this point is absurd and (b) even in China, especially at universities, there are other options.
Unless one's thesis is on the Wikipedia, anyone depending oslely on Wikipedia for research needs a reality slap.
Excuse me, think back to that guy, standing in the path of the line of tanks, and stopping them. Even if it accomplished nothing locally, that has to be one of THE most touching images of the last century, that has inspired thousands to get up stand up for their rights.
Does your school offer any English language classes such as introductory grammar and spelling?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
China's response was to block the 'other Chinese website' as well.
There seems to be a common theme in cop and detective stories... young hero that wants to use the latest technology to solve crimes and an old grizzled cop that says something like "In the end, you only solve crimes by hitting the pavement and asking questions".
It seems that the advice could apply in many areas. The Internet and its features may be great tools... but in the end, if you're trying to honestly research something, nothing beats cracking some books and reading, comprehending and putting it all together. Wikipedia should not be a critical resource for anyone but blog commenters, and then only because speed and words that sound authoritative seem more in demand than facts.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.
Afterall, I've found very helpful things on Wikipedia. I just wrote a Hidden Markov Model using the Viterbi Algorithm and did it from scratch in Java using WordNet and this page. Am I saying I could write a paper off of Wikipedia? No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think.
My work here is dung.
I really hope you have your flame-suit on with this. By the way, I completely agree with you.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Just think, people like him could be contributing stuff to Wikipedia *this very moment*.
In context of what?
See the article on Internet censhorship in China> too. It's probably articles like this that have the Chinese Govt annoyed. However, I would agree with the article that by blocking off access they are pretty much ensuring that articles such as this will have a more western-oriented tilt. Of course, Wikipedia has a policy of , which should allow both criticism and supporting viewpoints. If there's one thing I've learned about the Chinese govt from seeing how they handled SARS and the recent factory disaster, it's that this kind of transparency is something they cannot get to grips with.
"'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."
Gah! The Chinese government's ban of Wikipedia may force their students to research and experiment and think on their own. They may not realize it yet, but China may have just stumbled upon a way to save themselves from creating a North American-style population of instant-gratification seekers.
True, not having access to knowledge is probably worse than having too much knowledge, but Wikipedia is not an authoritative source and to treat it as such is dangerous. A university or high school paper may start with Wikipedia to gain ideas or a broad (if not completely vague or inaccurate) overview of a topic - but then primary sources or multiple peer-reviewed sources should be pulled in to develop the ideas.
Being stonewalled by a lack of a single resource speaks volumes about the student. Government censorship is a pain but it ought to develop more resourceful and creative researchers - or bright, highly sought-after, emigrants. If a student complains about being denied access to Wikipedia, not from an ethical/philosophical point of view but an egocentric one, I have no sympathy.
Are you serious?
First of all, I can't imagine a college professor letting you get away with citing an encyclopedia at all. The whole point of doing college assignments is learning to use primary sources of information. This isn't high school!
Secondly, Britannica has much better fact checking than Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedia articles have glaring errors that don't get caught and corrected for months at a stretch is bad; some of these errors are the result of intentional vandalism, and unless you've been living under a rock the last few months, you're no doubt aware that some of this vandalism is in fact libel. I'd link to the Slashdot coverage of the most famous of these events, but it looks like you need a refresher course in doing basic research...
Don't assume that just because Wikipedia is being scanned by a bunch of eyeballs every day, that Wikipedia must automatically be better fact-checked. Not every reader of Wikipedia is an expert, so not every reader is qualified to make revisions or write authoritatively on the "facts" presented. Furthermore, not all articles on Wikipedia are checked equally; the more popular articles get more eyeballs than the obscure articles.
In cases like this there are always individuals that forget what's going on around them long enough to prove themselves idiots.
It always struck me as funny how often the same people bitching about American imperialism conveniently forget their previous arguments when it comes to the internet in China.
Sorry hypocrites, you can't have it both ways. China is a sovereign state, so while you may disagree, YOU have no right sticking your nose in their business, or spreading so-called "American values".
And you can thank the left for that particular argument, because I stole it straight from an anti-war in Iraq website.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
He makes us use a crummy encyclopedia that isn't checked for accuracy like Wikipedia is; such as Britanica
;)
Yeah, that's why they refer to it as "Canonical".
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I already know the answer is money, but why do we continue to do business with China when we boycott Cuba and N. Korea? When was the last time Cuba made one of our planes crash and held it captive? When was the last time N. Korea did that? Why is it so important for Yahoo, Google, and MS to continue to kowtow to China? Do these companies have no ethics?
Why do people in the U.S. buy cheap American flags made in China?
The whole thing disgusts me, and it has nothing to do with left/right, democrats/republicans - they all love the open policy towards China.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This is so ludicrous that methinks a Wikipedia advocate is trying to create a bit of artificial drama.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I think you're confusing their policy on not putting "original research" into Wikipedia.
Like, for example, I edit the article on Meat to add "My Uncle Billy says eating pork makes you smart."
See the article on Internet censhorship in China too. It's probably articles like this that have the Chinese Govt annoyed. However, I would agree with the article that by blocking off access they are pretty much ensuring that articles such as this will have a more western-oriented tilt. Of course, Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, which should allow both criticism and supporting viewpoints. If there's one thing I've learned about the Chinese govt from seeing how they handled SARS and the recent factory disaster, it's that this kind of transparency is something they cannot get to grips with.
Hypocracy, n. A lack of leadership. From Greek hypos (little) and kratein (to rule). Thus you seem to be saying that it is amazing the left is not in charge. I concur completely after how well Iraq went.
Unknown host pong.
Can't they use Answers.com or some other site to get the same Wikipedia goodness through different channels?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
Why not use an anonymous proxy or archive.org?
I think your missing the point (or I'm reading to much into it). China is denying citizens access to information that it can't censor itself.
Sure a student could go read a regular encyclopedia, but what good is it if the goverment took all the "good" information out of it before he had a chance to read it?
While Wikipedia shouldn't ever be considered authoritative, it's pretty damned good at pointing a researcher towards other resources that can meet that strict requirement. Useful for research? yes. Irreplaceable? Not just no: hell no.
Based on my interactions with numerous people holing degrees up to doctorates, I've come to the conclusion that degrees just mean the person might be a walking encyclopedia or some such sort... But then my Dad, holding a Law doctorate, CLEPed out of as many classes he could, and I understand he did only the workload for a few of them, never attending. Then I deal with Psychaiatrists that drug people so that their behavior meets some sort of aesthetic standard, and what have you?
Then you have the professionals that think they should be turned to as the first resort as opposed to people attempting to figure out things on their own first, so have at you!
There is always the reliable uncylopedia for real reputable research.
Uncyclopida is so politically correct that I am sure the chinesse government would approve.
http://saveie6.com/
No research should be relying so heavily on Wikipedia that if access goes down the whole project is in danger, except perhaps for research about Wikipedia itself. The same would be true of any encyclopedia. The kind of knowledge you find in an encyclopedia is shallow and unauthoritiative, and that's OK; it's what that type of reference material is meant to be. But for serious research, the only real value of an encyclopedia is in its bibliography. Wikipedia's cross-linking capability gives it a bit more use in its regard, but the fact remains that for real research, an encyclopedia's main use is in its own sources, not in its ability to act as a source itself.
Seriously. Whoever admitted that his thesis was in danger because Wikipedia went down doesn't deserve the degree he's going for unless that thesis was actually about Wikipedia. There are many reasons that access to Wikipedia can go down, and most of them are far less sinister than government censorship. No graduate worth his salt should have such poor research skills that they're crippled because they can't get to, of all things, an encyclopedia.
Again I say to you, what the Chinese government is doing with Wikipedia is loathsome in the extreme: after all, it [i]is[/i] censorship. The evil of this does not need to be inflated even further by claiming that it harms serious research.
So, if it were up to you we'd invade China. They've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, invaded other countries, and have nuclear weapons. Yet our 1.2 million soldiers spread thin across the planet wouldn't fare too well against their 2.5 million, would they? But of course the radical right claims they'll remove all tyrants and terrorists, then can't follow through. Instead they open trade to China, destroying small US businesses and making the Chinese rich.
The incompetance and hypocracy of the radical right in this country is truely amazing.
Developers: We can use your help.
also keep in mind, people make links to the original sources on wikipedia as well.
Almost never should you cite wikipedia directly, but use it to find cites.
Actually, having known people who have worked for Britannica, that's not quite true. None of them were surprised by the recent research that showed that Wikipedia's accuracy and Britannica's accuracy were pretty similar on well-researched and popular topics.
(In fact, at least one of the said something along the lines that *only* finding three major errors per article in Britannica was pretty damn good. ;)
except for all those studies that point out that wikipedia is, on average, very close in quality to Britannica...
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
OK, I didn't get the line break in there, but the quote is complete , as is the capitalization and punctuation.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Perhaps it is that Wikipedia is the information source they have (had) access to that was least influenced by the Chinese government, and must therefore be infinitely more reliable than any other source?
Some folks over there might be able to use http://answers.com/ to circumvent the direct censorship of Wikipedia; are there other sites that repackage Wikipedia's data?
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."
Who was then subsequently imprisoned.
While the parent was probably just flaming, you haven't exactly "checked your facts" either. ;)
Isn't this the backbone of Open Source's argument of superiority? More eyeballs? So are you saying there may be a critical flaw in this idea? That it might just be blind dogma and politics?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
No its not. He started the sentence off in the subject line and continued it in the body.
Maybe he didn't punctuate or capitalize very well but at least he communicated his thoughts clearly, which is more than can be said for a majority of the posters here.
It is a pretty sad statement of the sate of things here when you would rather talk about grammatical mechanics than actually debate the merits of the argument.
This is a stark contrast to Vietnam, another communist country. The Vietnamese Wikipedia, albeit comparatively small, have been given some positive media exposure in some major Vietnamese publications. It's even linked to from the official government encyclopedia.
I can see why the Chinse have blocked it, given the content is community dirreved and mainly from external sources outside china. As such it woudl be a conciren for them given there nature of possible decent.
No all that said, us in the western world look at this act as total cencorship and were right it is. But that is how China opperates, so we should count ourselves lucky.
All that said, I cant see why some local folks over in china cant start there own wiki. there is enough interlectual scrape artists out there and intelligent people who could and would propergate it.
That and given that 99.99% of definitions would be totaly accptable to the most stringent of authorita's (thats cartman south park speak for powers that be) then the issues become more managable and tangable as would be inside the wall and not out.
I half expect china to one day go IPV999 and mirror anything worthwile out there.
On the plus side I'd like a firewall like China just to cover all popup porn add's and other spam, or is that an issue over there as well still. Sure there are some positive aspects along with the obvious negative ones. Oh and remember cencorship; and that is what this is is something we all get subjected too, albiet at different levels. Now if there was a wiki on how to make a bomb or become a terrorist, well - would it get blocked, nope. Men in suits come and take there box's away. So in some ways China's approach is more democratic as they only effect those within there responsibility and not imposse there lawas onto all. Just a interesting side thought there. Not that anybody needs to know such things anyhow.
In europe and america, using Wikipedia for a thesis is questionable at best. In China, they may not have any other choice.
I agree, so saying that either Britannica or Wikipedia has better fact checking is pretty much a baseless claim.
Perhaps the term "thesis" in China is different from the Western term, with different expectations? This article mentioned an emphasis on "a lot of background information" in essay writing and that the "argumentative essay" was a somewhat foreign idea. I recall hearing similar criticism of the Chinese essay format anecdotally.
One study, on a very narrow subject scope.
So China is a typical totalitarian oppresive state, right, whereas US is a free country. Well, a few more years of Bushism, and see if anyone can tell the difference, eh?
Hypocracy could have been a typo. On the other hand, if answers.com serves me correctly, hypo-cracy should stand for something liike..."government of the underhanded", so perhaps the inital poster was trying to coin a phrase.
May the Maths Be with you!
"China [is doomed] by the fact that their younger generation's research seems to depend on the archived wisdom of random people on the street"
As far as I can tell, no one who says this (and it's said often) actually knows how to use an encyclopedia for research. Let me explain how you go about this mysterious process:
First, you establish your topic (let's say, "history of dog breeding in Europe").
Now you need to work out the specific topics in the reference source that pertain to your topic. For example, in this case, we find that Dog breeding gives some overview information and sends us to Purebred and a number of dog breed pages. On one of thos dog breed pages (Greater Swiss Mountain Dog), we find a side-bar with breeding standards pages, etc. This particular breed also has some historical context that's quite useful. All of this is encapsulated in the researcher's notes.
Quickly checking the history of edits on the pages in question also gives us some detail. We discover which topics are controvercial, which have changed recently, what references have been removed, etc.
By this point, you have some notes, some terminology you may not have been aware of, and more importantly, on each one of those pages, you probably have a wealth of on and off-line sources and new topics to check up on.
This is called research. It's a very different process from "depending on the archived wisdom of people on the street," and it really doesn't vary much from encyclopedia to encyclopedia (other than in the one respect that WP can be easier to use than most). Anyone who simply copies information from any encyclopedia is not performing research, they are instead quoting, that that's not the same thing at all.
I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.
Do you live in the US?
Can you legally visit child porn sites (or if certain people have their way, ANY porn sites in the near future)?
Oh, but that breaks the law, you no doubt protest... Well, guess who writes the law? The government. And China has one of those as well, to write their laws.
But perhaps you'd prefer a more "fair" comparison? Okay...
Can you go download Grokster? Visit I2Hub? LokiTorrent? Run the original Napster client (successfully)?
All societies have taboos, and all societies believe that those taboos protect either all of society or the target of the taboo. Sometimes that holds true, and sometimes it does not.
In the US, we believe in practically ANYTHING justified by "for the kids". We believe corporate profit and domestic security trump personal freedoms. We believe we have quite a lot of rights that the courts regularly laugh out of court.
China believes certain religious, political, and economic philosophies constitute a grave danger to their society. And actually, they have that correct, in that at least on the political and economic front, those banned ideas will eventually destroy their existing government. But if you replace "democracy" with "theocracy", "Falun Gong" with "Radical Islam", and "capitalism" with "socialism", can Americans really claim themselves as so much more enlightened?
So you think the chinese goverment really is spending very large resources censoring the internet just becase they don't want their pepole to read information from uncertain sources? They are sencoring it so that pepole won't find out about what they've done in the past! China does not even have free elections! The funny thing is, the only reason the american right doesn't hate China above anything else (like before) is because their large corporations are now able to exploit the chineese market and cheap labour. Suddenly, human rights and weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean shit to the american right, well, except for in Irak which they're not making money from yet... (well, I guess they will soon unless the country falls apart completely). If China would suddenly stop cooperating with the US, you can be sure that FhoaxNews would be reporing about the lack of human rights in China 24/7.
wikipedia is full of misinformation anyway. yes, some of it is good material, but when so much of it is false, or the result of petty bickering between posters, how can you use it for anything other than recreation?
the misinformation that is prolific means that you have to take everything else with a grain of salt, and check and recheck the sources to make sure they're true. which means you're doing double the work.
why not just skip wikipedia and go to other sources of information?
the people who cling to wikipedia like it's the almighty source of all knowledge are either contributers themselves, kids who don't know any better, or geeks who think wikis are the 'cool' thing. Reading the posts, 90% on slashdot seem to be in the latter crowd. I can see it now. Some mod will be clicking on the Flamebait button while covering his ears singing 'lalalalala I'm not listening. wikipedia is the greatest site in the world.'
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Your arguments would be applicable if the current global economy was in fact a "free trade" market. However in most places, it is far, far away from such a state.
The current outsourcing to China has less to do with free markets than it has to do with artifical barriers creating global imbalance over the last 60 years.
May the Maths Be with you!
"How can I do my thesis now?" What sort of intellectual mouse uses Wikipedia (!!) for serious scholarly research?
What a joke. Lesson: be careful about citing to any Chinese research.
I just wrote a Hidden Markov Model using the Viterbi Algorithm and did it from scratch in Java using WordNet and this page [wikipedia.org].
You could of saved yourself some time by just googling for the source code.
No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think
That's such a false alternative. My suggestion: crack open a book. Remember what those things were, kids? They're in libraries - those rows of things beyond the computer terminals.
I think what the GP was trying to say, and I thought he did a clear job of it, is that Wikipedia is not that hot of a resource...really it isn't and falls short of being called scholarly. I like wikipedia, and have my browser set to hit it's random facts page. It is nice, and I would use it as a tertiary resource - but to cry about it for scholarly works...yea right.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."
1. Don't JUST rely on Wikipedia!
2. The world didn't stand still before Wikipedia.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
And i think it rather silly that you take that one line, and quote it out of context, ignoring everything else said, nevermind implied.
More eyeballs is not an automatic guarantee of anything... so I guess in a sense I am saying yes, there may be a flaw in the OS argument for that paradigm's superiority. I think there is a measure of blind dogma and politics underlying the Open Source movement.
:-)
However, I'd be hard pressed to call this a critical flaw as you have done. And surely there are OS projects where the contributors are all competent people; the users of Wikipedia, on the other hand, are all over the spectrum of competency. See the difference?
Furthermore, I haven't said anything regarding the other benefits and advantages of Open Source. So don't go putting words in my mouth.
Can you legally visit child porn sites (or if certain people have their way, ANY porn sites in the near future)?
No, I can not.
Is it legal for the government to place filters in place so that I can not find them?
No, it is not.
Is it legal for the government to take down those site, and arrest the owners?
Yes, it is.
Can you go download Grokster? Visit I2Hub? LokiTorrent? Run the original Napster client (successfully)?
Yes, from p2p networks, quite legally too.
Probably not any more (unless I2hub is decentralized).
Do not know what lokitorrent is. I suppose it is down.
No, it is down.
Is any of it due to government cencorship?
No.
Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility) with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society.
Is it legal to commit murder? No
Is it legal to threaten with murder? No
Is it legal to think about murder? Yes
Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".
badness 10000
Try http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page> Uncyclopedia , a bold and innovative new way to catalogue and disseminate the knowlege of the world.
China (real name, Christina Longford) will be ready, willing and able to do the bird all night.
BTW: What kind of Doctoral candidate is threatened by inavailability of ONE general resource?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Look I know the Chinese have a very rigorous education system that is in itself an impressive thing. BUT if these kids are using an UNreliable source of information for their thesis it might be best if they don't have access to it. I am all for using wikipedia as a place to figure out where to go and get ideas, but if you HAVE to have it for your research then it is starting to sound like you are giving it a more reliable credit then it is. wikipedia as in its name is a very complicated "wiki" There are just too many people who don't have a clue putting bad information into this thing. I know its not intentional always and I know that sometimes it is, but if the person is so very sure he is right they could keep changing the updates to always go back to the bad information. These guys need to find real reliable confirmable sources of information, NOT a public billboard that is modifiable by anyone with a connection to the internet. This is just my thoughts, I use wikipedia myself to point me in the right direction to find good siteable information, but I could with more work and gratuitous use of google find the information on my own. Wikipedia just makes life easier.
The Nature article you cite still finds Britannica's accuracy in science articles to be marginally better than that of Wikipedia's. (The average is stated as: 4 errors per article in Wikipedia, 3 per article in Britannica.) This is hardly something you can spin doctor into "Wikipedia is more accurate than Britannica," although I will concede that the difference is statistically small.
The methodology of the study cited in Nature has come into question; the article contains an addendum linking to supplementary information about how the data was collected.
So... according to Nature, Wikipedia "comes close" to Britannica in terms of accuracy, but does not seem to exceed it.
Furthermore, there are notorious examples of outright fabrications and falsehoods masquerading as fact in Wikipedia articles, mainly due to vandalism. This is a problem that Britannica doesn't seem to have. So... I stand by my statements.
Instead of blatently blocking the Wikipedia site, couldn't it be more effective for the communists to update the content of the articles to refelct more positiviely on China and their policies?
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
I quoted the above snippet from your comment to amplify a point -- what about the Wikipedia articles that aren't as popular and aren't as well-researched? At least with more traditional encyclopedias like Britannica, there's a certain minimum standard of fact checking and research that goes into each article before it is included. I don't think the same can be said for Wikipedia.
And, as I've said elsewhere, Britannica doesn't have a problem with vandalism.
This isn't to say that I don't find Wikipedia useful... just not authoritative from an academic standpoint.
If some citizens in China hate it so bad because of the political situation, why not just leave China?
Is it a money issue? Can they not afford to travel some where else and start a new life? I know visa's and living in a different country as one of it's citizens might pose an issue depending on the country they move too. However I'm also sure out of all the nations in the world, at least one would help them out if they requested asylum from their former government.
I was maybe, 5 years old when the Tiananmen Square ordeal happened, so what I know of it from a typical American standpoint is just what my parents remember or I can read online. But in the last year or so we all know of the crack down on blocked sites by the Chinese government. Hell /. reports on them all the time. But each time I read a story about them (and they do seem to be getting progressively "worse" as time goes on), I never understand how if the dictatorship is so bad for their freedom and quality of life, why they don't just leave.
Who knows maybe what some people say is just descriptions being blown out of porportions. Maybe what some people say is true and all the insane things said about day to day life in China is true. I can't say, nor I assume can an everyday American who has never traveled or lived there. But I can question why those that hate it have not left.
One thing though, while some might say "Well it's their homeland. That might mean a great deal to them and they don't wish to leave even under the conditions imposed on them." I can understand that, to a degree. I wouldn't want to leave my hometown ever, after having lived all my life here. But I can speak for myself when I say if America or whichever country I was living in, became like China I'd rather move to a place foreign to me than risk my life and the lives of my family.
Aw Frell this
Any discussion of censorship aside, the assertation that you can't do research without Wikipedia is absurd. How am I supposed to do my research now? The same way you would have five years ago, by actually going to the library and doing research. For those arguing that Wikipedia is an invaluable research tool that can't be replaced, clearly you've never written any type of signifigant research paper. In some cases you can use a source such as Wikipedia, but for anything more indepth than a two page paper for a 100 level class, you wouldn't. There are tons of other sites, books, journal articles, etc... that go much more indepth on any given subject. Especially if you're writing a thesis and you're quoting Wikipedia, you seriously need to look at the quality of your research.
A government that would be brought down by mere public knowledge of international criticism and ideals has no right to stand.
...for non-whites (i.e. sub-human), or a cheap supplier for millions of Happy Meal toys?!?!
This space available.
Is it legal for the government to place filters in place so that I can not find them?
We'll have to wait for the rather conservative USSC to decide on Utah's most recent attempt to do exactly that, before we can say "no".
Is it legal for the government to take down those site, and arrest the owners?
Which differs how from China taking down sites and arresting people who blog about any of a number of banned subjects?
Oh, right... Because our hangups express the highest degree of enlightenment possible, while China's come from ignorance and greed. Silly me.
Is any of it due to government cencorship?
Yes, actually, three of those four shut down as a result of GOVERNMENT intervention (and the fourth just from the threat thereof), because someone, somewhere, might use them to commit a victimless civil-penalties-only crime.
perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society.
Forgive me if I err, but that statement leads me to strongly suspect you of trolling...
if you replace "democracy" with "theocracy", "Falun Gong" with "Radical Islam", and "capitalism" with "socialism", can Americans really claim themselves as so much more enlightened?
Q. How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
A. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
the Wikipedia articles that aren't as popular and aren't as well-researched
A lot of those aren't even going to be in Britannica. No, Wikipedia isn't authoritative from an academic standpoint, but neither is Britannica once you get past the 4th grade. In reality, they're just about equal in the academic viewpoint: they're both pretty much a pile of crap.
(Or, the 4th grade was the last time I was allowed to use any of the Britannica-like sources for much of anything in school.)
'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website.
Answer: the same way they did theses way back in 2000. Unless, of course, Wikipedia was in some way the subject of this poor unfortunate's research, in which case he is well and truly screwed. If so, he needs to pay a visit to Droz.
Droz: Okay, what's your major?
Supplicant1: - Um, particle physics.
Droz: - Ooh, that's a tough one. Let me see... Ooh. "Motion of Helium Atoms In An Excited State." Watch out. It's a scorcher.
Droz: - Next.
Supplicant1:- Uh, Sanskrit.
Droz: Sanskrit. You're majoring in a 5000-year-old dead language.
Supplicant2: Yeah.
Droz: Okay... Ooh. Latin. It's the best I can do.
Droz: - Next.
Supplicant3:- Phys Ed.
Droz: Phys Ed. Okay, you're out of my room. Seriously. Get out.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Unless one's thesis is on the Wikipedia, anyone depending oslely on Wikipedia for research needs a reality slap.
I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.
That has nothing to do with what the OP was saying. All he's talking about is the Chinese user who complained "How am I going to finish my thesis now?" As the OP said, if he's depending solely on Wikipedia to write his thesis, unless its specifically on Wikipedia, he needs to learn how to research.
Not saying anything on the wrongness or correctness of what China is doing.
This parallel kills your whole argument.
Falun Gong has not killed anyone and, as far as I know, does not promote killing people who do follow Falun Gong. On the other hand, Radical Islam has killed people and continuously promotes killing the "infidels" who do not believe in Radical Islam.
Apples... oranges...
You need to install an RTFM interface.
Chinese Ban on Wikipedia Prevents Research
In other news, students report using an ancient technology called "books" to discover facts. "It's amazing," one student reported, "it's like, so STATIC. I mean, I was reading about something that wasn't constantly being updated, and actually had REFERENCES and a BIBLIOGRAPHY, which led me to other books."
She paused, amazed. "I wonder just how far these links go? I mean, there could be like an endless chain of information out there that none of us would have ever checked? Well, until Google digitized them of course."
-Styopa
The upside to this relative to the bad publicity and straight-up being mean completely eludes me and my imagination. Who's the guy in China's old men's smoke-filled room that insists blocking wiki is good for the country? What kind of argument could he have made that's unique to Wiki versus similar projects? Anyone here capable of defending the government's actions?
But writing an algorithm on one's own has certain advantages, not the least of which being free of the GPL. Whether you can actually trust the data from wikipedia on which code is based . . . that's another story.
As a followup to my other post: what I'm trying to say is that I find the Britannica versus Wikipedia arguments both useless and amusing. Not because Wikipedia is (or should be acknowledged to be) that good a source of information, but because--within K-12 education and academia--Britannica is widely acknowledged to be just about as academically useless a resource as Wikipedia.
Why is it, do you think, that every totalitatian regime that comes along seems to somehow automatically spawn an army of apologists?
Regards;
It kind of makes one wonder what exactly was accomplished in 1989 when 100,000 protesters marched in Beijing.
From the article: "'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."
Nothing was achieved in 1989. They didn't have the Wikipedia back. Apparently, without it, all work in China grinds to a halt.
Or, it might, you know, be an incredibly lazy student bitching because he has to consult a whole second source to complete his degree thesis. I wasn't aware DeVry had a Chinese campus.
They haven't blocked my conversations or my ability to learn about these ideas but yes the patriot act is bull. Good thing both the media and I are allowed to publicly criticize it. Maybe next time around it won't be renewed.
The US does have problems. But that doesn't mean that China is a-okay with censoring discussion of forms of government.
Who the hell are you to defend such a practice?
You make an invalid point. These things are kept secret not to keep the government from being brought down, but to keep Americans from getting killed. Do you really think anyone just feels the need to spy for their own benefit? How does it benefit them? They are spying to try to keep people alive, not to benefit themselves.
/. readers of all people should understand that much of the general public is incapable of dealing with various types of information. And apart from that, you must remember that it's not possible to just share information with Americans, anything that we are told is also told to the entire rest of the world.
Feel free to argue that their methods are flawed, as they very likely are, but it certainly is not done to protect the government in the way that Chinese censorship is, but rather the people.
I'm completely baffled by this American feeling that no government department should keep secrets from the general public. I guess our American media has started this sentiment. But
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Actually, we're quite spotty when it comes to kids. We give them one of the worst educations in the developed world and we spend very little time with them. Our car-centric society isn't exactly beneficial for kids either. Children are much more likely to be in poverty than adults. Kids are on the receiving end of the worst that our marketing profession can deliver.
All kids are is a great excuse for minority interests to push through things that would have a hard time passing otherwise (war on drugs, war on video games, war on porn, etc).
Yeah, yeah. Everyone is picking on the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for a thesis:
Am I the only one that finds humor in the fact that everyone is making claims about the state of research in China based on this quote? Anyone think this might not be relevant in any way what-so-ever? Who cares if one iddiot can't do his paper now?
*Sighs.* Seriously, have you seen some of the people they let into four year accredited universities in the U.S.?
Exactly. And his sig is particularly ironic.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The internet was based on the principle of being open and free for anyone to use for anything. Whether that is spreading dissent, being racist or hosting an open encyclopedia. Anybody out there who has a broadband connection and can spare some bandwidth should host a proxy server with one or two open slots. Open up the internet for everyone.
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
-Neville Chamberlain, 9/30/1938
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
UMass student admits "Little Red Book" Hoax:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510754
In addition to forgetting, you also evidently didn't do any due diligence on the linked material.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
who uses only one source of info in their thesis?
who uses an encyclopedia solely as their thesis source?
wow. don't they have libraries in china?
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
The viability of this option depends on the quality of your local library
If China's research colleges are in such bad array that they don't have the most basic tools of research and have to rely on freakin Wikipedia (!!!!!), the hype about a "Chinese Century" are laughably empty.
Derek
Is any of it due to government cencorship?
.
No.
Of course it is. The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?
Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility)
So if it isn't done "bulk," it isn't censorship? What about broadcast TV, isn't that censored? Don't the networks have to pass their material by censors before they can put it on the air? Should we change their job title because you are uncomfortable with the fact that the US government employs censorship to some degree? You might argue that the networks hire their own censors, but what rules do you think the censors go by... the FCC, right?
with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population. Just as censorship of child pornography is quite endorsed by the majority of the US population.
Is it legal to commit murder? No
Is it legal to threaten with murder? No
Is it legal to think about murder? Yes
Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".
Hardly. Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored. They might be oppressed, but they don't quite have thought police yet.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
China's government is as unobtrusive and minimalist as they get. It like all governments is in the business of staying in power. Unlike the US government, the Chinese government is very direct about this. If you don't threaten their power, they don't mess with you.
The US government is different. Of course it's still in the business of maintaining its own power, but it isn't very upfront about it. As a result, it uses a vast assortment of hand-waving and various levels of bullshit along with excessive taxes to accomplish the same result.
I find the US media in absolute denial about this though. There are constant stories about this or that bad thing going on in China. If more Americans actually lived here, they wouldn't buy that load of crap. People don't have to "keep their heads down" and live in fear of the government at all times. Yes, there is capital punishment in China, but the Chinese government kills far fewer people than the US government does. Yes, there are people who have difficulties getting represented in court, but at least China doesn't openly flaunt international law by throwing people in jail indefinitely without trial and then claiming that international law doesn't apply to them. China doesn't go rampaging around the globe invading countries, or bombing embassies either.
In terms of propaganda, France, the US, China, Japan, and all the other powerful countries soak their populace in it constantly. In Japan, nationalist comics portray Koreans and Chinese and filthy barbarians; in Canada one of the most popular TV shows is dedicated to nationalistic prejudice; in China, people call Zhang Zi Yi a race traitor for starring accross from a Japanese man in a romantic role. Propagana, restriction of the truth, and disinformation are out in full force everywhere. It's just a pity that people are usually so unaware of the propaganda coming from their own countries.
I'm a gnu world man.
Am I saying I could write a paper off of Wikipedia? No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think.
Of course, the idea of writing an entire college level paper with precisely one source, let alone as few as two or three, no matter how accredited, is idiocy in the first place. It's all about diversity of information, people. Come on!
That said, Wikipedia has its advantages. It's a great place to learn the basics of a topic, and then use that to branch off and further refine your knowledge. It's often good for up to date information, and in the case of writing a paper its often at least as good as other modern media, be they newspapers, magazines, the nightly news. It's also good for an overview of historical and regional events.
Obviously, it's not often (that is to say, ever) going to be the last word in information if you're writing your thesis for a master's degree in Nuclear Engineering. There are better places to look for information related to any such focused field. However, I see nothing wrong with citing Wikipedia directly once or twice in a high school paper, especially if it's crossed referenced with other sources... And I have the feeling most teachers wouldn't have a problem with it either, as the goal of high school papers is often less about the content, and more about the experience of the whole thing.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
Look, you don't get it do you? China says Falun Gong members have killed people
http://un.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/52796.html
China's a sovereign government. The US government passes laws against some crimes, so does China.
Only in the US do people whine and moan about other governments whilst watching their own government execute children as grown adults
The thing is, whiny middle class US kids' views of the world don't upset other countries' citizens one bit. When you realise that, you whine even more.
Anyone involved in actual *work* abroad doesn't give a shit what you think. fuck off back to Penny Arcade.
'On the other hand, Radical Islam has killed people'
what the fuck is Radical Islam?
'Apples... oranges...'
Idiots, Americans - is there any difference anymore?
Also, Saddam is no longer in power, so you would use the past tense.
Dummy.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Everyone seems to have overlooked another possibility for the Chinese blocking of wikipedia (and Chinese internet censorship in general) and that is to prevent the easy dissemination of Chinese scientific secrets to anyone outside of China. Given that they are presently playing a game of economic catch up it would make sense that all new discoveries would be zealously guarded to be played as a trump card at some future date.
I think that researchers' difficulties may just be a symptom of this, as many have said if one wants to research properly there are still many other avenues left open when the internet fails.
wtb
To build on your dog training analogy, they're a dog begging at the table, and the rest of the world is giving them table scraps, hoping they'll go away. It doesn't work like that - it only encourages them.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website shortly before being arrested for dissidance.
"A book??... That's right. In my day [the internet] was called books!" -William Goldman The Princess Bride
There are very special books called reference books that contain the wealth of human knowledge. It's like, just written down on paper and handily bound into volumes by subject area. Maybe people should open them again. Anyone who's thesis is based on that much internet research holds no academic weight at all. Believe me.
You must be new here.
The reason it was modded Overrated was because Overrated and Underrated mods don't show up in Metamoderation.
Who the hell are you to defend such a practice?
:)
In case you missed my tone, I meant more to draw parallels to the problems of the US government, than to absolve the Chinese government of their own. I did ramble a bit, though, so I can understand your impression.
Hopefully I didn't miss your tone, just in case you meant that tongue-in-cheek.
All societies have taboos, and all societies believe that those taboos protect either all of society or the target of the taboo. Sometimes that holds true, and sometimes it does not.
In the US, we believe in practically ANYTHING justified by "for the kids". We believe corporate profit and domestic security trump personal freedoms. We believe we have quite a lot of rights that the courts regularly laugh out of court.
China believes certain religious, political, and economic philosophies constitute a grave danger to their society. And actually, they have that correct, in that at least on the political and economic front, those banned ideas will eventually destroy their existing government.
The difference is that the American government is elected by the people (it may have it's problems but it's 100 times better than the "you vote communist... or you vote communist" thing China has), and thus represents the people to an extent. With the child porn example, most Americans agree that having sex with 8 year old boys is wrong. With the filesharing example, it's all legal as long as you don't share copyrighted fles. Such sharing (debatedly) "hurts" the owners of the copyrights. (Not debating that the RIAA is right; I think the laws as they are today are too strict, but that with pobbying from citizens and whatnot HOPEFULLY we might be able to change that.)
However, the Chinese government isn't censoring Wikipedia because the Chinese people find the concept of a wiki to be immoral, or whatever. They're censoring it because they don't like Wikipedia's "stubborn neutrality and independence on political issues such as Tibet and Taiwan". That's comparable to the US Government banning Wikipedia because George W. Bush's article has criticisms in it, or they dislike the fact that there are articles covering the Bay of Pigs invasion, Watergate, or the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.
My point is that they're not censoring Wikipedia because the people feel that the information contained within is wrong, immoral, or whatever. They're censoring it because it hurts their government. Yes, there's that kind of censoring in the US and that's wrong, but that still doesn't make China right (especially when they do it more).
I'm here in China and can't stand Chinese censorship, almost as much as I loathe their Orwellian "history-writing". The blockage, for example, has been going on for closer to 15 weeks. One of the posters said that the fact that the students are using Wikipedia is revealing of the quality of Chinese degrees. As a college professor, I could not agree more.
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither do I - get Mac OS
We should have immediately stopped trading with China after Tianamen. In 2005, there was a $167 billon trade deficit, and it consists mostly of cheap crap. It was $10 billion in 1990, the year after Tianamen.The US isn't encouraging reform, it's rewarding the status quo.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?
Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.
Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.
It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Wikipedia has become a essential part of the internet, just like google has become. As i was looking for information about the Red Army during the cold war, this page seems a good source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Armyt he_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_
however information about who actually were the Cold War Russian Army Generals not a lot can be found. Wiki is a good source for a start into a subject, but one will need to read books still.
Robert
Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.
Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.
What if it is pirated kiddie porn and no money changes hands. Would it be OK then? I doubt it. Not by the law.
Look, I'm not saying censoring kiddie porn isn't justifiable. I'm just pointing out that it is still censorship.
It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.
Different situation. Both censorship.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
So that makes China and u.s. as the only 2 governments to ban mentioning intelligent design in some way or another. Why do all the religion fanatics head for u.s. and China?
In fact I have lived in China for long stretches, and get along just fine with the banning of websites. Anything that I need I can get. One does not need Wikipedia to do their work; they should be able to find their information elsewhere (unless of course that information is related to counter-revolutionary activities, in which case there is a reason they're blocked...)
If anyone considers Wikipedia a legitimate source for a thesis, they must be crazy. As an inspiration for ideas, and for general knowledge, it is a good source of information. But if you try to cite Wikipedia as a source on a serious thesis or other scholarly article, your work will not be accepted. It would be equivalent to citing some random web site as fact. It will take a long time and a lot of effort on wikipedia's part for people to even think of wikipedia as possibly being a legitimate source, and even then many will doubt the quality produced by the community-edited encyclopedia.
Well if you think banning Wikipedia is bad, you should know that China has a history of civil rights abuses, including domestic spying, rigged elections, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, military invasion, and a media monopoly that prevents dissenters from appearing on television.
Thank God we live in America!
Yes, Falun Gong has killed people. Their belief of not going to hospitals to treat illnesses have killed on the order of thousands of people. See this:
http://www.falungonginfo.org/index.html
for verifying the validity of my initial observation. You support appeasement, for the same reasons as Sir Never Chainberlin.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hitler became Supreme Commander of the German armed forces. In 1938, Hitler occupied Austria. In 1938, Hitler formed an alliance with Mussolini. In 1938, Goering warned all Jews to leave Austria. In 1938, Chamberlain thought he had appeased Hitler with the Sudetenland. In 1938, the Kristallnacht occurred. In 1938, Hitler had such an impact, he was named Time's "Man of the Year." By the end of 1938, about 82 percent of eligible youths were members of the "Hitler Youth."
This is all well documented fact. Yet, you're silly enough to try to claim that Hitler was "far from established" in 1938.
Sorry, the debate is over. You have lost.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I like how you equate endorsing the anti-child porn laws with trolling.
badness 10000
Picture a library full of books and all the most interesting and controversial books are under lock and key. Picture large, unfriendly guards standing watch over who gets access to these works. This is a Chinese research library at a major university. Given the political situation and the conflicting need for information all the major Chinese libraries have a wealth of information on any subject that is deemed important. Unfortunately, most of the information is locked away with safeguards, rules and regulations as to who can see it and at what times they can see it. It's no wonder that Wikipedia is a useful resource for Chinese University students.
Fish....More than just sushi
It's always struck me as funny how some people imply that American imperialism is a contrast to Communism. Although I'm not a big fan of either capitalism or communism, I do believe that both systems has it's own flaws. We might not have a right to stick our nose into their business, but if they wanted help and needed help, I'd be willing to bend any rule or law there is to do what I can for them.
What does war have to do with anything? You don't need to fight to help people. This is probably just me, but I hate it when people decide to classify beliefs as left/right thinking. Call me crazy, but it appears that all it does is just divide our society even more so we can discriminate for another reason.
I'm an expat and have been living in China for the last 5 months. While I have been pretty annoyed by the fact that Wikipedia is blocked, people in China do have one kind of freedom that Americans don't have...
You see, over here in the PRC, they don't have any of those bastard weasel RIAA lawyers... I'm free to download all the music and movies I want with no possibility at all of being prosecuted by American legal system thugs!!
Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.
That's not necessarily true. Maybe this is what you meant by "as a product," but in any case, consider the hypothetical case of a 15-year-old girl who takes a few sexy pictures of herself for the exclusive viewing of her 15-year-old boyfriend, who never shares them with anyone. If cops find those pics on his computer/desk/nightstand/sock drawer, he can probably get tried as an adult (and convicted and sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) for possession of child pornography...that's just how powerful those two words are. I'm not taking a position on whether that's sane, but surely you don't think Miss Teen Girl or Mr. Boyfriend committed heinous crimes in that case. Sure there are a lot of sick people out there, but "child porn" is a hot-button issue which turns most people from "let's see if any harm may have been done" to "BURN THE BASTARD AT THE STAKE!!"
Considering that gutenberg.org is also banned over here, I see this as a much broader attempt at keeping the people uneducated with regard to certain kinds of dangerous ideas which might be a threat to processes of exploitation.
Of course, this kind of thing is going on in many countries, albeit using subtler methods, including the United States and Europe. Keep the people stupid, that is the best way to keep your power over them.
I'm in PRC now and today I had a politics exam (yes, Marxism and all). In order to prepare for it I looked for some material about the recent meetings of the Party, and it turned out that www.people.com.cn, a government-owned website that is about as official as People's Daily, was inaccessible unless with foreign proxies. Talk about the irony...
In reality, today's pedophiles don't buy child pornography, they download it for free over the internet. Does that still amount to "supporting" those who committed the crimes?
The case for criminalizing simple viewing of child pornography is much weaker than the case for banning its distribution. It amounts to putting someone to jail purely for being a pedophile, not for having actually hurt any children. Simply having a certain sexual orientation doesn't seem like a valid reason to be put in jail, no matter how heinous that orientation might be. (Perhaps it's a valid rationale for being put in a mental hospital, but not a jail.)
Even if we were absolutely sure that there is no such thing as a pedophile who is able to keep his desires under control and that every pedophile will actually molest a child in the future, arresting him as a preventative measure still amounts to Minority Report-style Future Crimes Police. Most people, after seeing that movie, felt convinced that such a thing is not acceptable from a civil rights point of view. Why then is nobody uneasy at our draconian child pornography laws?
Wikipedia is extremely useful as a starting ground for gathering information about a topic. Like Google, I wouldn't base all my research on Google search results pages, but not having access to Google would put a *huge* damper on my ability to research topics on the web.
http://outcampaign.org/
--
http://www.wizzy.org.za/
Andy Rabagliati
Yes. But in China that's the end of it. In some other countries, atleast on paper, the government is *not* the top-power in the land. In a democratic country you can then continue: "Well, guess who controls the goverment ?"
I like how you equate endorsing the anti-child porn laws with trolling.
So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
You just don't seem to get it (but it appears you didn't mean that as a troll, so I'll patiently elaborate on my issue with what you wrote).
"Child" renderotica breaks US child porn laws, despite not having a human "victim" to protect. Two 16YO lovers snapping a few digital pics of themselves getting it on breaks US child porn laws - Twice. A court-emancipated late-17YO posing for tasteful nude photos in a college photography class breaks US child porn laws. As of July 2005, nude pictures of young looking but perfectly legal models can and have violated US child porn laws. A video of a naked 4YO happily playing hopscotch, which you would NEVER question as "porn" if in a family photo album, magically turns into porn if in the posession of a single middle-aged male, even if he bought it in a bag of videos at a yard sale and didn't even know he had it. All real cases, BTW.
So when you call that "sane", yes, I take issue with it. Personally, I agree that when talking about explicit or otherwise-compromising nude pics of children, you have a victim, and a good reason to call such content illegal. But when you can run afoul of the law without requiring anything you could even remotely twist into calling a victim, you have nothing more than mindless adherence to the fringes of a societal taboo.
As for the people looking at this stuff... Can you justify a prison term and permanant "sexual predator" record merely for looking at what amount to victimless cartoons? I'd call such people "sick", but criminals?
Use a web proxy?
Seems simple enough to me....
James
http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
Or the "heinous crime" of creating some 3-d models in Poseur, and making simulated child porn? Still illegal.
Your point is technically wrong.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
And the Chinese have ways of getting around website blocks using proxies and such. Are you saying that if there is some way aound the censorship, it isn't censorship? Perhaps it is a little more involved to get around teh Great Firewall, but it is certainly possible. You're really reaching here. I don't know why you are so loath to admit that the US government engages in censorship to some degree.
BTW, I noticed that you conveniently snipped out my comments about broadcast TV censors. Why do you think they call them censors? Censorship doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, ya know. There are all kinds of ways to limit and manipulate information to some end.
Personal responsibility, not government censorship is preventing me from doing these things. Look at the murder example: the government is not censoring my ability to murder. I can think about it, I can accomplish it, I will likely end up a criminal. But censorship has not been involved.
Bad example. Censorship generally deals with the dissemination of information, not actions. You can't really censor an action, per se.
From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population.
No, it is not. Otherwise, there would be no people protesting the blocking mechanism. You do not see people protesting the child porn laws in the US, do you? (Yea, there are a few nuts probably, but nothing like an actual protest)
People I've heard from who have lived in China seem to be under the impression that the bulk of the Chinese people support their government. China is a really big country. The few that are protesting represent a small minority. You might argue the people who are not protesting don't really know how horrible the government is because of censhorship and would probably be pretty disgusted if they know what was really going on, but the fact is that they support the government.
As I am sure we all we be somewhat disgusted by our government if we knew what was REALLY going on behind closed doors. But we don't know. Besides profanities on broadcast TV and kiddie porn, there are many other things that the government does effectively prevent the people from knowing much about.
Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored.
That's the problem. They are not. Sites have been taken down that criticize the Great Firewall.
In what way does that stop them from thinking about these things? They know that a Great Firewall exists. What stops them from criticizing it in their own minds?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
So, you're saying it's only government censorship if you don't consider the act being committed a "heinous crime"?
"The Un-American Activities Committee didn't kill people, but that is about the best thing that can be said for the organization and the org that became the FBI of that time. Hoover was the US Hilter."
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
The house Un-American Activities Committe was an organization that got out of control and was reigned in by the very government you equate to China's and Nazi Germany's.
That's the point your missing, and will ignore because your world view would be crippled. The US government makes mistakes, but as was stated, there are mechanisms for correcting those mistakes.
And Hitler? Come on, don't be such a fucking idiot.
"Look at the US history; we weren't that much better than the Germans. We had camps of Japanese-Americans. Ours just weren't "death" camps. They could have easily turned that way though."
And said before, those grievances were righted. Comparing the US internment camps with Nazi death camps is the worst kind of moronic hyperbole.
But since that's the entire body of your work, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on half truth and hyperbole, because the facts simply don't support you.
It must be nice for you to mold history to your delusions. I wish I could ignore the truth for stupid political reasons like you do, but I'm not an imbecile, so you have what it takes and I don't.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
average number of errors in a wide range of topics is a narrow scope?
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
"Child" renderotica breaks US child porn laws
Does it? I have not heard of such a thing. But I may be uninformed on the issue.
I am not surprised on the issue of 16-year old taking photos of themselves. I hope that judges properly interpret the laws in that case. OTOH I am not surprised if they did not.
badness 10000
What about broadcast TV, isn't that censored? Don't the networks have to pass their material by censors before they can put it on the air? Should we change their job title because you are uncomfortable with the fact that the US government employs censorship to some degree? You might argue that the networks hire their own censors, but what rules do you think the censors go by... the FCC, right?
TV is censored based on the law of public decency. Personally, I think this is stupid. I think it is possible to declare this restriction unlawful, since the v-chip mandate no longer makes tv a public channel.
Bad example. Censorship generally deals with the dissemination of information, not actions. You can't really censor an action, per se.
I agree. Bad example. Censorship of intentions is different from censorship of disemination of information. However, it is hard to find government censoring any private property in the US (except in cases where it is publically displayed).
People I've heard from who have lived in China seem to be under the impression that the bulk of the Chinese people support their government. China is a really big country. The few that are protesting represent a small minority. You might argue the people who are not protesting don't really know how horrible the government is because of censhorship and would probably be pretty disgusted if they know what was really going on, but the fact is that they support the government.
I agree. It is called propaganda and nationalism.
As I am sure we all we be somewhat disgusted by our government if we knew what was REALLY going on behind closed doors. But we don't know. Besides profanities on broadcast TV and kiddie porn, there are many other things that the government does effectively prevent the people from knowing much about.
Probably there is. However, be careful to distinguish government secrecy from censorship. They are not the same. Both can be harmful. I accept a certain level of government secrecy...I will accept very little censorship.
In what way does that stop them from thinking about these things? They know that a Great Firewall exists. What stops them from criticizing it in their own minds?
The problem is that no one can share this idea safely. You share the idea with the wrong person, you go to jail, as sharing ideas against the government is a crime. US is getting a bit worse in that respect too. If you have violent ideas, you may end up being prosecuted. Not quite the guantanamo yet (enemy combatant weirdness...blah blah blah), but it is getting worse. (Taking pictures of infrastructure being illegal in certain places is nuts.....perhaps the worst case of censorship in the US. For now I am simply ignoring it. Arrest me if you want.)
I am an optimist about the US government. And I am getting more and more disappointed in the Judicial branch lately. I always felt that if I get arrested for taking pictures of the subway, they will save me. Today I am not so sure. But there is still some freedom of thought here. It is still hard to end up in jail for simply thinking something, or doing something completely innocent.
badness 10000
...you've created a post full of links that CAN'T be seen from most points in China. I'm there now.