Slashdot Mirror
Self-Censoring 'Chinese Wikipedia' Launched
Billosaur writes "New Scientist is reporting that Baidu, China's largest search engine, is launching its own version of Wikipedia. The site, Baidupedia, differs from the more well-known Wikipedia in that it is self-censoring." From the article: "Unlike Wikipedia, which allows anyone to create and modify entries, Baidupedia is censored by the company to avoid offending the Chinese government. Entries to the encyclopaedia must first pass a filtering system before being added to the site. Baidupedia bars users from including any 'malicious evaluation of the current national system', any 'attack on government institutions', and prevents the 'promotion of a dispirited or negative view of life'."
So ... you feel that freedom of speech isn't a inherent right for the Chinese?
That's correct. I don't believe that freedom of speech is an inherent right. Neither do western governments. If you don't believe me, try reading pedophile poetry in a kindergarten class. Or try spreading state secrets if you come across one.
More to the point, I think freedom of speech might work at one time and in one place, and not at all in other times and places. I'm very much a believer in moral subjectivity.
What I DON'T agree with is trying to impress your own beliefs on another society just because you think yours are better than theirs.
Besides until you can tell me you've read the Analects, as well as the various other works of classical Chinese scholasticism, I don't believe you're in ANY position to claim an understanding of Chinese ways. Period. ~a - b.a. History, focus: China.
Okay, now where did I claim to have any understanding of Chinese ways? I didn't even mention China.
Oh... I get it. This way you can bring up workds like scholasticism and appear "lurn-ed". Well, good job then.
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't self-censoring should study the reversion histories of either the Amway or Richard Stallman articles. It also is simply not true to say that anyone can edit any article in any circumstance. Article editing can be (and is) disabled for individual articles on a routine basis, and such also is not typically done via consensus.
Wikipedia is a great thing...I'm not denying that for a moment. What I do have a problem with however is that rather than concentrating on its' genuine good points, people have this annoying tendency to make positive claims about it which simply aren't true. It is only partially democratic; it certainly isn't entirely.
And then we should get rid of all the hate speech! Like all that Koranic and biblical crap exhorting its followers to head-chop nonbelievers. Who needs it? And you know what? It'd be a lot easier to enforce this if you needed a license to publish. We should have a standards body to enforceour community standards. A Communications Commission, of sorts. The licensing system could be subsidized by our great institutions--those heroic, risk-taking corporations--placing small, unobtrusive advertisements among the approved content. And in time, perhaps the Internet could become as shimmering a beacon of American ingenuity and creativity as television is.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca