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'."

36 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. But..... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unpossible!

    Everyone knows the USA is much worse than china...

  2. In communist china... by danpsmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the wikipedia edits you!

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    1. Re:In communist china... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Scarey enough, that was going to be my next question. If you attempt to submit an article, and it gets edited, does your user account and IP go onto a government watch list?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  3. Do Not Taunt by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Happy Fun Wiki!

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  4. It's an excellent resource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I looked up "abominable snowman" and it told me it was "a large primate-like creature supposedly living in the mountains of censored."

  5. Brave New China? by guitaristx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    prevents the 'promotion of a dispirited or negative view of life'.

    Yeah, they'll give the breakers of this rule a healthy dose of soma.

    --
    I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    1. Re:Brave New China? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Naaaaaaaaaaah! The beatings will simply continue until moral improves.

      KFG

  6. But does it report the authors to the government? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does it record the origin of the offending articles and report them to the government, or merely deletes othe offending articles?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  7. That's not a Chinese Wikipedia. by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a Chinese Fox News.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  8. Orlowski would love this by FhnuZoag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The irony is that this is fairly close to what many western critics of Wikipedia propose. 'Moral responsibility', stronger 'editorial controls', protection of living people, 'accountability', anyone?

    I guess this post is kinda flamebaity, but well...

  9. Re:I Love Articles Like This by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm afraid we consider that a negative and dispirited post.

    It's the wall for you. Smile. Your children will be with you. Only one of them will have a real bullet.

    KFG

  10. Censorship rights by pumpknhd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flamebait me if you want, but companies DO have rights to censorship. Heck, Slashdot censors. Otherwise, every article here might be M$ bashing or Linux raves. Or, endless dupes (oh wait, this happens already). Back to my point, companies can censor if they want. Users just don't have to go there. Why go to Baidupedia when you can go to Wikipedia? Yes, there is a Chinese language section of Wikipedia.

    As far as I'm concerned, Chinese companies can censor all they want...so long as the government doesn't force them to use only Baidupedia and block Wikipedia.

    By the way, Google owns 2% of Baidu. And as we all know, DO NO EVIL! (yes, full of sarcasm)

    1. Re:Censorship rights by Gossi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to clarify, the chinese government blocked Wikipedia back in 2005.

  11. Re:I Love Articles Like This by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So then are you taking the position that the high esteem for free speech is *not* a value that should be universally shared?

    That it's not okay to speak out against the values of the culture you are in?

    Somebody mod this guy down!!!

    Er... wait...

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  12. Freedom Depends on the Citizens by reporter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    News reports (like the recent one) about censorship in China appear frequently in this forum. The best that we and other Westerners can do is to apply subtle pressure to the Chinese people, not just Beijing, to reform.

    However, we can do little more.

    Freedom in China ultimately depends on the citizenry. Barring external intervention, the future of a people are determined by the people. Period.

    Back in 1989, Czechoslovakia had a population of about 15.6 million. In November of that year, 800,000 citizens assembled in Prague and demanded freedom. 800,000 is about 5% of the nation's population.

    The story repeated itself in all of Eastern Europe. Once it was free from the external intervention of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Europeans collectively decided that they wanted freedom, and they got it. They forced their authoritarian governments out of power.

    The story is quite different in China. No one is imposing authoritarian rule on China. If the Chinese people wanted to enjoy the same democracy and human rights that we have in the West, then the Chinese people could get democracy and human rights tomorrow. The problem is that most Chinese either support authoritarianism or are indifferent to it. President Hu Jintao (the dictator of China), all by himself, cannot impose authoritarian rule on China. Hu has a lot of supporters.

    That is the difference between Eastern Europe and China. I respect the Eastern Europeans.

    1. Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens by Twanfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Freedom in China ultimately depends on the citizenry. Barring external intervention, the future of a people are determined by the people. Period.

      Not that I don't agree with you on this, I find that this statement is being said kind of ironic, given the situation in Iraq. I find the parallels and dichotomy staggering.

      Iraq was a dictator-led state, governed by a brutal oppressor that would do whatever he had to in order to not only stay in power but advanced his own agenda. The US, invading under false pretenses, topples this government and assists in the formation of a representative democracy (or whatever failing system is being used in the US), and we have no quams about having done so, from the point of view of the US government.

      China is a communist state, governed by a brutal government that uses censorship, isolationism, and propaganda (amungst other devices) to force compliance, obedience, and social growth from it's people. The US does NOTHING, dispite countless publicied human rights violations similar to those committed in Iraq. We state as above, if China's fate is to change, then the change must come from the people.

      While I think something good came out of the Iraq invasion (no more Sadam), I think that we should not have invaded as we did. If Iraq was to be free, they were more likely to value that freedom if they took it themselves, just as China should.

      Offtopic, I know, but an amusing parallel just the same.

    2. Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens by Internet+Ronin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then clearly you haven't read much on China, except perhaps, with regards to current events.

      You see, China has the longest unbroken history of any current civilization. The principles of Confucius, among others, I won't deny the effect of Siddartha or Lao Tzu however their focus was spiritual and Confucius was political (although that in and of itself is a misnomer, because a truly Confucian political system is one in which subtle, yet totalitarian control is exercised from the divine Father, through rites), still linger today.

      I mean, if you think these sort of cultural bonds are easy to free yourself from, then try and figure out why English speakers still refer to the sun as 'rising.' I don't *think* people still believe it's a geocentric universe, but that leftover cultural and historical background is exerting pressure on the citizenry.

      Now, compare China's 3000+ years of unbroken history with the fragmented mess that is Eastern Europe and you're talking about analogizing teflon fibers with yarn. Yes, I'm proud of the Czechs, they did a grand job, and the Chinese could take a page from their book, no doubt. The point is that until you can UNDERSTAND the Chinese perhaps you shouldn't bandy your 'respect' around like it was God's gift to give.

      The Chinese piss me off all the time, but I understand how and why they get there, and trust me, they are deserving of our respect.

    3. Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Informative
      Huh? You must be bit slow here. He did NOT say that NO ONE wanted democracy. He did, though, quite accurately say that MAJORITY OF CHINESE wouldn't give a flying fuck about invidual freedoms, including "western" democracy. If it was there, nice; but it won't compare with other stronger values (from materialistic ones to nationalistic and community values). Mr. Coward, look, who in the world can say that majority of Chinese won't give a flying fuck about individual freedom? Have you even been to China? Did you talk to even ONE Chinese over there? Or did you do a nation-wide poll or something?

      Students at the Tianamen square were but a tiny ant's piss: they did and do not represent significant proportion of chinese as whole. His point is entirely valid: if enough chinese did want things we in the west take for granted, they would get it. They don't, at least not yet.

      You really don't have clue about the scale of it do you. There were protest up to 100,000 people in the streets of Beijing early May. And there were protests in every major cities in China during the month. If you weren't old enough to read in 1989 you can do it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989

      2600 died and 30000 injuried over one single night. That's about the same number on the war with iraq since 2003. That's an ant's piss to you eh?

  13. Re:evil by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Chinese government is not responsible for the censorship."

    Let me get this straight...

    Because a company chooses to pre-emptively censor its content to avoid government action against it, the government is not responsible for the censorship? Are you kidding?

    Do you think Baidu would censor this wiki if it wasn't the policy of China to censor content and prosecute (or otherwise handle) offenders?

    That's afwul, awful, apologist logic.

    Glass houses and throwing stones and all that (I'm in the US) but really...

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  14. Re:I Love Articles Like This by gsfprez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >It's a chance to read a whole bunch of responses by contributors who are absolutely
    >convinced that the values and beliefs they hold are the ones that should be universally
    >observed.

    i find your beliefs are wrong, should not be observed and belive you should be silenced...

    when you say that intolerant views should be quashed, you are intolerant youself.

    you cannot simultanrously hold that value systems which silence opposition with threat of death are on a level playing field with those that allow diverse oppinions.

    put another way - If you silence intolerant speech, then you are far worse than the one who speaks intolerantly.

    By definition, you cannot speak ill of Chinese policies in China - which places it on equal ground or superior ground to other systems in China. In the US (and some Euro countries), the subject can be debated - therefore, by simple logic, whatever system the US has is better than what China has.

    how can i say that?

    I'm in the US.

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  15. Didn't hackers solve this years ago? by bill_kress · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ch1na sux0rs. You can never fi1t3r me, i r 2 l337 4 u!

    Side note: This brings up an interesting discussion a chineese friend and I had the other day.

    There are some things in America that simply won't work in China. One, he claims, is all you can eat restaraunts. People will just move in until you kick them out. When they have a salad bar, people will build 3 foot high salads (Search for it on Flicker--it's a pretty amazing sight to behold).

    This also came up when we were discussing selling a house. He was wondering why we clean the house when we leave. We don't have to clean the carpets or drapes, but you just do--often spending quite a bit of money that we don't have to.

    Apparently there are many other examples, all coming down to, he claims and I paraphrase: Chineese people are much less likely to look out for the "Common Good" unless forced to by law.

    With this concept in mind, I kind of wonder if open source concepts (including the contents of the wikipedia) will work in China, or will it all be like our whitehouse/wallmart where everyone is only adding entries when it helps themselves personally.

    ps: I wouldn't even consider that this might be a racial issue, it's obviously cultural (if it existis at all--if not please correct me!)

    1. Re:Didn't hackers solve this years ago? by eklitzke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My girlfriend is Chinese, and it's really fun to talk to her family about the cultural differences between China and America. For example, they were amazed that in American parks there are ducks and geese that can just walk around, and even go up to people for food. Apparently in China there would be a problem with people trying to catch the ducks, so that in the few places where you can see ducks out in public they stay the hell away from people. The same goes for flowers, which apparently aren't normally grown in parks because people would just pick them all!

      This isn't to suggest that in China there isn't a value for the public good. Quite the contrary. Just a few years ago if you went to the Temple of Heaven the big steps that lead into the temple weren't fenced off at all. Specifically, there is a huge relief carving that goes up through the center of the stairs, and people had enough respect and common sense not to abuse that privelege by walking on it, or vandalizing it. All through Beijing there are landmarks that weren't protected at all from the people, because they didn't need to be. Of course, a lot of this has changed recently, and in the past few years some of these things have started to be fenced off.

      On the Linux note, her parents view Linux with a kind of mild amusement. They find it somewhat humorous that people would spend so much time and effort to write free software, and think I'm kind of crazy for choosing a career with Linux.

      --
      #include ".signature"
  16. To the contrary... by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone knows that the USA is great as long as it's better than China! National wiretapping? That's fine, it's not as bad as China! "Free Speech Zones"? In China, they don't even get free speech, so that's okay too! Imprisoning citizens indefinitely without trial? In China, they do it a lot more!

    Yay, go USA! We're Not As Bad As China (TM)!

    1. Re:To the contrary... by Malakusen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or Syria, Iran, North Korea, and... hmm... whichever else is a "bad" country.

      Should be:
      Yay, go USA! We're Not Yet As Bad As The Worst Countries In The World (TM)!

      Which has always struck me as being like saying "Yay Lyme Disease! At Least It's Not AIDS!

      America, where's there no point improving if you haven't hit rock bottom yet.

      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
  17. Cultural bias and other stuff by Winlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I notice that articles about China seem to bring a certain number of posts about how we in the west shouldn't be arrogant and assume, that just because we value freedom of speech and such rights, the chinese people want the same freedoms. And of course there ARE cultural differences between East and West. But I also have to wonder...if the chinese people are so content with the pace of change in society, then why does the government need all those citizen censors, and great firewalls, and controlled wikis? It would seem that there would be no need for such stringent methods of control when the people don't want western ideas.

  18. WHOOOOSH! by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the Chinese people wanted to enjoy the same democracy and human rights that we have in the West, then the Chinese people could get democracy and human rights tomorrow.
    Um, actually, they tried that.

    This is where it got them.

    Seriously, you need to read up a little more on just how extensive the demonstrations around Tiananmen Square really were. That wasn't one guy and a bunch of tanks. It was thousands and thousands of people, getting shot in the back by troops armed with assault rifles as they fled. I recommend a recent Frontline special, called "The Tank Man," for more information.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  19. OK This is too much. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    I agree on censoring, but go to the main page and you see a lot of question marks. China, you've gone TOO far this time!

  20. Re:You gotta love by gid13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communism's been tried? Where? I have been told that Marx never espoused a single party system, which as I see it is the problem with all the "communist" governments that have been around. Cuba, China, the USSR, all single party... Personally, I'd be very curious to see what a communist system (i.e. the government owns everything, etc) combined with democratic elections (or some other means of forcing at least some accountability on the government) would be like.

  21. Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of Huma by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities make sense in terms of his or her own culture. Some followers of this principle are the Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, and practitioners of Sati.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, outlining the organization's view on the human rights guaranteed to all people. Chief amount these rights are:

    * The right to life, liberty and security of person.

    * The right to an education.

    * The right to participate fully in cultural life.

    * Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.

    * Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

    * Freedom of expression and opinion.

    It is interesting to note that China, being a permanent Security Council, should feel obliged to follow these declarations, but does not.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  22. Mod parent up! by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck this "much worse" shit. It doesn't matter if you're better than a hundred repressive totalitarian regimes.

    What matters is what your ideals are and how closely you live them.

    We supposedly value "justice". But we seem to be living "vigilantism". And there are people who are 100% okay with that.

    The only difference between them and any Chinese executives filtering content is where they were born. If they had been born in China instead of the US, they'd be 100% behind their government's actions to stop the democracy movement.

  23. NPOV by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 5, Funny

    So in China... NPOV becomes PGPOV? (pro government point of view)?

    LOL. That's funny stuff. In the US, they reject text for not having a neutral point of view. In China, they reject text for not having a "positive" point of view.

  24. No need to take this Baidu encyclopedia seriously by Lorenzarius · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Chinese version of Wikipedia has only 67k articles for several years of development, however this Baidu encyclopedia already has more articles than that within several days. Why is that? It is because Baidu doesn't care about copyrights. According to their user agreement/disclaimer (which is only available in Chinese), the content will be released under GFDL and/or CC-SA 2.5 (which are incompatible) and at the same time all copyrights are reserved by Baidu. In fact there are a bunch of other contradictions within the same document. On the other hand, its users also doesn't care about copyrights too, because many of the articles are just copied from all the sites around the web.

    Therefore we don't have to take this Baidu encyclopedia seriously, because even Baidu doesn't take this encyclopedia seriously. They launch this project just to create cohesion within its users.

    <conspiracy>However there is one more interesting thing about this Baidu encyclopedia: Baidu as a search engine raises to prominence in China after Google is blocked. And if you don't know already, the Chinese Wikipedia (actually all the wikimedia projects) is blocked in China. Coincidence?</conspiracy>

  25. Re:Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of H by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Informative
    It is interesting to note that China, being a permanent Security Council, should feel obliged to follow these declarations, but does not.

    Ah, but they do:

    CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
    CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS

    Article 33. All persons holding the nationality of the People's Republic of China are citizens of the People's Republic of China. All citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law. Every citizen enjoys the rights and at the same time must perform the duties prescribed by the Constitution and the law.

    Article 34. All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.

    Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

    Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited. Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.

    Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

    Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

    Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

    And, in case there was any doubt,

    AMENDMENT FOUR

    ...

    Article 33 has a third paragraph added: "The State respects and preserves human rights."

    ...

    Of course, there's Article 51.

  26. censorship can cut down on spam by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this thought just ocurred to me.

    mostly, the portscan and connect attempts (break-ins) are from .cn (they surely are the lion's share of the hack attempts at my site).

    I'm perfectly happy to ban all of .cn from my home (dsl based) site. I usually do /16 blocks on their netblocks, as I discover them, anyway.

    but how about this for a pro-active idea? put photos of tienenmen sq. (the REAL photos - you know what I mean) on your home page. that, alone, should get your IP blocked by the chinese gov.

    end result: you've just installed a spamblock closer to the source than you could ever accomplish without their 'help'.

    I think I'm going to try this. (what is there to lose?)

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  27. Re:You gotta love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it isn't possible if you live in a country that is either
    a) under a government structure that prevents dissent (Cuba)
    b) is too apathetic to dissent and hold the government accountable for its actions (the USA)

    Socialism and free enterprise are two approaches to the same problems, neither of which have a guaranteed outcome.

    Guess what: socialism works in a million American communities every day. Assuming you live in a city, I hope you have water, sewage, and roads. You and your community assign these responsibilities to (and pay) a government that is directly responsible to you. If the jobs don't get done, you should go to meetings and find out what the hell is wrong.

    If you are too apathetic or stupid to hold your local government responsible for its failings, it isn't a failing of socialism--it is your fault for being a shitty citizen. That's Democracy, chum. And if your government is competent, you have every right as a citizen of a democracy to elect to give them whatever economic responsibilities you want to.

    Go read up on rural electrification in America. It would not have happened without government sponsored electric cooperatives, because no investor in their right mind would have tackled the problem. Socialism is an extension of the idea of the cooperative approach to problem solving. It is a choice, and can coexist with free-market solutions, just like credit unions coexist with banks. It is one approach, and is not itself inherently evil or flawed.

    The free enterprise approach is also neither fundamentally evil nor flawed. But, just like a cooperative approach, if you have a nest of corrupt, self-serving players running the game with no oversight or accountability, you will have a shitty outcome (Enron, Qwest, Savings & Loans).

    By the way, if your local government sics police dogs on you every time you question their choices, that's not a failing of socialism either--that's a police state, and it would be that way regardless of who is in charge of building roads. The state does whatever the hell they want, to make sure that they can keep exploiting you.

    If you're going to be a libertarian, at least get fscking clue. Oppression is the inevitable consequence of a monopoly on power. The monopolist will use their position to fight dirty against anybody who challenges them. This goes for politics and a free market economy. A real libertarian knows that a one-party state run by capitalist oligarchs is far more dangerous and oppressive to its citizens than a socialist democracy, because a socialist democracy has accountability and can change anytime the people are motivated.

  28. It's not censorship, it's distortion of truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    See, censorship alone does not bother me, since what the chinese government does is not only censorship. They deliberately distort historical reports to present the government's view of the facts. Which is much, much worse of censorship alone and is similar to NPOV on steroids.

    This kind of behavior is exposed by Orwell on Animal Farm and, guess what? The average citizenry, in total absence of further information will take the government discourse as true.

    The worst scenario is when the "West" starts to take their version as truth as well. See what happened to Tibet! What about the Goguryeo antiques found in China? In the latter case, the Chinese government spent a lot of money paying "scientists" to deliberately rewrite documents and papers about the history of that region to hide the fact that Goguryeo also was part of ancient Korea!

    And screw the scientists as well (academical independence my ass!) Once the Chinese version of stuff hits Britannica, Larousse, the west will also start to believe in them.