Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Won't Bow to Chinese Censors
truthsearch writes "Jimmy Wales has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive Wikipedia entries. He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia. 'We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information.'"
There are many pages protected in Chinese wikipedia.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
The reality is after Beijing government ban zh.wikipedia.org, the zh.wikipedia.org has become a playground of anti-Beijing activists. NPOV has been damaged greatly since then. The Beijing government definitely shoot his own foot on this move.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Can you give a citation for that (the US censoring Hezbollah sites)? I'm not disbelieving; I just hadn't heard it.
As far as I'm aware the US doesn't usually force sites to shut down unless they're participating in something actively illegal (child porn, gambling). It's not uncommon for them to take down organizations by charging them with a crime, and that results in the removal of a web site, but I'm not aware of them merely ordering an ISP to remove a web site without also pressing charges against the organization or individual putting it up.
So if you can cite me some examples it would be appreciated.
A lawsuit isn't the only way that shareholders have to express displeasure with corporate management. The easier and often more effective route is to simply sell the shares, depressing the price.
While I can't cite an example of a shareholder suing management for fiscal malpractice for doing something ethical, there are examples of companies whose share prices are depressed because of the effects of them behaving ethically.
One example I can cite off the top of my head is Ben and Jerry's, who couldn't find a competent CEO because of their ethical decision to pay nobody more than seven times the price of their lowest-paid employee. In the end they had to abandon their ethical principles to hire competent management, and their stock price went up because of it.
is, amusingly, this.
Perhaps you should read up on the first encyclopedist.
vi ~/.emacs
Just another reason why Tor should stay up
The Wikimedia foundation blocks Tor nodes, at least from editing (for understandable, if not agreeable reasons).
I believe that if you try to access google.com from China you'll get the same thing you'd get in the US. It's just that if you don't circumvent the firewall you'll see a lot of stuff censored. If you try to access google.cn from the US you get the same thing you would in China. A common tool used to circumvent the firewall is a proxy connection, with which Google won't know the access is coming from China anyway.
As far as I know the reason Google set up google.cn was because for most people in China access to google.com was really bad because of the firewall. By starting google.cn and playing by the Chinese government's rules they could operate a much more reliable (but self-censored) site and build their brand in the rapidly-growing Chinese market. google.com is still available in China to the same extent it was before, just google.cn is another option that will usually work "better" due to less government interference. I'm not saying it was necessarily the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective, there's plenty of arguments both ways... but it certainly was the right thing to do as a long-term investment in Google's future.
http://www.compassionatwork.com/art_malden_mills.h tml
$15 Million for a 1400 person textile factory which was primarily for people who (1) weren't working for a quarter after the place burned down and (2) needed an increase in health benefits. There are probably plenty of examples, except that they do not get much press concerning their accolades; human destructionism sells so much better.
Maybe you didn't expect it, but over the last few years I've seen more evidence that the Librarians are doing more to protect civil liberties than many other groups.
Some quck examples coming from a google search for "librarian civil liberty"
http://www.alternet.org/rights/36953/
http://www.kbcafe.com/politics/?guid=200601280728
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/ecp/2003/epoli
http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/437/437_04_
There have been numerous stories on Slashdot over the years showing examples of this. There seem to be quite a few people in that profession who fight very hard to prevent the erosion of rights.
Hats off to them.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If Hezbollah TV wasn't banned, how was this guy: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/25/fbi-arre sts-cable-guy-for_n_27993.html) arrested for selling it to his customers?
I challenge you to provide an example where a corporation made an ethical choice that wasn't required
How about the billions and billions of dollars that most major corporations give to charities each year? Yes, many get tax breaks from the donations, but many do not. I know a company that donated a $20 million radio station to a local non-profit and didn't get a dime back.
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."