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.'"
Considering China's regulations I don't think it'd be possible for Mr. Wales to accomplish censoring all of Wikipedia from what's on the list from China's Article 19 of censorship policy. This that China requires to be censored:
- violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
- jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's unity;
- harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
- inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
- disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
- spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
- spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
- insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
- inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
- conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
- any other content prohibited by law or rules.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.In other news all Chinese residents will see a new homepage for Wikipedia. Just another reason why Tor should stay up and the recent news about it being used as a child pornography shield is terrible.
*All information in this post was gathered via irony.
My work here is dung.
They simply believe that access to some information is better than access to no information. It's as if you had a choice between eating crap for the rest of your life, or eating nothing. Some people would choose to eat crap and maybe live a while, while others might choose to eat nothing and starve to death.
The companies named are businesses which by definition are in it for profit. Wikipedia, as a foundation has the luxury of standing for a good cause without having to explain it to its shareholders.
Those folk in China are really experiencing the gift of freedom of information right now, aren't they? We're so uptight about upholding an ideal that they get *nothing*.
I'd sure call that freedom of information!
I'm willing to stand up and cheer reservedly for Wikipedia if this continues.
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Wikipedia is non-profit, where the others (Google, Yahoo, etc) are profit seeking organizations (at least, they're listed on market exchanges).
So while wikipedia can take the high ground and just not exist in China, for-profit companies have to justify this to their shareholders. If you were invested in Google and heard they decided not to expand into the large & growing market of China... well you can see how one could begin to question if the company's leadership had the shareholder's interests in mind.
While I don't like the fact that places like Google and Yahoo allow censorship, I do understand the reasoning. Censorship by default is hard to do on the internet. There is always information popping up in new places, and it takes time to find, review and finally censor it. So by providing the Chinese ppl w/ access to a good search tool, they can use their ingenuity to find the information they want. It also would be unfair for them not to have access to simple, non-controversial material that they benefit from, and which they would have a difficult time finding w/o a good search engine.
However, Wikipedia is more than a tool for finding information. It IS information, and one of it's highest goals needs to be accuracy. (let's not debate accuracy vs. Wiki's here tho)
If they were to censor information that is valid... well it would be incredibly wrong. You can't have just a 'little' bit of censorship of information in an encyclopedia, it violates the whole spirit of the thing.
It's much easier for Wikipedia to take the high moral road when they are donation driven as opposed to a public profit driven company. Perhaps it is even necessary to keep their image clean. China is one of the fastest (is it the fastest?) growing economies in the world. It has a staggering population of would-be customers. For them to take the high road and refuse to do business there would probably not go over well with investors--especially when their competition is entering the market there.
It's easy to be heroic when you have nothing to lose. It's like instead of rescuing the princess from a fire-breathing dragon, Jimmy is rescuing her from a field mouse.
I mean, yes, it's the right thing to do to rescue princesses, but lets not be throwing the word 'heroic' around for no good reason.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
They need to google "False Dilemma"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October
Yeah, I think the second sentence pretty much gives him the answer to the question in the first.
It really irritates me how people in america impose their values on people in other countries. Believe it or not, our system may not be best for China. Just as there is no best parenting style there is no best method of government. I have been to China and they all seemed really happy living in the society THEY have created for THEMSELVES. Do you really think that China would be happier in a society WE create for them?
In the article, he says he doesn't know why China would block Wikipedia, given their position on neutrality.
t ests_of_1989a ng=zh-CN&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=T iananmen+Square&spell=1e =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I'm not if he's being intentionally dense, or if he honestly belives that the Chinese government is interested in neutrality.
If so, I'd ask Mr. Wales to compare the following three links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&inl
http://www.google.com/search?q=Tiananmen+Square&i
Just a thought...
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
For all this talk of shareholders shying away from a company refusing business opportunities, and therefore it's "easy" for a non-profit to take the higher moral ground ...
Donaters shy away from a non-profit that DOESN'T take the higher moral ground.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
The US government has censored Hezbollah websites by forcing the provider to shutdown the website. For the Chinese governement Falun Gong is a religious fundamentalist organization so they want to shut them down. However its human rights violation when China does it but "supporting our friends" when the US does it. Talk about double standards.
**Life is too short to be serious**
(disclaimer - I am singling out the Microsoft/Google approach to China, it is in no way intended to represent the overall efforts of American businesses in China, especially the loathsome actions of Cisco and Yahoo.)
The problem here is that Wikipedia's approach accomplishes nothing - although neither does it compromise the organization's stated principles. Microsoft and Google's approach of censoring on request has still created a raging torrent of information within, into, and out of China, one that the Chinese government can only barely police. Wikipedia's outdated reactionary protest model will not coax China to change anything, after all, China has the resources to churn out competing products with ease. Microsoft and Google are showing China the rest of the world, and giving Chinese dissidents great, albeit limited, tools for proactively attacking totalitarianism.
Google also didn't have anything to lose (they were not already in China) - yet they still decided to subvert themselves and their company's ethics out of greed. What does that make them? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite of heroic.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Firstly, if you see a $100 on the ground and don't pick it up, isn't that basically the same as losing $100?
Secondly, I didn't make any assertions about Google's behavior.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
He's responsable to his users & the truth. Seems to be doing a good job.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Bottom line, it's not in Google's shareholder's interests to take a pro-freedom stance that excludes their products from the largest economy in the world. Rather, it's most definitely in their (the shareholders) interests for Google to make concessions to the Chinese government to be able to do business there. This is neither good nor bad (though some, including myself, would argue it's "not good"), but a product of being a company owned by stockholders. The great thing, especially in this case, is that if you disagree with such corporate policy, you can refuse to use their products and utilize those of a company whose actions are more in tune with your beliefs.
Wikipedia, obviously, by its nature is not beholden to these interests.
Not vague recollections of events that may have happened. Your response makes it clear you don't have an example. If you did, you wouldn't have hesistated from ramming it down our throats in a stupid attempt to equivocate.