China Unblocks Wikipedia

ZZeta writes "Even though the information on the site is still scarce, Editor & Publisher is already publishing the scoop: Apparently, Wikipedia has been unblocked in China. From the article: 'Wikipedia reported on its site that it had received word from multiple users in the country on Chinese-forums.com that the site had been restored.'"

Comments

Woohoo!

[east coast]

I'm off to edit the "gang of four" article with some "facts". Let's see how fast they can censor it again.

Re:Woohoo!

[rlp]

What do they have against design patterns? Oh ... never mind.

Re:Woohoo!

[enjahova]

This is great news for Chinese internet users. So what if the pages on a few political topics are unreliable? Wikipedia is not the only source on the internet, its just a very useful resource on general knowledge. General knowledge includes a lot of things that aren't these political issues. At least today they have a larger resource.

I think that the internet will eventually triumph over the Chinese governments censorship. There are a lot of people in China, and its hard to keep that many people, most of them poor, stable. You can see from the last hundred years how many large revolutions there have been. The country has been slowly, but steadily progressing towards freedom. Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction.

All that said I am in favor of all the software and efforts to help Chinese people blog anonymously. I believe the more communication the better, the fourth estate serves the government and the internet helps subvert that.

Re:Woohoo!

[lawpoop]

Yeah, you versus 1.2 billion party loyalists. Good luck.

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm about to edit the African Elephant article. What is Mandarin for "the number of elephants in the world has doubled in the last six months?"

Re:Woohoo!

[Comatose51]

Actually IIRC, the Communist party in China only number in the few millions. The ranks have grown in recent years because of the boom and the advantages party membership gives you in business. Most Chinese are not Communists. In fact, I think most people around the world aren't very ideological and more pragmatic than their leaders. People just want to live and have a good life, whatever the official ideology might be.

Re:Woohoo!

[djupedal]

Yep, I too can confirm the site is accessible from inside China.

"Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction."

Those are two very interesting 'remarks'...not sure where to start, as you've taken some fairly significant liberties, speaking as you do, and not being one of 'them'.

To begin, how do you know what is the 'right direction' for the Chinese? Are you sure that your definition would be widely embraced by the Chinese?

Moving along, you casually comment about 'opening up'. Opening something depends on that something already existing. You speak as if it is already in place, and what is happening now is simply broad access in and out. China is a 'developing country'. I believe there is a major difference between 'opening up' and 'developing', especially in regards to something so unique as China's economy. Next, you flatly state 'moving towards capitalism' - I doubt anyone would be comfortable proposing that what is happening is that simple. Moving, yes...but China is in a position of moving 'away' from many things, rather than 'towards' your definition of anything. The Chinese themselves are not clear on what China is moving 'towards'... an outside, casual observer, such as yourself, is that much more incapable of making any type of valid claim. I would suggest that rather than serving up your distant opinions, that you come here and ask them in person.

My point is that your comments speak more of what you don't know, as opposed to what you think you know. How can you claim to speak for them...? I don't get it, sorry.

"I believe the more communication the better..."

The better for whom? Again, I'm left wondering what makes you think you understand the situation. You talk about 'communication' as if all forms of it are good. I know you are trying to frame your points humanistically, however, without looking at what 'communication' means to the Chinese, as opposed to this or that other culture, ignores just one part of their uniqueness.

I urge you to consider that you and many others will soon be judging what the internet is and does using China as the norm, not the exception. I am fairly sure your hubris is in for a shock when you learn that you don't define such things to the Chinese, when in fact they are even now defining it for you... Come on over, I'll be happy to help you find a front row seat to a very interesting time in human history.

Re:Woohoo!

[lawpoop]

Yeah, I meant the comment to be funny; I'm flabergasted that it was modded insightful.

Re:Woohoo!

[Kelbear]

[quote]"I believe the more communication the better..."

The better for whom? Again, I'm left wondering what makes you think you understand the situation. You talk about 'communication' as if all forms of it are good. I know you are trying to frame your points humanistically, however, without looking at what 'communication' means to the Chinese, as opposed to this or that other culture, ignores just one part of their uniqueness.
[/quote]

Please elaborate?

Re:Woohoo!

[Elemenope]

In other words, a very few rich aristocrats in 14th and 15th century Europe decided one day that a certain set of values like 'rule by the people', 'scientific inquiry and understanding', 'free press' and the like were great in theory and it would be kinda neat if someone tried them. A few hundred years later one rabblerousing asshat or two actually took them seriously and started revolutions on both sides of the pond. Since the crazy fuckers actually won a few times, we, a few hundred years after that, have come to reflexively believe that these ideological precepts are somehow universally good, since they worked out so well for us. They are embedded very deeply in our cultural vocabulary.

GP's point, I imagine, had something to do with China having been around and doing A-OK in one form or another for the last three thousand years operating under entirely different assumptions, ideologies, and whatnot than the west. What make us so arrogant to think that because our stuff, like freedom of information, works so well for us, that it would for them or that they would even want it at all?

Re:Woohoo!

[McFadden]

The ranks have grown in recent years because of the boom and the advantages party membership gives you in business.

So people are joining the Communist Party in order to further their capitalist ambitions?

And they say irony is dead...

Re:Woohoo!

[chicagohk]

Do not be fooled by this and other magnanimous gestures. China will be back to her dictatorial self once the Olympics is finished in 2008.

Re:Woohoo!

[chrnb]

"Yep, I too can confirm the site is accessible from inside China."

Don't know where you are, but here in Qingdao, Shandong province; nothing wikipedia is accesible.

Seems like they just open it in a few places, to get the western media to report how open they are before the olympics. ****ing ***holes!

Re:Woohoo!

[2Bits]

We, the 1.2 billions loyalists, modded you insightful. Don't you like it? Want some fries with it?

Re:Woohoo!

[jcr]

China will be back to her dictatorial self once the Olympics is finished in 2008.

Please don'tconflate China with the criminal regime that rules it. China is the country. The Red Dynasty is the dictatorship. (Although strictly speaking, it hasn't been a dictatorship for sometime. These days it's an oligarchy, consisting of a committee of thugs.)

-jcr

Re:Woohoo!

[ozmanjusri]

What is Mandarin for "the number of elephants in the world has doubled in the last six months?"

Phonetically, it is pronounced "Aaahhhrggh. Getitoffme youfatgreybastard getitoffme.

Re:Woohoo!

[djupedal]

-1 mod...? For asking the guy if he expected me versus someone else to elaborate? How is that worth wasting a mod point? What did I do to you? :)

Re:Woohoo!

[benplaut]

And now you get double credit for it!
karma++

Re:Woohoo!

[Eye-of-Modok]

So people are joining the Communist Party in order to further their capitalist ambitions? And they say irony is dead...

I like to refer to them as "Venture Communists".

Re:Woohoo!

[mikek3332002]

All that said I am in favor of all the software and efforts to help Chinese people blog anonymously. I believe the more communication the better, the fourth estate serves the government and the internet helps subvert that.

Isn't it funny how these anonymously web browsing tools are for freedom/democracy in china however if you use them in a excellent(sarcastic) example of democracy... America, you are considered a terrorist?

Re:Woohoo!

[UKRevenant]

I have had several chinese students board with me while going to college in the UK and spoken at length about many issues. We have spoken a great deal about the differences between living in China and living in the UK. Without exception all of the students have wanted China to have the same freedoms as are (and with this government, soon to be were) available to us. They admire a great deal of things in the 'west' and I have always tried to point out where our systems and way of life fails because China is heading in the same general direction as the UK but they lag behind. This lagging behind gives China a great chance to look closely at our failures and try to find a way forward that avoids the problems we have with our societies.

I do believe I live in a great country, but I also know it could be better. For all of our progress over the last 100 years we have paid a high price in the damage to the social fabric. China has not yet sacrificed too much and I hope it learns from our example so it can avoid it, maybe then we can learn from China how to have everything we really want and need in life.

Before anyone thinks the problems in the UK are related to immigration, they should remember that we have always had lots of immigrants. One of the things that has defined this country over the centuries is our willingness to adopt new ways of life and integrate them into our heritage. It is only recently we have become concerned about preserving traditions and values simply because they have been around for so long.

I'll stop there before I get any further off track.

Re:Woohoo!

[smilindog2000]

"Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction." Those are two very interesting 'remarks'...not sure where to start, as you've taken some fairly significant liberties, speaking as you do, and not being one of 'them'.

These "significant liberties" are called freedom of speech, which here on /. we exercise with great zeal. We've got all kinds of dumb opinions, and aren't afraid to offer them. Feel free to correct them any time, but don't expect anyone here to curb their appetite for speaking up on topics they know little about. It's our basic /.-given right.

Also, is it true you can /. from China? I would have to say that their government must be watching this sight closely, so I don't blame you for the gung-ho pro-China attitude.

The original poster had valid comments. Improving economic ties between the rest of the world and China is good for many reasons, and for everyone. More communication is better, reducing fear and distrust.

I urge you to consider that you and many others will soon be judging what the Internet is and does using China as the norm, not the exception. I am fairly sure your hubris is in for a shock when you learn that you don't define such things to the Chinese, when in fact they are even now defining it for you...

Just trying to scare us? You have to realize that the web-censorship technology being perfected by the Chinese scares the heck out of us /.-ers. Let's all just hope that the original poster was right, and that China is indeed on a long-term trend towards freedom of speech.

Just as a test: I dare you to reply with an anti-Chinese-government post. You don't have the freedom. Actually... please don't. Keep up the pro-China guise. No point pissing off a government sensor. However, watch what I can do here in America: My President is a MORON!!! Damn that feels good.

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, i don't believe a people that doesn't wants freedom of speech needs any "help". I think they even deserve the most painful death so you don't bring your black blood in the humanity gene pool.

Re:Woohoo!

[AaronDunlap]

I confirm this... we have seen ( Peakoil.com ) a deluge of Chinese traffic recently... which was never before seen.

in some cases up to 20% of our total traffic.

Re:Woohoo!

[smilindog2000]

Quite true... we live in messed-up times here in America. Just on principle, I'm tempted to encrypt all my communication, and obfuscate my Internet access. But, that would just mean some poor slob might have to actually work to figure out weather or not I was sending any kind of threatening communication. So, I exercise my freedom of speech here on /., while my government exercises it's self-granted right to listen. To everything.

Re:Woohoo!

[freemywrld]

"I believe the more communication the better..." The better for whom? Again, I'm left wondering what makes you think you understand the situation. You talk about 'communication' as if all forms of it are good. I know you are trying to frame your points humanistically, however, without looking at what 'communication' means to the Chinese, as opposed to this or that other culture, ignores just one part of their uniqueness.

I think the point of saying the "the more communication the better" might have some meaning that when people can communicate, they can find out how other people around them feel about issues that they live with, including (but not limited to): oppression, quality of life, human rights, and political and social freedoms. If people can't openly communicate about their human condition, then its easy to be stifled. But when people can openly discuss what is going on in their world, then they can find that others might share similar feelings. This, of course, can lead to civil unrest. Bad for a government regime that wants to stay in power, but generally good for the vast majority as they can organize and attempt to create change that improves their quality of life.

Re:Woohoo!

[xoundmind]

So people are joining the Communist Party in order to further their capitalist ambitions?
By all accounts, the Chinese government has melded into a hyper-capitalist, fascist state. They are definitely not communists.
So, yeah, it does make sense.

Re:Woohoo!

[Kelbear]

Sorry, I included too much in the quote trying to give a frame of reference(I should really just let the parent/reply system do that)

More specifically, I was looking for elaboration on , "what 'communication' means to the Chinese, as opposed to this or that other culture,"

Re:Woohoo!

[cyfer2000]

I,a Chinese wikipedia editor, will do the "censor".

Re:Woohoo!

[lawpoop]

Nice! Hey Mods, tag this one up, too, will you?

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

God almighty, that post was a huge stinking pile of BS. It contained no actual content.

Re:Woohoo!

[x-vere]

Not that I don't agree with you. You make good points, but dude! Chill the f**k out. Comments are for opinions and not for frickin' doctorial thesis. Peace...

Re:Woohoo!

[Hal_Porter]

GP's point, I imagine, had something to do with China having been around and doing A-OK in one form or another for the last three thousand years operating under entirely different
assumptions, ideologies, and whatnot than the west.

That's taking cultural relativism to the point of nihilism.

China hasn't been doing A-OK. Mao's policies killed tens of millions of people.

And under the emperors China was poor and backward.

Even under the present government which is far better than either Mao or the Emperors millions of Chinese people leave the country every year and seek asylum elsewhere.

What make us so arrogant to think that because our stuff, like freedom of information, works so well for us, that it would for them or that they would even want it at all?

If you don't have freedom of expression and free elections, the government can murder millions of people and there's not much you can do about it (e.g. during the Great Leap Forward ). If you do have it, you've got a much better chance that gross violations of human rights, e.g. genocide or democide won't even be on the agenda.

As soon as I write this, I can imagine people reading this and coming up with a smartarse reply like 'Well our government doesn't care about human rights, what about gitmo'. Well, having a free society is not a panacea. When under threat, free societies can do some very nasty things to people outside them, e.g. Dresden. Or they can do much less nasty things to minorities inside them, e.g. internment of Japanese Americans, but the system will eventually stop that.

My point is that it's hard for a democratic society to do something as murderous as Mao managed. And that's something.

And it's not just avoiding mass murder, corruption is far easier for people in power if they can threaten or kill people who expose them. And corruption will eventually impoverish the vast majority of people who have essentially no power in an unfree society. In fact, from the Chinese expatriates I spoke to, corruption was the main reason for leaving.

Re:Woohoo!

[smithmc]

  What make us so arrogant to think that because our stuff, like freedom of information, works so well for us, that it would for them or that they would even want it at all?

So freedom isn't good? You'd prefer not to be free? Well, that's up to you I suppose, but don't get any on me.

Re:Woohoo!

[plover]

Thank you for posting this. As a Westerner, I have long known that I've never understood China. Your post explains a lot to me.

Of course, as a Westerner, I still disagree with your position. Your society seems to value "the stability of the society" above all else, whereas in the West, particularly the United States, we value "individual freedoms" above all else.

In China, you're taught to abhor actions that could "upset the apple cart." Here in the West, we let people have their freedoms but we know that eventually someone will upset the cart. Some people can handle the turmoil, and others cannot. Your culture seems to value "avoiding the turmoil" which keeps most everyone happy.

The difference as we see it is that because we are free to talk about problems, we can act on those problems. If the government is failing to do something, or doing something wrong, we can discuss it and even choose a new government to address the problems. Without the freedom to criticize the government, many wrongs would never be righted.

What your "long view" fails to account for is that in the West we can see that each upset, each problem and each iteration of solutions has made things get progressively better, not worse. Not always, but in general things are better. For example, our current administration is much worse than we've had in 80 years, but we're still better off than we were 50 years ago. And we don't think we've reached the top yet, either.

My understanding of the Chinese long view is that you think we'll have that much further to fall in 100 years. In our view, even if we tumbled halfway down the mountain, we're still better off than if we'd never tried.

Re:Woohoo!

[chickenandporn]

Wow. Mod Parent UP!

Seriously good comments. djupedal basically argues for looking at the bigger picture, and judge China by China, not as another country.

So often, we commit the sin of judging one civilization by the standards of our own. In China, we eat feet and heads, dogs and frogs; other countries might shudder at the thought of fish-head burrito! I mention this to show that China is not the US, not the UK, not the EU.

China has seen some very bad times: it's one of the most recent countries to have a war in our lifetime, and surely it's the single largest economy of which the "ruling class" (Royal Family, President, or Party Members) personally remember things like zero education, short food, competing for jobs and resources, having to forge alliances just to keep various services running. There's a reason that GuanXi is so important, even today.

A few short decades ago, China was as Irag is today -- not exactly, but closer to it than to developed countries. It regressed in evolution and in standard-of-living, as all wars do to a nation (many developed countries forget what it's like fighting a war in their backyards -- any surprise that the resistance to Iraq came from Germany, France, et al?). China is returning to civilized stature as it does after every new Dynasty is established.

Even if moving towards Capitalism, and Opening Up are good for China, volatility -- changing too quickly -- is bad for any (*cough* Iraq *cough*) country.

Censorship always makes me as "what are you hiding?"; Wikipedia is a benefit to China, but that's not my decision to make. I've only been here a short time, I barely understand it, but I know that I don't know enough to judge. That seems to be djupedal's point.

djupedal, I'd offer virtual beer with my kudos, but this is China. How about virtual fish-head burritos (yu tou bin?) and ducks' feet?

Allan
--
Beijingshi DongchengQu

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an oversea Chinese who used to live in Hong Kong, I don't have a mind set as your typical patriotic Chinese. However, with the technology, the world is flat and we are all global citizen. We all have a set of desire regardless of what background we were brought up.
- Security
- freedom of speech and assembly
- pursue of happiness
I really don't think I will like to live in a regime which I can't even post a personal comment on a topic. That is why there is still many mainland Chinese trying to live aboard. When the oversea Chinese are queuing up to apply to live in China, then I will feel China must be offering something more than just economic opportunity. Looking forward to be in that queue myself

-Politically Incorrect

Re:Woohoo!

[gfreeman]

Seems they are now the Gang of Twelve, as the population increase has tripled.

According to Wikipedia, anyway.

Technical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

China's internet tube to Wikipedia was clogged up under North Korea. Their recent nuclear test loosened up the clog, and now people in China can use the tube again.

Re:Technical explanation

[From A Far Away Land]

It took such a long time to load the Slashdot graphic for this story, that I thought maybe China had censored it. Thank you for the technical explanation. Does this mean for faster Internet service, we should look at detonating more nukes, possibly in North Dakota where vast spaces of farmland create Internet tube blockages?

Probably last until...

[ackthpt]

Probably last until people in China start reading how their central government was made a fool by North Korea. Can't have that.

Time to get Democracy to FA status!

[Sir Homer]

Quick, before they block it again!

Re:Time to get Democracy to FA status!

[Kurayamino-X]

Screw Democracy, FA Tank Man

now if only other nations will follow

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a set of nations with strong censorship traditions, such as China, USA, former USSR, North Korea. Here is hoping these nations will follow China's lead.

Re:now if only other nations will follow

[wile_e_wonka]

There's a set of nations with strong censorship traditions, such as China, USA, former USSR, North Korea. Here is hoping these nations will follow China's lead.

You're hoping the former USSR will reduce censorship and open up to Wikipedea? I don't think that a country which no longer is exists is likely to do that...

Re:now if only other nations will follow

[illuminatedwax]

I can't wait to read Wikipedia... I hope the US stops blocking it soon!

Re:now if only other nations will follow

[HeroreV]

Don't forget that government IP addresses were blocked after visitors from them made many changes to make government officials look better. Most likely those people are still doing it, just not from the same IP addresses. It's not nearly as bad as blocking Wikipedia, but it's something to keep in mind.

Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

But I wonder if people in China who choose to visit certain articles might get tagged and investigated (like people in the United States do under the Patriot Act for checking out certain books from the library).

Re:Interesting times

[njchick]

For the users who are registered on Wikipedia, their account name is used instead of the IP address. This may be harder to track down, since it would require snooping the http traffic to find the IP address for the given username. And then there is plausible deniability by claiming that someone else guessed the password. This works best if the password is simple.

Re:Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a better solution would be not to have the government snoop on the reading habits of its citizens.

Re:Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

Plausible deniability can earn you a bullet in the head, as opposed to one in the heart. They may even let you make gravel with hammers first!

Re:Interesting times

[Enderandrew]

I'm not sure how this gets modded 5 - Interesting.

Perhaps you should go to factcheck.org - a non-paritsan fact-checking website. There is one famous story of a boy who was visited by the NSA for checking out a book, except that he publicly admitted to making up the story. Not a single news agency tried to verify if it was true.

There is warrantless wiretapping which is the big fucked up part of the Patriot Act, but MOST provisions in the Patriot Act do require warrants and court orders still. Perhaps you should Google for the Patriot Act and read it rather than spout off internet rumors and pretend they are facts.

Re:Interesting times

[TheModelEskimo]

might get tagged and investigated (like people in the United States do under the Patriot Act for checking out certain books from the library).

Interesting, can you share your source for that? I've heard of the government requesting library cooperation in certain cases when they want to know about a specific person, but I've never heard anyone say there is general monitoring going on. I wonder how many libraries would cooperate with that, and given the completely heterogeneous ecosystem of library computer installations, I wonder if it would even be *possible*.

Re:Interesting times

[LindseyJ]

I'm not sure how this gets modded 5 - Interesting.

Welcome to Slashdot. If it bashes the current Administration or America in general, what matter if it's a complete fabrication?

Re:Interesting times

[Enderandrew]

Mod parent up please.

Re:Interesting times

[crazyeddie740]

The GP mentioned users who *visted* the Wikipedia, not edited, but editing might be more incriminating as well as easier to track. Tracking down the IP address would be the easiest way to do such snooping automagically, but there are probably clues to be gleaned from the information the contributor adds to the 'pedia themselves...

A thought occurs - the Wikipedia is a fairly well known site, like CNN, New York Times, etc. Unlike many blocked and well known news and politics sites, the content is created by the users. If the Wikipedia is blocked by the PRC, then the Chinese langauge version is being edited by Chinese speakers (or writer, rather) from outside of the PRC, and those in the PRC that have managed to break through the Great Firewall. The resulting content would probably not be too favorable to the PRC.

Unblocking the Wikipedia would allow PRC loyalists to edit, improving the PRC's image, as well as providing the government an opportunity to conduct "counter-intelligence" on those who aren't so loyal.

Re:Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

Bold faced lie: +3 points (+1 pending)
Truth 0 points (-2 pending)

Re:Interesting times

[pimpimpim]

Well, good luck finding the facts, as under the Patriot Act you cannot disclose facts about your library records being checked, since:

Section 215 also provides: No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. This gag order would prevent a library, for example, from ever notifying its patrons that the government has requested information from it under Section 215.

Hope you woke up from your sweet dreams. You may now remod GP 5 - Interesting.

Re:Interesting times

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got news for you sweetheart, that didn't start with the Patriot Act.

Re:Interesting times

[Enderandrew]

Instead of reading a someone's interpretation of the Patriot Act, I tend to read the original source in its full context.

That very same section states:

"`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

So no, the government is not going to come knocking down your door just because you checked out a book. If you read the full section, it states that if you already under investigation for being a terrorist, they can ask a judge for permission to collect assets such as papers and books to continue that investigation, and people aren't supposed to divulge information pertaining to an ongoing investigation.

The highlighted section clearly protects people's interests of free speech. No one is going to label you a terrorist simply for expressing an opinion.

I know an individual who clearly posts on the interwebs on a regular basis statements in full support of terrorism, stating that all Americans should die, all Whites should die, all Jews should die, etc. From his IP address, he is posting from within the US. Nothing has happened to him.

Despite the fact that people post anti-government rants every day, that doesn't mean the government is doing anything to stop it. We still have the right to free speech (despite Jack Thompson's efforts in Florida).

I'm not defending the administration. I'm just stating facts, which gets me downmodded. Those that make paranoid statements that have no factual basis get modded "Interesting". Again, meta-moderate all you like, but the Slashdot crowd is very biased, so the moderation system is by proxy.

Re:Interesting times

[quincunx55555]

• might get tagged and investigated (like people in the United States do under the Patriot Act for checking out certain books from the library).
  • Interesting, can you share your source for that?

One morning, a little more than two years ago, my boss told me about a long-time friend of hers that goes to she her daugher (and recently grand-daughter, too) at least once a year, if not more. She was not let on the plane and was told that she was on the "black list" recently put into place. At this point the media had already covered a few celebrities that had run into this and could not find out why they were listed. However, our town isn't that large and my boss knew the head of security at the airport, who happened to be retiring soon. She was able to report back that my bosses friend was listed because of 2-3 books checked out from the library, and 2-3 more that were purchased at Barnes & Noble. The books btw, were mostly political "Bushizms" type books (computer algorythm?). The ones that weren't political were "benign" by my opinion; gardening, quilting maybe? ... although the fertilizers... Anyway, I'm surprised that people wouldn't think this is going on in the US.

Re:Interesting times

[TheModelEskimo]

Anyway, I'm surprised that people wouldn't think this is going on in the US.

Yes, it does have that ring of truthiness, doesn't it?

Re:Interesting times

[zifferent]

The interesting point is not whether you make anti-government statements alone, but rather how popular your messages become.

For more information see Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, Socrates, etc.

Did they really?

[bhmit1]

Censorship works best when people don't realize they are being restricted. So how do we know they are viewing the real wikipedia and not a government controlled and filtered proxy? Considering all the sites and people out there pointing to wikipedia, it's only logical to put up something to keep people from asking questions and trying to see what they are missing.

Re:Did they really?

[Kleinigkeit]

Yup, especially as the majority of links are to en.wikipedia.org, zh.wikipedia.org is still blocked. I just had a friend in China hit the main page of both wikis and only en. was available. Now to get her to run a search on 'Tibet'...

Re:Did they really?

[slashbob22]

Ahh.. Truthiness. You rear your ugly head again.

Did you know that the population of African Elephants has tripled in the past four months?

Re:Did they really?

[Quadraginta]

Censorship works best when people don't realize they are being restricted.

A common trope. But actually censorship works best when people do it to themselves, for the most noble motives, because it furthers some grand and wonderful higher purpose.

Re:Did they really?

[nihaopaul]

i'm on both and i'm in shanghai, this is awsome news for us, i get alot of information from wikipedia via tor and we all know how slow tor can be, zh.wikipedia.org is also unblocked. the site is being filtered, but atleast i can still access other information.

Re:Did they really?

[Kleinigkeit]

That is really good news. I help out mates in china who work translating english into chinese... there is very often a great explaination or example of something on wikipedia that would help them get a concept or even just an acronym. We are all going to benefit...

Re:Did they really?

[Anonymous Coward]

and remember when all else fails, join http://anonet.org/

Re:Did they really?

[skoaldipper]

I'm in Shanghai now. I do indeed have access to wikipedia, but apparently certain filters are in place. I just tried a search on "tibet" and got a 404 response. What's funny is now that I did that "tibet" search, I cannot access wikipedia at all, and I was reading about "pinyin" and "chinese language" just a few minutes earlier on wikipedia. I really don't know if that's by *design*, or just this crappy excuse for DSL they have over here. Who knows... Oh well, I love this country and it's people. I just had a cashmier suit tailor made for me for only $28, including a nice white shirt thrown in for free. Plus, I picked up a 12 pack of AA batteries for 67 cents at the Carrafour (which is like a super walmart here). So, beat that you filthy American dogs! I'll gladly trade in the freedom for a wikipedia search for a bargain at the market any ole day.

Re:Did they really?

[Plutonite]

In which case it stops being a bad thing.

Re:Did they really?

[DuChamp Fitz]

Unless they're wrong.

Re:Did they really?

[Zack]

I'll gladly trade in the freedom..

I'd like to go cry now. ... for a bargain at the market any ole day.

Stop the world. I want to get off.

Re:Did they really?

[fuzheado]

Yes, this is important to note - zh.wikipedia.org is still blocked for a great many folks. And from people I've heard from, I'd say still the majority of folks.

Re:Did they really?

[arose]

It is well known that stoping the world would make it harder to get off, spin it up I say!

Re:Did they really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in China for me internship and am very happy I now can use wikipedia. So I tried Tibet... this page is blocked. After I tried this i got blocked from the whole site. Now I'm waiting for some goverment official to visit me.

After 5 minutes it worked again, seems that when you get filtered, this momentarily blocks the whole site.

Re:Did they really?

[DigiShaman]

I wouldn't want to live in Shanghai. The heat and humidity is total hell. And I've lived in Houston, so that should tell you something...

As for having Wiki access now, THANK GOD! Maybe now the locals will learn to CHANGE THEIR FUCKING BRAKE PADS on their scooters!!! I sware, that hi-pitched squealing drives me batshit!

Re:Did they really?

[2Bits]

zh.wikipedia.org is accessible from here, in Shanghai, just did that for a check.

Re:Did they really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure living in Shanghai and therefore not necessarily being English that the GP couldn't give a shit.

Re:Did they really?

[j3w]

They know what they are 'missing" you make it sound like the Chinese are oblivious to the outside world because of a little censorship. They know their government is corrupt... and are probably less delusional about their government than we in the US are about ours. Fact of the matter is they don't really want what we have. Probably seems quite chaotic and dangerous in our part of the world to them. The only example they have for what happens when a nation such as their's collapses is the former USSR... which we all know is moving along spledidly. Nope...not really missing a thing.

Re:Did they really?

[VendettaMF]

It's the standard localised blocking they use for the entire net.

Anytime you retrieve pages for a variety of "trigger" terms you get blocked from that site for a while.

(Shenyang here, full access to all. Yay.)

Maybe china is growing up.

[Maxo-Texas]

We have our kent state, lynchings, etc. in the US.

Perhaps they can start talking about tienamen square maturely instead of pretending it didn't happen.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't heavily studied T Square, but a lot of reporters say that it didn't happen anything like what western media likes to make out, perhaps you should go read up some more on it.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[Cheapy]

When we went over Kent State in high school, my (conservative) teacher tried to show that it really was the protester's fault for being shot.

I am dead serious. (pun not intended)

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[jcr]

Well, reporters who aren'tin danger of being tossed into a cell with people suffering from tuberculosis have a different view. Keep in mind that here in the west, we have access not only to our own country's take on events, we can read the accounts from the Red Dynasty's propagandists as well. Guess which side I find convincing?

Hell, most Chinese don't even know that Mao killed more Chinese than Tojo.

-jcr

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[TheoMurpse]

Perhaps they can start talking about tienamen square maturely instead of pretending it didn't happen.

*snort* Good luck on that one. I still have yet to hear a mature discussion outside of university walls on the internment of Americans during WWII: "Them Japs got whut came to them, I tell ya'!" 60 years and Americans are still saying it was OK and necessary.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[Maxo-Texas]

Any discussion inside university walls is probably pretty tainted by hard left / "America is uniquely bad in the entire world" type attitudes.

The situation was complex as this wiki excerpt indicates:
The most widely reported examples of espionage and treason are the Tachibana spy ring and the "Niihau incident." The Tachibana spy ring was a group of Japanese nationals who were arrested shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack and were deported.[citation needed] The "Niihau incident" occurred just after the Pearl Harbor attack, two Japanese Americans on Niihau freed a captured Japanese pilot and assisted him in his machine-gun attack on Native Hawaiians there.[22]

Some present-day supporters of the internment have argued that some Japanese Americans were indeed disloyal, as seen by the approximately 20,000 Japanese Americans in Japan at the start of the war who joined the Japanese war effort, hundreds joining the Japanese Army.[citation needed] One particular example is Tomoya Kawakita, an American citizen who worked as an interpreter and a POW guard for the Japanese army, and who actively participated in the torture (and at least one death) of American soldiers, including survivors of the Bataan Death March. Kawakita was convicted for treason and imprisoned.

Critics of this viewpoint note that it seems unlikely that Japanese Americans in Japan had any choice other than to be conscripted into the Japanese army, given (1) that it was near-impossible for them to return to the U.S. from Japan, and (2) that the United States had already classified all people of Japanese ancestry as "enemy aliens."

The same article reports 120,000 immigrants of european descent were interned as well.

We were at war and had been suprise attacked by Japan. It was hard to trust japanese like Issei who were not integrated with the US yet and couldn't speak english yet. In war, situations get simplified. We can afford to be complex about them later.

Agreed, we were shits to them. We were shits to the native americans. yada yada yada.

The point is, do we see the first signs of China being confident to look at itself in the mirror?

And man do we have a lot of mirror looking to do when this "war" on terror is resolved.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[jc42]

> Perhaps they can start talking about tienamen square maturely instead of pretending it didn't happen.

*snort* Good luck on that one. I still have yet to hear a mature discussion outside of university walls on the internment of Americans during WWII: ...

I have, but I'd agree that it's not a common topic of conversation. I even grew up in the Seattle area, with a lot of friends of Asian background, and I remember a number of calm discussions of the shameful event. Most of the people that I knew, both of Japanese and European background, just viewed it as "Yeah, isn't it horrible how people treat each other sometimes?"

Finding non-academic discussions of the topic isn't difficult any more. You can, of course, find a good summary at wikipedia. I also found that googling for "Japanese American internment" gets about 1.4 million hits, and a quick check of a few shows that reasoned, factual articles and discussions seem common.

Of course, the rabid bigot types won't be part of such discussions. And I do remember a few such people from my childhood. We mostly ignored them, while being aware that they were the sort of people who would do it again if given a chance. I didn't have a lot of friends like that, though.

We're seeing this right now, of course, with the American treatment of Arab-Americans and others of Middle-Eastern origin. It's not to the point of mass-internment camps, but those of us following the story are aware of what's going on. This includes the government's mistreatment of people, using an attack by unrelated other people as an excuse. And the mistreatment includes arrest and indefinite incarceration without charges or trial. In some cases, it includes torture of people later shown to be innocent of any suspected crimes.

Lots of us are quite aware of our country's history in such matters. Attempts to suppress knowledge of this history are not very successful, and any American who wants to learn the facts can now find them quite easily.

The Chinese leaders may have realized that the economic value to them of access to sites like wikipedia is greater than any danger that people might read politically unacceptable information. After all, the US doesn't collapse because its people have access to information about the more sordid parts of their government's history. Most Chinese citizens will remain as safely ignorant as most Americans are.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[iamthird]

Please restate the statement. China has never denied the Tiananmen Square incident; in fact, it is one of the most important history lessons. It was Japan that changed history to "look good", e.g. denying the Nanking Massacre, just like some people think the Holocaust was made-up. Take a look at the Alexa top-100 most visited websites, Chinese is clearly the second dominant language in cyberspace. I'm sure Wikipedia is just as happy as the Chinese people about the decision.

Re:Maybe china is growing up.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have also talked to people who were in BJ at the time, and they also say that it didn't happen the way that 'the west' likes to make out. Have you watched the BBC news reel, for example? That shows the protestors attacking the army, not the other way around.

I think it's at least possible that the truth lies in the middle somewhere....

Pragmatism

[ghyd]

Sounds like economic pragmatism. Without being perfect, wiki is a major knowledge (and therefore wealth) database.

Wait a minute...

[__aaclcg7560]

Wasn't the Great Wall of China always been open to tourists? Or has the Chinese government been brain washing people to stand in front of fake pictures of the Great Wall for all these years? Inquiring minds want to know...

Some quick testing..

[jarl1976]

A quick test of certain articles indicates the government has moved to more fine grained blocking. The page of some events 17 years ago did not load, but trying to load it did not temporarily block the ip(which is what happens if it just stalls on banned words). So I guess they have decided that cencoring all of wikipedia is overkill..

Re:Some quick testing..

[nametaken]

Baby steps... baby steps.

Re:Some quick testing..

[Silverlancer]

This isn't new. For years, if you typed a banned word into an IM conversation or received it from a website, the transmission would be blocked. Its not a new method.

I'm In Beijing and Here I Go...

[perfectlynormalbeast]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienamen_square

The protests of 1989 resulted in the killing of Chinese protestors in the streets to the west of the square and adjacent areas. Some sources (Graham Earnshaw and Columbia Journal Review) claim that none died on the square itself. However, Chinese expatriates who left the country after the killings said that the numbers ended up being in the thousands. This was a combination of the hundreds killed on the spot and the "miniature" purge that followed.

But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 is blocked

Interesting... More than I expected to be avaliable...

Re:I'm In Beijing and Here I Go...

[fithmo]

Nushing to see here, prease move arong.

Re:I'm In Beijing and Here I Go...

[merikari]

Time to make the article on the massacre today's featured article. Just to see how long the site stays unblocked...

Re:I'm In Beijing and Here I Go...

[RealGrouchy]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienamen_square ... But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 is blocked

Interesting... More than I expected to be avaliable...

This is not surprising. In the first one, you used a (perhaps common) alternate spelling of Tiananmen. In the latter case, you used the more common one.

While Google image searches from China for "Tiananmen Square" would not yield photos of the event that makes the Square notable outside of China, such photos do show up when the Square's name is misspelled. Or at least, such was the case when someone mentioned it on slashdot a few months back.

- RG>

Re:I'm In Beijing and Here I Go...

[perfectlynormalbeast]

Yes, the correct (pinyin) spelling and the incorrect spelling give the same page, with the same, surprising paragraph.

The question is... why?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Did the Chinese government just realize they can hire a million-strong standing army of Wikipedia editors? Why censor when you can edit to taste?

Re:The question is... why?

[VanessaE]

So let them hire a million-editor army. What's stopping Wikipedia from protecting whatever pages they see fit, from further edits?

Re:The question is... why?

[edwardpickman]

Did the Chinese government just realize they can hire a million-strong standing army of Wikipedia editors? Why censor when you can edit to taste?

A few adjustments. I didn't realize the Chinese had the largest penises and the Japanese the smallest. Also is Bill Gates really Chinese and did the Chinese invent the internet? Amazing how much I'm learning since the Chinese started correcting entries.

Re:The question is... why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than destroying the entire premise on which Wikipedia is founded?

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

And I wish we could have more freedom to install video cameras with loudspeakers on our street corners too. I'm so disappointed in our lack of enthusiasm!

Fact checking

[edwardpickman]

Not sure about a few entries. Did Chairman Mao really start off as a showgirl in the Peking Opera and is Japan really twice the size of China?

What Language?

[Jack Action]

Do Chinese users have a Chinese language Wikipedia, or do they use the English one?

Re:What Language?

[jarl1976]

There is a chinese version, but it is still blocked...

Re:What Language?

[schwieter]

zh.wikipedia.org is not blocked here in Xianyang, but of course the Great Firewall is not consistent around the country, so it may still be blocked elsewhere.

IT'S A TRAP!

[Datamonstar]

Obligatory... especially in Soviet China where Wikipedia unblocks you.

can't stop the proxies

[updog]

Maybe they finally realized that in China, you can get to Wikipedia (and any other site) through one of many proxies?

Re:can't stop the proxies

[fuzheado]

You can, and in fact there are easier ways to get to it than using proxies. But you don't need perfect censorship to have effective censorship, and for most folks who click on that Wikipedia link and it doesn't work, they just forget about it.

Re:can't stop the proxies

[updog]

Just curious, how can they stop the proxies when there are new ones popping up every day? I guess they could automate scanning proxy.org and block every site on it - is there an easier/better/more effective way? And, what's an easier way than using a proxy? My friend in China uses a proxy to read stuff, but has trouble posting to Wikipedia. I agree, most folks probably won't bother to figure out ways to circumvent blocked sites, which makes it effective.

Re:can't stop the proxies

[fuzheado]

Yes, they authorities can keep adding banned proxies to their lists. However, even if you can use a proxy to get to Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself bans editing from open proxies. So that is one downside of vandal fighting vs. China user access.

Re:can't stop the proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

"new ones popping up every day", huh? How would users find out what those new ones are? By going to proxy.org?

note to self: block proxy.org today.

They must be doing selective filtering then....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I can't imagine the Chinese even remotely allowing it's citizens to view articles about the Dalai Lama for example, or anything that seems pro-Taiwan.

But meh, It is still highly censored

[promotheus]

English, Tiananmen Square http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_square/ (Wikipedia.org) Chineese,http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E5 %AE%89%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA (zh.Wikipedia.org ) Scroll down to events or where it would be (navigate by pictures, its the one by the flag) on the chinese site, the chinese site is missing a link to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989/ (wikipedia.org) among others and i dought that they will ever take a hose to their firewall.(of doom!!!) well,I guess mod me down -Prometheus

Re:But meh, It is still highly censored

[jamar0303]

That link is missing for a reason- it won't load here (I'm in China).

Re:But meh, It is still highly censored

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. The link to the Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 has been there since March 2005. The pictures is under a section titled "Major Tourist Sites Near Tiananmen", and I am sure a picture of any event will be moved out of the section if inserted.

Ask for more

[benjaminzsj]

Hope they will give out more! Seriously, the government don't have to be worried if citizens get the info they aren't supposed to know since those are overt secret.

Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

I've been in China for 3 and a half years now and this is good news indeed, but there is still a long way to go. Considering how many times Google has been blocked and unblocked since I've been here, I wouldn't be surprised to find Wikipedia blocked again soon. I still have to play the proxy server game to surf a lot of the sites I want to see, and they have gotten very good at outsmarting proxy servers for certain content they absolutely don't want people to see. Maybe someone can enlighten me how they would be able to block a site even if it's going through an anonymous proxy server in, say Korea. I'm sure they have the brightest of the brightest hard at work on it. Of course, no proxy server ever works for more than a few days before it gets added to the "list". In fact, I'm probably on more than a few lists, myself. Lists only matter if they need evidence for something, and as I'm not inciting anything, I'm not particularly worried. I count my blessings that I have as much freedom to do what I want here as I do. In fact, I feel far more free to express myself here than I did back in the States, with its citizen watchdogs doing their best at every turn to censor me.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[jarl1976]

I recomend you use tor http://tor.eff.org/ combined with Firefox with the torbutton extension https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2275/. It will save you a lot of headache looking for proxies. Ofcourse if you use public computers, this won't be possible...

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need something like Tor (http://tor.eff.org/, an anonymous Internet communication system) instead of normal proxy servers.

You feel far more free here (i.e., China) just because you carry an US passport. If you were I, a Chinese, and you want to enjoy the freedom to express yourself, you would be in jail already - eh, your blessings acually come from that you are an American.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[matts-reign]

Depends how locked down said public computer is. If you can run software off a USB thumbdrive, or from some form of storage, even if you can't install, check out Torpark: http://www.torrify.com/

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[vG_NeSS_Vg]

Torpark (don't have link right away) combines both.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's perform a test. It should only take about 45 minutes. I'll take my Aztlan freedom sign to a downtown square and you take your "Free Tibet" sign (writen in Mandarin). Hold the sign and don't say a word for 30 minutes. Both of us should wear respectful clothing so that we are only judged based on our signs. We'll both report back our results. OK?

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[jamar0303]

Well- Tor doesn't work all the time either. At least my school has the "guanxi" (connections) within China Telecom to get less restrictions on the internet (routing through the right proxies that don't get blocked).

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[harisheldon]

You will get few eggs thrown at you while the person in China will only get a few tiny pieces of lead thrown at him/her. Since few eggs are larger than few small lead pieces, you lose. :-)

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

Good one! Of course, to be really effective, it would have to be "Free the falun gong political prisoners" on the sign, as Tibet isn't really that much of hot topic anymore. There is as much likelihood of China granting Tibet independence as there is of the US giving California, Oregon and Washington back to Mexico. Once territory is gained it is not likely to be given back. Well, I suppose after the US annexed the Philippines, we decided that as long as we could keep our bases there, we didn't need the hassle of administration as long as we got what we needed, and eventually granted them independence. We even succumbed to pressure and gave up the bases eventually, but now we can rely on our cronies such as the IMF, Halliburton and the like to keep them and others like them in line. We have to have serious cause to invade a nation, such as a natural gas pipeline, rich oil fields, etc. to make it worth the effort of "bringing freedom and democracy" to a people.

Certainly the right to form political parties without the sponsorship of the Communist Party and the right to public assembly are still heavily controlled here in China. The difference is that the people are not under the impression that they are "free". It is amazing to witness the changes that have taken place here in the past two decades and the freedoms people now enjoy. Of course they have a long way to go. However, the trend is toward more freedom, which is exactly opposite of the trend in the US.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

Wow. Is that really what you think? I'm sure such actions would get me a warning to stop, and if I didn't, I would be taken away and given a stern lecture about appropriate behavior in China. Worst case, I'd be sent home to the US. Apologies for not being willing to test it out to see what happens, but I have a few things I'd like to accomplish here.

If you look at Chinese history over several millennia, you'll see that the average Chinese citizen is living at a level of prosperity and freedom never before achieved. Of course, there are certain to be crackdowns if people get overly assertive, but the days of public executions and like are long gone, largely thanks to the public outrage over the events at Tian'anmen square. Sure, the Chinese government still keeps a tight grip, but they are loosening that grip more every day. I'm much more worried about the increase of political arrests and increasing censorship in the US.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Anonymous Coward]

I count my blessings that I have as much freedom to do what I want here as I do. In fact, I feel far more free to express myself here than I did back in the States, with its citizen watchdogs doing their best at every turn to censor me.

Dear god man, where did you live?

I've spent my whole life in what much of the country would call a conservative area, and still I've never been forcefully censored by anyone. I guess I've never tried to yell "fire" in a movie theater, but other than things like that I think I can say just about anything I want.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[psymastr]

Some people hate Bush so much it's unbelievable. They'll say completely ludicrous stuff to accuse him.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I feel far more free to express myself here than I did back in the States, with its citizen watchdogs doing their best at every turn to censor me.

LMAO. Ok lets see you make a movie about the assassination of the sitting ruler of China and see what the Chinese administration does to you.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Raenex]

In fact, I feel far more free to express myself here than I did back in the States, with its citizen watchdogs doing their best at every turn to censor me.

Examples? Or are you just ranting?

Of course, no proxy server ever works for more than a few days before it gets added to the "list".

While freedoms in the US (and elsewhere) are always under attack, I can still browse the web without going through a national firewall. Hell, I can even read conspiracy sites telling me that that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government. Your comparison of freedom in China vs the US is ludicrous.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

For the record, I absolutely love my country, which is why I can't stand the direction it is going, especially since the coup back in 1913 when the private banking cartel managed to take over the country for real. Perhaps if you don't feel like you're being censored, it's because your views are more mainstream than mine. I left for China, coincidentally, the day after the US invaded Iraq. Leading up to that I was working for Gateway and traveling to South Dakota every week, along with other people involved in the same CRM project. It literally got to the point where I just wouldn't open my mouth because I had to continue working with those people and the looks of hatred that came along with the verbal abuse and labels of "anti-American" "why don't you move back overseas if you don't like it" etc. were quite startling. Before that, I was just a kooky oddball who was always spouting off during flu season about mercury and monkey viruses in vaccines, the fact that fluoride in water is a really bad idea discovered by the Nazis, etc. which got me curious looks, but nothing like the wrath I felt before leaving.

My comment about feeling freer to express myself here in China has a lot to do with finding sympathetic ears when I bemoan US imperialism. However, most Chinese I talk to are buying into all I oppose hook, line and sinker. I do my best to get people to investigate things for themselves instead of just swallowing it down whole, same as I do in the US. Of course there are real limits to my freedoms here, and I am certainly much freer than most Chinese people who can't even travel outside the country except in large groups. It isn't as though I like the Chinese government better, but at least Chinese people don't go around bragging about how "free" they are. Look around you and you will find others there in the US who feel the same way about what's happening, only the might not speak out because they are tired of being called "un-American".

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Raenex]

Ok, so you're a conspiracy nut. You have the freedom to espouse such theories in the US. How would similar ones accusing the Chinese government of wrong doing play out in China?

And wow, shocking, your anti-US message didn't play over well with the locals in South Dakota, but the people in China are sympathetic. How much freedom you have! As much as you have a right to an opinion, people have a right to tell you to piss off. There's no censorship here.

It isn't as though I like the Chinese government better, but at least Chinese people don't go around bragging about how "free" they are.

Certainly more free than the Chinese. Trying to compare the two just makes you look silly.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

Certainly more free than the Chinese. Trying to compare the two just makes you look silly.

Not if you're looking at trends. Trend in China - more freedom. Trend in the US - less freedom. That is my point.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Raenex]

Trend in China - more freedom. Trend in the US - less freedom. That is my point.

If that was your original point, I wouldn't have quibbled. After all, if one is near the bottom of freedom and the other is near the top, it's easier for both to move towards the middle. However, it turns out your main rant was not for individual freedoms, but as to how your anti-US message was accepted by the locals:

In fact, I feel far more free to express myself here than I did back in the States, with its citizen watchdogs doing their best at every turn to censor me.

And

My comment about feeling freer to express myself here in China has a lot to do with finding sympathetic ears when I bemoan US imperialism.

Re:Great for now, but let's see how long it lasts.

[Eye-of-Modok]

After all, if one is near the bottom of freedom and the other is near the top, it's easier for both to move towards the middle

If it makes you comfortable to believe that there is really that much difference, you're certainly entitled to believe that the US is much freer than China, and admittedly in many ways it still is, but not as much as you might think. However, as my original post was about a "feeling" of freedom, here are a few things to consider:

In the US, if you even speak in a raised voice to your child in public, self-appointed citizen watchdogs may come up and tell you that you are "verbally abusing" your child and that they are going to call the social workers. I have personally seen this happen at a Wal-Mart when a whiny child was insisting she get some candy and her tired mother had had enough of her whining. Heaven forbid if she had decided to spank her child in public. An American-Pakistani friend of mine told me that the every time his family traveled to Pakistan, the first thing the father did was slap him in face for all of the disrespect he had shown him in the past year in the US and he knew he had to behave for the next month until he returned to the US where he could take advantage of the situation, knowing that his father wouldn't risk physically punishing him. There are many well-documented cases of people's children being taken away by state social workers on circumstantial evidence presented by "well-intentioned" neighbors. Children in foster care have a high incidence of abuse and even death. (Google search for "foster care death" gave 16,300,000 results.) The US is the only country I know of that has gone to this extreme and the citizens are the ones who turn their neighbors in, often on flimsy circumstantial evidence.

1,700 Bush protesters and dozens of bystanders in New York City were corralled with orange netting, arrested and held for over 40 hours in an old bus cleaning station with hazardous chemical signs displayed and no access to lawyers.

Mandated vaccines have led to brain damage, autism and death to hundreds of thousands of victims, and yet each year more and more vaccines are introduced, bringing billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them and to the medical industry that deals with the adverse affects. Gulf War syndrome is now widely believed to be mainly caused by the many tons of depleted uranium shells used during the campaigns, but the number of experimental vaccines our troops are forced to accept, with or without their complicity, has factored in some cases as well. Patriot Acts 1 & 2 contain clauses which allow for forced vaccine campaigns that call for anyone who refuses to be placed in "quarantine" indefinitely. I'm thankful to those who have fought for our rights to choose NOT to give the shots to our kids (varies by state) but I'm afraid those days are numbered.

There has already been plenty of discussion on Slashdot about the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and all of the accompanying loss of rights to citizens they entail. As long as you don't question anything, you should be fine. However, if you don't believe there are any political prisoners in the US, I urge you to investigate. It's not hard to find many cases. I for one smell fascism in the air.

Of course, we haven't touched on how US foreign policy has walked all over the freedoms of sovereign nations that have stood in the way of the juggernaut.

Finally, my message is certainly NOT anti-US, but rather against the oligarchy which usurped the US government and the people who are complicit in maintaining those rulers.

In C.I.S., Wikipedia censors YOU!

[tepples]

You're hoping the former USSR will reduce censorship and open up to Wikipedea? I don't think that a country which no longer is exists is likely to do that...

The former USSR still exists, as the members of an alliance called the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Re:In C.I.S., Wikipedia censors YOU!

[zippthorne]

One day I'll get around to visiting the former aztec empire. or maybe I'll just get drunk in mexico...

Re:In C.I.S., Wikipedia censors YOU!

[wile_e_wonka]

Is parent serious? The USSR exists just like the Roman Empire exists--You can go where it used to be. The CIS consists of trade and defense agreements between sovereign nations, none of which are recognized by anyone as the USSR (all of this is quite clear in the cited article). The CIS is no more one country than the NAFTA signatories are one country.

This is evidence to the contrary, Maxo-Texas

[Infonaut]

I haven't heavily studied T Square, but a lot of reporters say that it didn't happen anything like what western media likes to make out, perhaps you should go read up some more on it.

Of course, one AC does not all of China make, but if a lot of people in China feel this way, broad examination of China's history isn't likely to happen any time soon. The gist of AC's message seems to be:

• I haven't really researched the Tienamen Square massacre (because, well, inside China, I can't)
• I do, however, believe what my country's official media tells me
• Since I can't read up on this subject (because my government won't let me), maybe you should read some of my country's official propaganda on the subject and get yourself up to my high standard of awareness.

Re:This is evidence to the contrary, Maxo-Texas

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But is the AC's attitude substantially different to a regular viewer of Fox News?

Re:This is evidence to the contrary, Maxo-Texas

[Maxo-Texas]

Fox news tilts right.
CNN tilts left.

Both are bastions of journalistic virtue and integrity compared to propaganda seen in China and the old USSR.

The AC reminds me more of creationists personally.

Great analysis by the first reply btw.

Re:This is evidence to the contrary, Maxo-Texas

[Infonaut]

But is the AC's attitude substantially different to a regular viewer of Fox News?

I take your point. The American man who gets all his news from Fox and the Chinese man who gets all his news from official media are not terribly far apart.

Watching TV to get your news is the first problem. It is an inherently emotional medium unsuited to disinterested analysis. Second, getting all of your news from one source is never a good idea. Third, Fox may be on the right and official Chinese media may be on the left, but neither is a stranger to jingoism.

It would be an interesting experiment to watch one month of only Fox news, then only one month of only official Chinese news. Of course, at the end of it all, you might be ready to drive a drill through your brain.

Wikipedia PARTIALLY unblocked

[fuzheado]

Since I'm writing a book about Wikipedia and live in China, here's what I posted to my blog

The good news: The Wikipedia block in China is partially lifted

The bad news: The Chinese version is still not generally accessible, and the Western media reporting has been poor

Editor & Publisher magazine put out an article October 11 saying:

"The online interactive reference site Wikipedia announced Tuesday that the site had apparently been made accessible in China, after being blocked for just over a year by the country's government. "

Well not quite correct. Reports started coming in on October 10 from different parts of the PRC, saying that the English Wikipedia was now accessible. A friend using an open Wifi in Beijing emailed me saying he could suddenly start using Wikipedia again. Some folks in Hubei said it was still blocked. Shanghai and Guangdong users said parts were accessible.

From a Beijing China Netcom's residential DSL connection, the English language and other foreign language versions are now accessible, but the Chinese version is still blocked (zh.wikipedia.org).

There is no monolithically run Great Firewall of China, even though it is a cute and useful moniker.

The "GFW system" depends on a distributed system of checks and filters that depends on the particular ISP, the type of connection being used, and the geographic locale. A commercial connection in Hubei is different than a residential DSL in Guangdong is different than an academic network in Shantou. Something blocked in one area of the country may be totally fine in another. A keyword that is filtered in one place could be allowed in another.

So for folks in China's tech circles, it's pretty frustrating seeing blanket "China blocks" or "China unblocks" declaration without specifics or accurate reports.

Filtering also happens on different levels between the domestic network and the greater Internet, so even though Wikipedia is generally accessible in English, it's still subject to:

• URL-level filtering - host header or keyword in URL rejected
• Text-stream level filtering - offending keyword in Web page

More info as it arrives, and the "unblock" may still be making its way around the country. But let's not forget that for now the most important part of Wikipedia for PRC users - the Chinese version - is still not generally accessible.

Do they run it from the black helicopters?

[Kadin2048]

like people in the United States do under the Patriot Act for checking out certain books from the library

Right. I'll worry about that right after my library figures out how to actually keep track of the books I have out.

Do you have any idea of the amount of resources it would take to create an interconnected system capable of tracking what books people have out? It would be ridiculous. Given previous government efforts on things of that scale (a few of which I've worked on), I suspect it would probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars, take decades, and be totally obsolete by the time it was actually taken live.

That they can perhaps subpoena your library records if they are interested in you -- which I believe is possible -- is entirely different from some system that would get you "tagged and investigated," as you imply.

Idiot Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"The 2004 block referred to came allegedly in response to an article posted on the site as the country approached the 25th anniversary of the Tienneman Square massacre."

Well, it happened in 1989: 1989 + 25 = 2014.

Let's think of another excuse. Geez. Idiots.

Oh, and by the way, (from the article) 'Tienneman' is actually spelled 'Tiananmen'.

MOD PARENT UP

[enjahova]

In reading your comment I realize why I didn't feel right about writing that post. I guess I let ideals get the best of me. Thanks for a refreshing dose of humility.

Obligatory Wikipedia Slam

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they already have enough misinformation without Wikipedia?

nope

[Quadraginta]

Not by me. As an ornery old freethinker, I don't give a flying f*ck what the majority thinks: what's good and bad are not defined by any majority vote in my ethics.

Of course, the majority defines what's legal. This highlights the interesting difference between what's legal and what's right.

Re:nope

[Plutonite]

This highlights the interesting difference between what's legal and what's right.

Very well, but he was referring to people censoring themselves without government intervention, which means that the "majority" thinks this action in "right".

I too don't give a flying f*ck at a rolling dohnut about law trying to decide "right and wrong", but my ethics comprise no argument against the rest of the "majority". If they all think it's wrong, and I think it is right, there is an obvious bias in my views that makes them...well, wrong.
The idea that the people of a country censor something on their own accord because of a unified belief that it should be censored - that idea is natural and difficult to belittle.

We should go with it even if we disagree, because we are no better then everyone else.

Re:nope

[Quadraginta]

Ah...no. It's a good, solid, post-modern 21st century argument, but I'm going to have to disagree, pretty much on epistemological grounds. I think this argument makes a fetish out of the perceptions of the majority. From my point of view, a decent respect for entropy suggests that the majority's viewpoint on any given nontrivial controversial subject is almost bound to be wrong. There are, after all, many more ways to be wrong than right. So pretty much by definition, unless the answer is obvious, most people come up with the wrong answers, at least initially.

My ideal society would build this deep skepticism about the wisdom of the majority into its structures. None of this mob-rule one-man-one-vote crap which has become the new Catholicism. I see no obvious benefits to majority rule over, say, an absolute monarch. A hundred million fools are no wiser than one.

For me, that leads to a pretty libertarian viewpoint: minimize structured government, and the influence of social standards, widely-held beliefs, et cetera, at almost all costs. And from that viewpoint, we do not go along with censorship, even if it is self-imposed by the majority. We encourage the growth of skepticism, thinking for yourself, questioning the received wisdom and "common sense" that you see around you. Subvert the dominant paradigm and all that.

If I own a piece of property, then generally speaking even if the majority wants to trespass -- walk across it to the lake -- it can't. That's the nature of property rights. (Let us leave out the shameful concept of "eminent domain.") Imagine the same concept applied to the inside of one's head.

Re:nope

[Plutonite]

Imagine the same concept applied to the inside of one's head.

You can have your brain, and indeed all other private spaces which belong to you alone, but once you step outside into the realm of public information, it is the public that decides what is wrong and what is right. You can disagree, but if you refuse the authority of the ethical majority you are only arguing for chaos.

I must conclude by saying that morality is in fact entirely based on principle. In the modern West, a complex mashup of Christian remains and individual utilitarian desires make up the principle. We "follow our hearts", with a little reasoning, and that applies to the conversation we're having now.
But even on utilitarian grounds, the happiness/utility of the whole is taken above your own should you aim to disrupt it.

No subpoena necessary

[cyberformer]

There's no giant interconnected database, but the Feds don't need a subpoena or warrant anymore. That was one of the main provisions in the USA-PATRIOT act.

My library deliberately destroys all its records (at least, it says it does) after a few days, to protect its patrons' privacy. That isn't illegal yet.

Aren't European ideals right?

[figgypower]

What makes right? Might?

Consider that before the Renaissance (which you blow off as "very few rich aristocrats in 14th and 15th century Europe") Europe, and "white people," were pretty backwards. My ancestors were part of the the Gupta Empire, then the Ottoman Empire, and many others. In general, these empires were technologically and culuturally "superior" to European empires. That is to say, relatively speaking, we enjoyed a higher level of comfort, less starvation, less disease, and more free time to just think.

After the Renaissance, Europe re-discovered art and science and began an explosion of ideas that, basically, let it conquer the world. These weren't rich aristocrats. These were geniuses. The likes of Michaelangelo and Galileo. You have to ask yourself, if those values were so stupid and so useless, how did they manage to lord over the world (and maybe, still do)?

My conclusion is: their system works. Copy it. Of course, that's what I get out of it. Does this mean there isn't a better set of values and a better system? No -- there may very well be a set of ideals that are far better... i.e. leading to better quality of life. China would be wise to not ignore these values wholesale, and as a matter of fact, they're not. It's why they've privatized their markets. It has made them much, much wealthier. Can political freedoms be better for them, as well? History, if it's any guide, seems to indicate a definite yes.

Lastly, you may think: well, it may have worked well for Europe but who's to say it will work a different culture? Because the Chinese are not aliens. They are human beings, where even cultural whims, are led by evolution and nature. I mean, are the Europeans so special that they would find a system that only works for them? Capitalism in moderation, rule by the people, scientific inquiry, and basic freedoms (press, religion, speech; naturally, with limitations) are the best tools we have and for all intents and purposes nothing has ever shown to work better.

My own mother country is waking up and realizing that these are not "inventions" as much as they are discoveries, and they can be put to use now for a better livelihood while working on something "better".

Re:Aren't European ideals right?

[nametaken]

That was very well put. Thank you for taking the time to write that.

Re:Aren't European ideals right?

[Anonymous Coward]

My ancestors were part of the the Gupta Empire, then the Ottoman Empire, and many others.

Romani, eh? A misunderstood people.

Incorrect.

[Eivind Eklund]

"They are embedded very deeply in our cultural vocabulary" is correct. The entire rest of the post, as far as it is specific enough to be deemed correct or incorrect, is incorrect. In particular, the idea of where and when and how science, free press, and democracy took hold show a remarkable lack of knowledge, as does the idea that China had been doing "A-OK" for 3000 years. At least, having large parts of the population regularly starve is far from my personal definition of "A-OK".

Eivind.

Re:Incorrect.

[djupedal]

>At least, having large parts of the population regularly starve is far from my personal definition of "A-OK".

Are we talking about the same China? Do you mean to say that if we penciled out a simple timeline covering the last 3000 years, and then made a short list of major cultures that existed for at least that long, we would find China as a lone example of one where the shear statistical majority of the population suffered significantly as a direct and sustained result of starvation...?

In contrast to your claim that the Chinese at-large served as a benchmark for lack of sustenance... on more than one occasion, while large populations in Europe were fading into history due to starvation alone, much larger populations were busy sustaining themselves in this part of Asia. It is a common myth that the Chinese are a nation of farmers - in truth, the Chinese are 'water people', having relied on rivers and the ocean for both mobility and food supply throughout their history, continuing even now.

Do you know just how many cultures have come and gone over the last 3000 years, versus how many have remained?

The Chinese relate to a time scale that they alone are comfortable with. China tends to open and close on 500 year cycles. How can any short-lived culture, such as modern America with less than 300 years to look back on, begin to even comprehend what it takes to stick around for 3000? What is a significant amount of time to an American, say 50 years, is not so much as a blink for the Chinese spirit. While Americans measure history in generations (1 = 37 years), the Chinese measure things in dynasties, as an example, with minor segments being ticked off every 150 years or so.

It was very nearly 500 years ago when Chinese mariners mapped the globe, only to be wiped off the seating chart by the Mandarins, who decried science, and did everything they could to erase all they feared from the rise of practical science.

Now, 500 years hence, we find China clearing her throat...she has led the world in technology many times before, and she wants that position back. Your claim of starvation getting in their way is a bit funny, seeing as they are still around, after all those years :)

Re:Incorrect.

[Eivind Eklund]

What I am saying is that those 3000 years are not "A-OK", unless you count people starving to death as "A-OK". How you constructed this as comparative to other cultures in that timeframe I have no idea of - I wasn't comparing to those cultures, I was comparing to the capabilities we have NOW, due to a single occurence: The greek civilization inventing debate, leading (after a while) to science and democracy. This is a singular occurence.

The chinese did not have science. Your belief that they did shows a misunderstanding of science and/or China. The chinese system has always been based on authority, hierarchies and loyalty, which is the opposite of how science works: Science is based on investigation of how the world works and ultimately only accepts the world as an authority.

I recommend "Uncommon Sense" by Alan Cromer for background on this.

As for relating to a timescale that "only they are comfortable with" - I'm not an american, so my culture stretch over a thousand years back locally, with known history. And I personally relate to all of history, including evolutionary time. However, I also relate to the fact that the time now is unique in history, as is the present kind of culture.

Eivind.

Re:Incorrect.

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Mod up!

The chinese system has always been based on authority, hierarchies and loyalty, which is the opposite of how science works: Science is based on investigation of how the world works and ultimately only accepts the world as an authority.

This is the key to understanding why Europe and the western economy/culture rose to the position it is in. It's such a powerful invention that it's also something everyone else will have to copy (as they pretty much already have) to stay competitive.

Re:Incorrect.

[gamer4Life]

You are mixing two different things here.

The chinese system has always been based on authority, hierarchies and loyalty, which is the opposite of how science works

Are you implying that the "West" (in a euro-centric point of view), did not have authority, hierarchies and loyalty? Science still flourished during a time when there was authoritarian rule - except we choose to glorify them as monarchies with great kings and queens while villifying "Eastern" rule as authoritarian and oppressive.

China has had many leaders, and like ours, some believed more in science while others did not. They were still able to invent many things that the "West" copied. Scientific progress and quality of life can still thrive without democracy and capitalism.

Re:Incorrect.

[djupedal]

>The chinese did not have science.

Right...this must be more of the old myth that the ancestry of modern science is exclusively European.

Sure, if you are willing to discount the sextant, the sundail, extant writing, cast bronze acupunture training dummies, gun-powder, movable type...you've chosen to use the already centuries stale F. Bacon method of narrowly defining science so as to give credit to cultures that followed on the heals of the Chinese by centuries.

A grand laugh then and a grand laugh now...thanks for taking a run at me, but if you intend to make your points by re-writing and/or ignoring factual history, I'll consider your involvement in this thread as a weak attempt at humor :)

Re:Incorrect.

[Eivind Eklund]

What you say apply to technology; it does not really apply to science, which started occuring in the last half of the 1600s in Britain (under the name natural philosophy). Britain was already a (partial) democracy; the introduction started in the mid-1200s. Anyway, that's somewhat besides the point: My point was that science - a fairly formal discipline based on the debate - and hierarchies and loyalty are pulling in the opposite directions, and that censorship and science do not make a good match. There is no "different forms of science", as some relativists and postmodernists want you to believe. In known history, science was invented once, based on the legacy from Greece, and has since spread everywhere. That is the ONLY science - anything else may be knowledge, or technology, but it isn't science, because it's not been done according to scientific methods, where we purposefully try to *invalidate* ideas, instead of validating them. This is a very unnatural way of thinking, and has turned out to be a very practical one.

Eivind.

Re:Incorrect.

[MightyYar]

Inventions != Science

In fact, many of man's greatest inventions are accidents. The Chinese were advanced technologically compared to their peers until at least the 1700's, but that doesn't mean that they (or their peers) used the scientific method. For instance, they have been curing a type of leukemia for years (centuries?) using folk medicine comprised of ground rock, toad poison, and some herbs. The cure rate was better than Western chemotherapy methods, which were ineffective against this form of leukemia, but the "cure" was pretty deadly itself. A team of western scientists went over there in the hopes of finding the active ingredient that was curing the cancer. The toad poison was so complex that it thwarted analysis, so they went after the other ingredients first. Guess what? They found out that the ground rock contained a lot of arsenic, and that was what was curing the cancer. The herbs, the toad poison - all bullshit. So while the Chinese were ahead of western medicine technologically, they had no idea why they were using the ingredients that they were - absolutely not scientific in the least. Had they had any shred of the scientific method ingrained in their culture, they would have tried the ingredients separately and had a much less toxic cure.

Also, why does everyone think that the Chinese culture of today is like that of 3000 years ago? Was not Marx a westerner? Does anyone remember the cultural revolution? Why are the Chinese that live on Taiwan, or Singapore, or Hong Kong not counted as Chinese in this discussion? They have (or had) pretty decent versions of democracy and have done pretty well, too. Chinese are just humans - there is nothing special about them. Same as Americans. Do any of you actually know or work with any Chinese people? Have any of you actually been there?

Re:Incorrect.

[Eivind Eklund]

All your direct examples are technology, while I am talking of the process of science. Crucial to this was the introduction of the debate, something that only occured once, in Greece. The tradition was carried along from there through the arabic countries and partially the East, and re-introduced to Europe during the end of the Renaissance.

This is completely ignored in the reference you came with. The way of thinking underlying science is completely ignored, instead focusing on certain surface-level artifacts. In other words: Ignoring historical fact and ignoring the nature of science, instead attempting to broaden the definition of science to include all forms of knowledge and all forms of technology. In the reference you provide, astrology is considered a science, at which point you've obviously diverged from the definition any scientist would use.

As far as I can tell, you are doing a post-modern rewrite of history, based (as usual) on not understanding how modern scientific processes work and what distinguish them.

Read the reference I provided you to learn more of what science is and how it historically occured. There is an influx of knowledge from the Chinese, sure, but the idea that they had science rests on not understanding scientific process and human psychology (confirmation bias and how unnatural scientific thinking is).

Eivind.

Re:Incorrect.

[puracc]

Crucial to this was the introduction of the debate, something that only occured once, in Greece.

That's silly, it seems the way you reach the conclusion is very un-scientific itself. Have you even have any idea about the history of mathematics, logic, philosophy, and political theory of ancient China? To give you some basic fact, which can be found in any introductory book on this subject. Debate was common and institutionalize. Debate was an important way via which acient Chinese study logic, philosophy, as well as potical theory. There were professional debaters. There were books on how to and how to not debate. At least there were the case in 1st millennium BC. To verify my claim, all you have to do is to randomly pickup 20 books on philosophy written in that time, and you will see at least half of them looks like record of debates.

Re:Incorrect.

[FrostedChaos]

Ancient Greece did not really have science in the Baconian sense. Manual labor and experiments were looked down on-- higher class people did not dirty their hands with trades such as pottery or metalworking. The idea of doing things with test tubes would have been contemptible to philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. No, the proper occupation for a high-class citizen was pure thought-- philosophy and geometry.

In fact, Plato's whole philosophy was based around the concept that the physical world was just a shadow of some ideal world. No need to do experiments or observations, when just pure thought would do. Pythagoras came up with basically a religious cult surrounding numbers.

Ancient Greece did invent geometry. Most of those theorems involving triangles that you learned in high school came from ancient greece. Angles, arcs, circles, all that stuff. Unfortunately, they never invented algebra, so after a while it became unwieldy to work on problems which didn't have a direct visual interpretation.

They also shone in philosophy and rhetoric. The Stoics, the Epicureans, and Platonists are just a few schools of philosophy I could name. A lot of people like to trace the idea of republics and limited government in general to the ancient Greeks, but that is kind of unclear. A lot of city states had dictators, or despots as they were called, at one time in their history. Plato, in "The Republic," describes a society rigidly structured by class, and ruled over by a benevolent philosopher-king.

Ancient Athens is the first (and possibly last?) example of true democracy, in the sense that all of the citizens met to make political decisions, and at least in theory, class differences were irrelevant. I'm not going to try to summarize everything that happened, but basically there were some advantages, and some disadvantages, and their system of government has little in common with the current US government.

Re:Incorrect.

[FrostedChaos]

People are starving to death in the US now. And many don't have health insurance. Does that mean that our culture must be destroyed?
I think maybe what you meant to say was that the standard of living in ancient China for the average person was not as luxurious as what we enjoy today in the West. Which is true, but not really germane to the debate.

I do not think that science is the opposite of authority, hierarchies, or loyalty-- in fact, science requires those things to survive. Check any major university and you will see evidence of those things-- provosts and president exercising their authority to dispense grants to the right people, hierarchies (undergrads are usually at the bottom, full professors at the top), etc.

Science also has rules that you have to follow, like citing your sources, giving descriptions of experiments, and not relying on supernatural explanations for phenomena. Scientists can be creative, but only within the confines of these rules. It is your peer group which is the authority, not "the world" (whatever that even means in this context.) Even in the hard sciences, saying that you are somehow directly receiving wisdom from the physical world is pretty disingenious, since you can never really directly perceive anything (I'll skip the philosophical digression...)

If you are indeed an American who thinks of world-historical events in terms of millenia as you have boasted, you're a very rare animal. Most americans don't have a very clear grasp of what the world was like even 100 or 200 years ago, let alone 1000. Ask about the Spanish-American war, or the War of Jenkins' ear, and most people's faces will go totally blank. In one sense, this is a good thing-- Americans are always looking towards the future, with few prejudices about what is traditional or correct. In another way, this is depressing because your grandkids will probably think you were a triple Hitler because you don't believe cows have the same rights as humans, or some other crazy political thing that would seem absurd to us now. (Remember that 200 years ago, being anti-slavery was considered outlandish and bizarre.)

Re:Incorrect.

[808140]

Only Taiwan is democratic, and this is a recent thing (1987, if I recall correctly). It is still considered quite corrupt by western standards. Hong Kong is not and never was a democracy, although there are democratic agitators there now. Singapore is a dictatorial police state, which, rather like the mainland, is predicated on a "democratic" system that has no bearing on political affairs in practice.

In fact, having lived in both Singapore and Mainland China, I'd take my freedoms on the mainland any day of the week. The Singaporeans are corporatist facists who tap every phone on the island out of principle. We don't criticize them because of their high degree of economic freedom (2nd in the world only after Hong Kong.)

Put another way, it's ok for Singapore to be totalitarian because they're capitalist. Much like most of Latin America and Africa -- make no mistake about it, singling out China for human rights violations and lack of democracy is very much a hold-over from the cold war.

Re:Incorrect.

[MightyYar]

I'd probably choose the mainland as well, but not because of politics. Singapore is beautiful, but claustrophobic. Spend more than a few weeks there and you want to crawl out of your skin. I never really found the politics to be heartwarming, but they do have a democracy. It is a peculiar one, I'll freely admit, but there are at least (legal) opposition parties - try that in mainland China! Free press is lacking, however, due to overly restrictive slander rules that the government uses to protect it's position. The older Singaporeans give the government way too much latitude because they feel like they owe the government for the economic progress that has been made.

You are also right about Taiwan, it is pretty corrupt - but no more than any Latin American country, Mexico, or much of Eastern Europe. Hell, you could argue that it's no worse than some countries in Western Europe, or certain states in the US. Again, at least there are viable parties vying for power - it is a functioning democracy. Also, 1987 is almost 20 years ago now... feel old yet? :) It really took about 10 years for them to transition to democracy - they were really still working on it in the early 90's.

Hong Kong was never an independent state, but it was democratic under British rule. There were some draconian laws in place that were used prior to the 60's to outlaw the communists and such, but it was pretty free after that.

Re:Incorrect.

[808140]

Hong Kong was not democratic under the British. In a democracy, the people have control either directly or indirectly over the actions of the government -- this was not the case in colonial Hong Kong. Leading up to 1997, the British began (and even instituted) some democratic reforms but only because the mainland was taking over -- they wanted Hong Kong SAR to be democratic because they feared Beijing's ability to change the colony, whereas they had never shown any interest in pursuing the same reforms when it might have impacted their ability to rule Hong Kong.

Hong Kong people had no vote, no British citizenship -- they were not a real (ie, non-colonial) part of the UK and were ruled autocratically. You know, a British-appointed non-Chinese governer was the center of pre-1997 Hong Kong politics. Whether Hong Kong people were better off under the British or not is up for debate, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because British people could vote in their leaders that Hong Kong people had that right. They were "BNO", British National Overseas, with no rights to relocate to Britain and no rights to participate in British politics.

As for Singapore, having legal opposition parties means nothing -- for the record, these exist on the mainland, too, and are similarly impotent. Singapore's central redeeming feature is that its ruling party doesn't call itself Communist. Opposition parties that actually "oppose" are swiftly crushed. It's like the mainland, only capitalist and cleanly.

Looks like they're blocking individual pages.

[jcr]

I just had a chat with a friend in China, and she wasn't able to get to the WP article on the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre.

-jcr

good time won't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

Will soon be blocked again, believe me.

It was better before

[Anonymous Coward]

I was happier when China was blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The Chinese public in general: learn propaganda in school; are ignorant of the way things work in the world in general; extremely racist & prejudiced towards their Asian neighbors.

Wikipedia should ban all Chinese IP addresses from editing.

Let them read, but don't let them write.

Relation to North Korean nuclear test

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not surprising that this has happened now.

Everyone knows that the internet is just a series of tubes. The vibrations from that last North Korean nuke probably just shook the clog loose.

Paralysis by relativism

[caitsith01]

Your post is superficially insightful. Your underlying assumption appears to be that there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong' way to organise a society, and therefore we cannot say that liberal democracy is 'better' than China's current approach (which I would describe as 'fascist' in the classical sense - a topic for another post, perhaps - and undoubtedly totalitarian).

However, this type of relativism is not particularly helpful. For one thing, what do you say to Nazi Germany? Or Stalinist Russia? Or Pol Pot's Cambodia? Were these societies merely 'different' from liberal democracy, and therefore above criticism? Is it impossible to make a valid assessment of which is 'better'? Was the western world merely 'different' when we had the Spanish Inquisition and witch burnings?

I put it to you that rather than our high opinion of liberal democracy being a process of coming to "reflexively believe that these ideological precepts are somehow universally good", the reason that those ideological precents are supported and upheld is because they ARE good in some sense, or at least, better than the alternatives. I put it to you that if you could take an individual, strip away ethnicity, nationalism, religion, and upbringing, and allow a rational choice between a liberal democratic system and a totalitarian system, the vast, vast majority of sane humans would choose the former. "Good" may mean many things - in this context, perhaps measures of happiness, prosperity, and freedom of action are appropriate; if you prefer a collective perspective, then perhaps measures of per-capita productivity, artistic or scientific achievements would be a better test for you to apply; finally, you might also apply a 'moral' or religious test if that is part of your belief system.

Your theory also fails to explain why we have such a violently negative reaction to certain activities that we, as a society, undertake. If your principle that 'you love what you do' was right, why would there be such an uproar about Iraq, for instance? Or the modification of some of those "ideological precepts" in the 'war on terror'. These reactions also suggest that the basis for regarding liberal democracy as desirable and superior is more than mere historical rote learning.

Conversely, your theory fails to explain the continuing development of liberal democracies throughout the 20th century. If it was merely the success of various revolutions several hundred years ago, why did the 20th century (and indeed the 19th and 18th) feature a continued liberalisation of our society? How do you explain the sexual, cultural and racial revolutions, for instance? These are the product of a living and developing social system, not the result of an outline traced in the sand 500 years ago.

Relativism is an important tool in understanding the world. But if you let it get too out of control you will come to believe that black is white, and they are both grey. China's system of government is anti-humanist, corrupt, inefficient, brutal, militaristic, autocratic, and by almost any definition (other than the Chinese, which you seem to prefer) evil. It IS worse than our system on all but the most twisted 'better' to 'worse' scale, for the individual and for the society as a whole.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[gamer4Life]

China's system of government is anti-humanist, corrupt, inefficient, brutal, militaristic, autocratic, and by almost any definition (other than the Chinese, which you seem to prefer) evil. It IS worse than our system on all but the most twisted 'better' to 'worse' scale, for the individual and for the society as a whole.

You are stating pure opinion here. The American government can be considered anti-humanist (abortion, gay rights), corrupt (Halliburton, lobbyists, etc..), inefficient, militaristic (we spend the most on our military), brutal (CIA prisons, Guatanamo) ... I'll give you autocratic though. But should we consider the Kings and Queens of the West as "evil"? Just FYI, I do believe our system is better than theirs, but I wouldn't call their system "evil". The government has instituted policies that have improved the quality of living for many Chinese. Compare this with some republics, such as Mexico and Indonesia, both of which have cheap labor as well, and neither one has had the rapid rise in quality of living that China has had.

If you speak to most Chinese people residing in America, they'll just give you a shrug. Some actually prefer living in China and plan to go back. The fact that we care more about their political system than they do should tell you that perhaps our reasons are more self-serving than we realize.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[ghyd]

I am afraid that the Chinese government is especially evil since it is a rising economic power. I take your point that societies arent equal, but I'm also of the belief that a society should be judged by the everyday life of its constituents, and looking at it this way, economic wealth trumps any so called autoritarism or whatever when it comes to what's real. The "goodness" of the US doesn't reside in it's government (otherwise, may I say, it would be fucked), but in how everyday life unfolds for the average american. I'm leaded to believe that the primary goal of Chinese government is to improve the daily life of its citizens, even if its ways have to be in line with the country's particular history, which won't make it a US democracy copy-paste. Democracy is a good tool for human progress, but not in a make or break a society's way. And I think that I just understood why Iraq war is such a phenomenal fiasco.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I firmly believe in moral relativity, and while I respect your point, it completely goes against the principle. I don't think it's really possible to say "I'm into moral relativity, but I think we should do something." You can't support the argument in practice and then dismiss it as useless when any test comes along.

I believe that we should be paralysed by relativism, because the alternative is terrible IMHO. We don't need to impose our views on others, no matter how much you believe in them. How many wars would have been prevented if everyone were content to agree to disagree? And how do these disagreements benefit others? These systems never last for ever. There will always be someone else ready to pile their views on these people. On one hand, you want to make people happy in the short term, on the other, someone wants to sacrifice that in order to make the country great. All the shifts cause rifts, unrest, possibly war. Is perpetuating this pendulum swing going to benefit anyone?

I put it to you that if you could take an individual, strip away ethnicity, nationalism, religion, and upbringing, and allow a rational choice between a liberal democratic system and a totalitarian system, the vast, vast majority of sane humans would choose the former.

Someone once noted that the government is too important to be left to the people (the name escapes me). The people's short term happiness may not be a priority. I put it to you to prove that the happiness of the people is of absolute paramount importance.

If it was merely the success of various revolutions several hundred years ago, why did the 20th century (and indeed the 19th and 18th) feature a continued liberalisation of our society?

Possibly due to the fact that power was amassing with countries that supported liberalism (for whatever reason), and that any other country that wanted any power embraced it. Other ideologies are currently losing the war. Who knows, maybe one day the shoe will be on the other foot.

China's system of government is anti-humanist, corrupt, inefficient, brutal, militaristic, autocratic, and by almost any definition (other than the Chinese, which you seem to prefer) evil.

And that word, ladies and gentlemen, is the one word that we want abolished.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[kabocox]

Relativism is an important tool in understanding the world. But if you let it get too out of control you will come to believe that black is white, and they are both grey. China's system of government is anti-humanist, corrupt, inefficient, brutal, militaristic, autocratic, and by almost any definition (other than the Chinese, which you seem to prefer) evil. It IS worse than our system on all but the most twisted 'better' to 'worse' scale, for the individual and for the society as a whole.

I find this the funniest statement ever. Because everyone else could say the same about the US system except brutal and "anti-humanist" (whatever you mean by that.) Although we say we are a democracy, we are a republic, but if we look at who gets elected election after election (think families and not just individuals) we appear just as autocratic as China to outsiders. To outsiders, we appear to alternate between several sets of families that currently control the white house. We seem like a blend of autocracy and republicanism to them. Iran, NK, China, USSR, East Germany would have all said that the US system is "evil" by their standards. Britain, France and Germany could say that the US is currently going down paths that each of them has taken in the past and has chosen to try to avoid in the future. We haven't had our US version of Hilter or political purges after lost elections yet though some would label Bush that. I'm going to say you are right and wrong, the Chinese culture is thousands of years old and they know about in their gut about peasant up risings and when it is the right time for such. The current Chinese government on the other hand came into being sometime between WWI & WII while most of the first world were ignoring that those Asians were doing. China actually briefly tried republicanism, but it wasn't ready for that system of government and got overthrown. I honestly think the 2 top issues of any Chinese government is insuring that government system will still be incharge for the next generation or two and that they don't have a peasant uprising or atleast have the ability to quickly put one down. All the recent wealth in China has actually made more Chinese like their brand of communism since its the system that they grew up in and brought them their personal wealth. The more that I think about it the more that I'm kinda of neutral to the whole thing. I really would like to see how the US transforms in the next 50 years or so. Will we look back on our current republican forms of government as the good ole days or the bad ole days? Well we have some IT based police state or some IT based direct democracy?

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

To outsiders, we appear to alternate between several sets of families that currently control the white house.

Only to outsiders who are extremely ill-informed. Bush I and II are the exceptions rather than the rule for twentieth century Presidents. Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Eisenhower, et. al were from fairly modest backgrounds.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[WhiteWolf666]

I believe that we should be paralysed by relativism, because the alternative is terrible IMHO. We don't need to impose our views on others, no matter how much you believe in them. How many wars would have been prevented if everyone were content to agree to disagree? And how do these disagreements benefit others? These systems never last for ever. There will always be someone else ready to pile their views on these people. On one hand, you want to make people happy in the short term, on the other, someone wants to sacrifice that in order to make the country great. All the shifts cause rifts, unrest, possibly war. Is perpetuating this pendulum swing going to benefit anyone?

That's goofy.

The problem is, how do you define "others". Why do you draw arbitrary lines between yourself and a human in a different country, but not between yourself and the guy next door.

If your neighbor was being beaten up on the street, would you do something? Would you call the cops? Would you intercede to help?

If so, why are you totally indifferent to suffering in, say, North Korea, where 10% of the population has starved to death in the last decade.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but what about the Nazis? Killing Jews was just what they did. Similar to Mao's Great Cultural Revolution, or Stalin's purges. At the same time, there are radical Arabs who believe in wiping out Israelis, and radical Israelis who believe in wiping out Arabs. Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't get involved on either side? That we should permit the warlords to win out, cause a major war, allow it to spill over into our interests (and our homeland), against the will of the majority in those countries?

Moral relativism, like everything else, should be limited. I do believe that countries should be permitted to have varying value systems. I'm not certain that the Universal Decleration of Human Rights makes sense for everyone.

But abolishing the very notion of evil? Pol Pot exterminated 25% of Cambodia's population. But hey, I guess that's the just the moral system the Cambodians just collectively (Collective values > Individual values) choose to operate under; and not "evil".

It's stupid to label everything one disagrees with as "evil". Denying the very existence of the concept, however, and arguing that different national groups operate under entirely separate moral structures is amazingly stupid. Either you are incredibly naive, or incredibly stupid, and I, for one, am pleased that you are not an international policy maker.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[caitsith01]

A couple of points:

1 - Where did I say I was talking about the US exclusively? I referred to 'liberal democracy', of which the US is but one example.

2 - I love how Americans trot out this 'we're not a democracy, we're a republic' line. 'Republic' means you have no monarch. 'Democracy' means that the government is popularly elected, be it directly or indirectly. You are a democracy.

3 - How many extra-judicial murders of US citizens occurred inside the United States at the hands of the United States government in 2005-2006? How many US citizens were executed after show trials completely lacking in procedural fairness? How many had their organs harvested by the US government shortly after their execution? How many buddhist monks did the US government exterminate? To suggest that "we appear just as autocratic to China to outsiders" is patently ridiculous. There are many, many problems in the United States, but they are within a system which is fundamentally less autocratic than the Chinese system.

4 - "I honestly think the 2 top issues of any Chinese government is insuring that government system will still be incharge for the next generation or two and that they don't have a peasant uprising or atleast have the ability to quickly put one down." Yes, that's what you'd expect from a totalitarian government. You'll find that in the west the government typically doesn't have to worry about the system itself being brought down, only about a particular political party losing a democratic contest.

5 - "The more that I think about it the more that I'm kinda of neutral to the whole thing. I really would like to see how the US transforms in the next 50 years or so. Will we look back on our current republican forms of government as the good ole days or the bad ole days? Well we have some IT based police state or some IT based direct democracy?" If you're 'kinda neutral' about the whole thing then I guarantee you will get the former not the latter. Enjoy.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The problem is, how do you define "others"

Easy. Anyone else but me. After all, I can't speak for anyone else.

I know there is a lot of suffering out there, and believe me, I don't like it. Be it the guy down the road or the country on the other side of the planet. The point is that I don't trust my wisdom and judgment to interfere with their lives. Issues tend to be complex, and consequences tend to be unexpected. I just hope this doesn't colour me a monster in your eyes.

That we should permit the warlords to win out, cause a major war, allow it to spill over into our interests (and our homeland), against the will of the majority in those countries?

We allow them to fight, but we protect our interests if need be. They can think whatever they want, but as soon as the two ideologies directly and irresolvably contradict each other, we defend it. This doesn't make it "right", it makes it what we stand up for, and we stand up for our rights, not other's.

Denying the very existence of the concept, however, and arguing that different national groups operate under entirely separate moral structures is amazingly stupid

So you don't agree with it. Fine. But I ask you, where do you draw the line? Where does something you don't agree with become something evil? I believe it's incredibly naive to believe that you can define evil, that your opinion > some dictator's opinion. Oh, and BTW, I don't actually deny the concept of evil (I know I stated the opposite in my last post), rather I see it only existing in relation to an ideology. To put it this way: you are evil to me, since you feel the need to intervene in other people's affairs.

Either you are incredibly naive, or incredibly stupid, and I, for one, am pleased that you are not an international policy maker.

Ditto to you too. Nice to have a discussion with you.

BTW...

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but what about the Nazis?

I don't think that violates Godwin's law, since you aren't applying the holocaust to some more trivial situation (such as the issue of compulsory ID).

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

First you wrote:
I firmly believe in moral relativity, and while I respect your point, it completely goes against the principle. I don't think it's really possible to say "I'm into moral relativity, but I think we should do something." You can't support the argument in practice and then dismiss it as useless when any test comes along.

Then you wrote:

I believe that we should be paralysed by relativism, because the alternative is terrible IMHO. We don't need to impose our views on others, no matter how much you believe in them. How many wars would have been prevented if everyone were content to agree to disagree? And how do these disagreements benefit others? These systems never last for ever. There will always be someone else ready to pile their views on these people. On one hand, you want to make people happy in the short term, on the other, someone wants to sacrifice that in order to make the country great. All the shifts cause rifts, unrest, possibly war. Is perpetuating this pendulum swing going to benefit anyone?

So you think we should be paralysed by relativism, and you think people shouldn't impose their views on others, but then you go on to say that it would be better if wars were prevented. That seems contradictory, wouldn't true relativism mean that peace is not inherently better than war? Yet you seem to argue against war. You also argue seem to argue for actions that benefit others, again seemingly contradicting your moral relativism.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there is a lot of suffering out there, and believe me, I don't like it. Be it the guy down the road or the country on the other side of the planet. The point is that I don't trust my wisdom and judgment to interfere with their lives.

Inaction can have just as many consequences as action, to not interfere is to be just as actively involved in the complex chain of cause and effect as to interfere is. Not shooting Hitler when given the chance would lead to just as many effects as shooting him would. That being the case, what makes not interfering the preferred choice?

Issues tend to be complex, and consequences tend to be unexpected.

The world seems to have some order to it, some predictability - I expect that the sun will rise tomorrow, and the day after that. Previous actions which have been designed to cause a certain effect have reliably done so in the past. Often the odds appear to be that pursuing a particlar goal is more likely to lead to the desired outcome that not pursuing it.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I absolutely saw that one coming.

If I had absolutely any way of bringing my point across, I've got to find some common moral ground. In truth, you are right. However, if I were to simply say "war isn't bad or good", all I'll get for my trouble is people tuning out, and possibly a troll mod.

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

what makes not interfering the preferred choice?

It's a matter of personal preference, I guess. In true moral relativism, it isn't a matter of one being preferred by another. I just personally believe in respecting their right for an individual/group/country to have their own belief system without interference. I believe that disrupting these events is pointless.
After all, we won't end up any worse, just different. And in my personal opinion, spending resources on fixing what we perceive as other people's problems, we, and possibly they, will suffer.

But a lot of this is only my personal opinion and has little bearing on my views on moral relativity. I accept that I have my own views, and I accept that they don't apply necessarily to anyone else but me.

Often the odds appear to be that pursuing a particlar goal is more likely to lead to the desired outcome that not pursuing it.

In theory, we can predict everything perfectly, since everything is simply matter and energy behaving according to very rigid physics laws. But in practice, there is no way in hell that anyone is going to keep track of all the variables that govern what happens next. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

When we do predict something accurately in terms of politics, how can we tell that it is a success? We may have achieved all objectives, but how many more objectives have arisen? How many disgruntled people have you left, plotting to change the world for the "better"? There is no way of knowing for sure. And besides, since there has been so many "positive" interventions in history, each making life better, how come the world isn't stable? How come your morals aren't dictating the entire world by now?

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[Anonymous Coward]

In true moral relativism, it isn't a matter of one being preferred by another. I just personally believe in respecting their right for an individual/group/country to have their own belief system without interference. I believe that disrupting these events is pointless. After all, we won't end up any worse, just different. And in my personal opinion, spending resources on fixing what we perceive as other people's problems, we, and possibly they, will suffer. But a lot of this is only my personal opinion and has little bearing on my views on moral relativity. I accept that I have my own views, and I accept that they don't apply necessarily to anyone else but me.

I generally accept that my views and morals are the creation of my own personal mind/brain and that therefore they don't exist "out there" independently, and thus other people may make different judgements and morals within their own minds. Is that what you mean by moral relativism?

There appears to be two different issues here. Yes my morals and values are the creation of my individual mind, but in what way should/does that restrict my ability to make judegments and take actions, and try to enforce my values on the world? I don't see the necessary link between the two.

Saying that things are neither better or worse, just different, is itself a product of your own personal and limited mind/brain/views and thus can appear to fall into a contradiction. It's similar to saying "Everything is relative, this I know to be absolute." You seem to believe that the view that "nothing is better or worse, just different." is itself a better view than the alternative.

In theory, we can predict everything perfectly, since everything is simply matter and energy behaving according to very rigid physics laws. But in practice, there is no way in hell that anyone is going to keep track of all the variables that govern what happens next. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

When we do predict something accurately in terms of politics, how can we tell that it is a success? We may have achieved all objectives, but how many more objectives have arisen? How many disgruntled people have you left, plotting to change the world for the "better"?

Very true and something I have long thought about. How do we know, for example, that some genocide didn't actually happen to kill off someone who, had he survived, wuold go on to create his own even larger genocide. It's a valid point, but as I said earlier, choosing inaction is no less powerful in its potential effects than choosing action. Every choice we make, whether to be active or passive has cascading effects, and the universe is, within limited areas and timeframes, predictable by a single human. I have values, desires, morals, and therefore I try to use this predictability to my advantage in carrying out the choices that I am forced(just by existing) to make at every moment.

There is no way of knowing for sure. And besides, since there has been so many "positive" interventions in history, each making life better, how come the world isn't stable? How come your morals aren't dictating the entire world by now?

I don't have a big enough army? :) Averaged over the centuries, long term progress has been made by humans, for exapmle technological progress, life expectancy and such. Maybe part of the problem is that many things are not undertaken with a scientific method, such as religion and so forth, there is no interest in perfecting certain things through experiment, result, and then deriving the underlying laws. The constant flow of time and the unkown future mean that a final valuation is not possible, we can only judge the value of things as they exist in the present, because tomorrow it might all be wiped out by an asteroid(which we could have avoided if we diverted millions of dollars from social security to instead developing anti-asteroid technology).

Re:Paralysis by relativism

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There appears to be two different issues here. Yes my morals and values are the creation of my individual mind, but in what way should/does that restrict my ability to make judegments and take actions, and try to enforce my values on the world? I don't see the necessary link between the two.

You're right. I originally replied to a post talking about moral relativism, and how it's useless if it causes you not to act. Since I believe that it's wiser not to act, I responded by both defending moral relativism and the decision not to act based upon it. In truth, they really don't have anything necessarily to do with each other.

Saying that things are neither better or worse, just different, is itself a product of your own personal and limited mind/brain/views and thus can appear to fall into a contradiction. It's similar to saying "Everything is relative, this I know to be absolute." You seem to believe that the view that "nothing is better or worse, just different." is itself a better view than the alternative.

I don't believe that moral relativism is a moral matter, rather a scientific matter. We know, for example, that people, like other animals, will always act based upon what satisfies them. Other people's happiness will not directly make us happy. Have we seen any evidence of any moralistic tendencies that are hard coded into our biology? No, for the most part, we haven't. So, therefore, everything else in our constantly changing and adapting brain is up for grabs.

The one exception to that last question is the protection of children, which is something that we biologically are destined to do. However, this is becoming increasingly irrelevant, with human abominations such as corporations: i.e. flexible morals without biological constraints. We, as a society, are becoming separated from our morals through this process. So you might say that the one absolute moral that we have is now becoming relative.

I don't have a big enough army? :) Averaged over the centuries, long term progress has been made by humans, for exapmle technological progress, life expectancy and such. Maybe part of the problem is that many things are not undertaken with a scientific method, such as religion and so forth, there is no interest in perfecting certain things through experiment, result, and then deriving the underlying laws. The constant flow of time and the unkown future mean that a final valuation is not possible, we can only judge the value of things as they exist in the present, because tomorrow it might all be wiped out by an asteroid(which we could have avoided if we diverted millions of dollars from social security to instead developing anti-asteroid technology).

I believe the reason why we can't stabilise the world is that morals can't possibly fulfill everyone's needs all the time (or for that matter, most of the time). If we had attained moral perfection, then we would have no crime, no dissent, no war. The mere fact that this has not happened makes me feel that morals are not absolute.

Hopefully Google Cache will be next.

[savage_panda]

let the people rejoyce in the glory of free unadulterated information.

Quick clarification

[Chinese-forums.com]

Couple of things to clarify here. First off, I'm admin at Chinese-forums.com and I added the note to the wikipedia page which is quoted in the article. Editor and Publisher doesn't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, as Wikipedia didn't 'receive word' - I didn't contact them at all, I just edited their page, and the company did not say 'We'll see how long this lasts', I did, although that has now been edited out. Secondly, the (un)blocking. Wikipedia is now accessible in English. The Chinese version remains blocked. The unblocking was reported first about 6pm Tuesday Beijing time by a blogger in the south of China, http://liuzhou.blog-city.com/ here http://www.chinese-forums.com/showthread.php?t=132 93

How long can it take.

[suntac]

How long can it take before the government blocks it again? Users from all over the world will post their opinions on there and they are not all pro China. I wonder if they will do filtering per subject and deny access to some parts that are not pro China in the eyes of the Chinese government.

Regards,
Johan Louwers.

IPwiki...

[Anonymous Coward]

IP over Wiki anyone?

it's not design patterns they hate

[commodoresloat]

It's punk rock bands.

Headlines tomorrow:

[Poromenos1]

Wikipedia blocks China!

As a Chinese, I would

[manincoma]

agree with all your opinions.

The World

[Anonymous Coward]

As the communist world becomes more capitalist, the capitalist world becomes more communist (with implicit reference to the United States)

Now they can be ignint too!

[gelfling]

Yippee - now Chinerr can be stoopid like us.

Freeeedooom

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is indeed a big victory.

As we all know Wikipedia rules try to maintain the most acurate information. People are free to add information, but this information must be fiable. And there are several mechanisms to check the accuracy of this info. Most probably have heard of the scandals with political members posting biased information about them, and the actions conducted by wikiepedia members and wikimedia agains this posts.

China putted pressure on wikimedia foundation, that they would block wikipedia if they allowed certain articles, or FILTERED those articles.. Well Wikipedia wants to be the worldwide UNBIASED and UNCENSORED encyclopedia that it is EQUAL in all nations. Not a political "customized" worldwide encyclopedia, and unlike many corporations, and even independent foundations, Wikimedia didnt changed theyre rules, and in fact the official post was that they rather be blocked in some nations than having to censor wikipedia in THIS nations.
SO China blocked...

This victory is indeed very important.
Even if not officialy , fact is China realized that not everyone will bow before theyre pressure. if they want access to worldwide information, like the one available in Wikipedia theyll have to accept the fact that like it or not, censorship is not allowed

Who would be fined...

[Setti45]

Taking into consideration the slashdot posting here, who gets fined if the site is populated with information from the community at large?

Yeah CNN tilts left...

[Anonymous Coward]

..if you think the center is Reaganite Republicans. But it is very pleasant to hear somebody from the right wing bash the fucking creationists.

This country

[Anonymous Coward]

needs an enema.