Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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).
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.
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sounds like economic pragmatism. Without being perfect, wiki is a major knowledge (and therefore wealth) database.
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.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
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.
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:
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And they say irony is dead...
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.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
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.
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.
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".
Boycott Sony
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
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.
Read Pynchon.