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.'"
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.
Quick, before they block it again!
What do they have against design patterns? Oh ... never mind.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
I can't wait to read Wikipedia... I hope the US stops blocking it soon!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
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.
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..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienamen_square
t ests_of_1989 is blocked
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_pro
Interesting... More than I expected to be avaliable...
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?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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?
Obligatory... especially in Soviet China where Wikipedia unblocks you.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
There is a chinese version, but it is still blocked...
Yeah, you versus 1.2 billion party loyalists. Good luck.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
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.
Yeah, I meant the comment to be funny; I'm flabergasted that it was modded insightful.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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
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:
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.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?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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
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
>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
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.