Wikipedia Explodes In China

eldavojohn writes "The Chinese have recently been allowed to enjoy the Chinese version of Wikipedia now that the ban has been lifted. And the result is an explosion in use after being banned for a year. From the article, 'Activity on nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's Chinese Wikipedia site has skyrocketed since its release, which Internet users in China first started reporting on Nov. 10. Since then, the number of new users registering to contribute to the site has exceeded 1,200 a day, up from an average of 300 to 400 prior to the unblocking. The number of new articles posted daily has increased 75% from the week before, with the total now surpassing 100,000, according to the foundation.' No one's sure how long this will be available to the People's Republic of China but hopefully the government will recognize that at least a significant part of the populace enjoys a Wikipedia community."

Comments

But....

[varmittang]

How many of those people signing up are government agents there to just delete and change everything to what the government wants.

Re:But....

[ajs]

Well, they probably do, but the main benefit, I'm sure, is being able to track who contributes what. Don't just censor history, censor the historians... it's an old trick, but a damn effective one. :-/

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China

[gEvil (beta)]

I hope nobody was hurt...

What's it Like?

[Pantero Blanco]

I can't read Chinese, so I really can't go check this myself. How accurate is the Chinese version of Wikipedia in respect to events and topics China's government sees as threatening? Do "Party-approved" versions of articles win edit wars over other ones?

Is it about people enjoying it?

[aicrules]

Other than a loose metaphor between the intellectual socialism of wikipedia and the communistic regime that is China, the government will only keep it available for as long as it takes for "unseemly" articles about government tyranny to make there way on to the site. Make no mistake, China's government is allowing this solely for its own benefit. Who knows what that benefit is, but when the potential costs begin to outweigh those benefits, suddenly participation will be down to zero.

Re:Is it about people enjoying it?

[db32]

If you were the "decider" and had a nasty problem of finding dissenters what would you do? Make it difficult to be a dissenter and rely on spying programs to try and root them out at great cost and effort? Or maybe make it easy, let them out themselves, build up a nice hefty database of potential leads, hunt them all down, expose them for the 'traitors' that they are and a threat to the good people,then destroy them to serve as a warning to any others.

Not that I'm really saying that this is what they are doing. But it is certainly a valid possibility. So many decry this type of thing as paranoid and conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is people with power and control will do anything they can to remain in power and control. This has been proven countless times in human history. It really irritates me when people fail to admit that this type of thing could happen at home or abroad...America had to fight a war to remove ourselves from tyranny. Do people think that you really only have to do that once?

Helpful unit conversion

[$RANDOMLUSER]

1 Library of Congress == 6.19 * 10^17 fortune cookies

Re:Censorship is a bad thing

[RailGunner]

I'd be interested in what the Chinese wikipedia article says (if anything) about the Student Massacre at Tienanmen Square...
For example, would they use the PRC Body count (23) or the Student Association's and the Chinese Red Cross body count? (2000 - 3000, as many as 10,000 injured).

Tienanmen Square

[Darvin]

Very interesting to see the Tienanmen Square wiki in Chinese. Already it has been locked down due to 'vandalism'

Heh.

See it zh.wikipedia.org/

Population Bomb

[Doc Ruby]

Activity on nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's Chinese Wikipedia site has skyrocketed since its release

How about donation activity? OK, it's only 5 days into the popularity explosion. But if Chinese support of the nonprofit doesn't also explode by, say, Feb 18, 2007, then how will Wikipedia accommodate the huge demand increase that Chinese popularity represents?

Will the "capitalists" now paying to operate Wikipedia have to give the "Communists" a free ride? Just how does Chinese Communism cooperate with global nonprofits when their government isn't managing the process?

Re:Population Bomb

[estarriol]

I see no evidence to suggest that the people of China will be unable to donate to Wikipedia for any reason. What makes you think that they won't? The concept of charitable donation was not created by, nor is owned by, Capitalism.

ChinaWikipedia entry for Freedom of speech

[shirizaki]

This article has been marked for deletion. Reason: "Doesn't exist".

Actual statistics and charts

[fuzheado]

Strangely, the WSJ article does not mention any links or references to where to find the raw data.

It was based on charts and research I did from Beijing.

Cheers.

Wikipedia Explodes in China -- Recall ordered

[retrosteve]

Sony has recalled all their batteries used in Wikipedias in China. Sony stock fell another 3.75 on the news.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing

[Sinbios]

Actually, the page is locked due to vandalizing and a dispute notice is put up, just like any other controversial article. And just like other articles, the article itself is pretty objective. As for the death toll specifically, the article says that the number of deaths is disputed; it cites one of the protesters Chai Ling as saying in a recording: "Some say there are about 200 dead, but some claim there are more than 4000. I am not sure of the exact numbers, either." Again, just like any "free" wiki article - explains the controversy and cites an objective source instead of making groundless assertions.

So yeah, I really wish people would stop making snide remarks as if the Chinese wiki is the government's parade ground, without even taking a look at it. Controversial topics aren't really censored, and it operates pretty much like the rest of Wikipedia when it comes to these topics. You have to remember that in the end, it's still managed by Wikipedia moderators, who ideally will try their utmost to ensure that articles are accurate and objective.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing

[stud9920]

It's right here: Original Page [wikipedia.org] Google translation. [64.233.179.104]

Why do idiots keep using numbers as domain names ? It's annoying and demands lots of attention to type over. Words (service.sld.tld ) are way easier to remember !

Re:Censorship is a bad thing

[just_another_sean]

Maybe before you respond next time you'll stop for a second and ask yourself; What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

Re:Censorship is a bad thing

[davidsyes]

There are at least TWO ASIAN, non-Communist, democratic, friends-of-the-US countries that had student dissident uprisings after 1960, and their death counts were HIGHER than at Tienanmen Square. Yet we rarely get ANY press or writing about this. Always Mainland China the evil, oppressive, censoring one. Whipping boy for politicians and cozy buddy for on-the-cheap foreign manufacturers and foreign politicans and foreign tax collectors. I don't see why PRC/China hasn't decided to ease up just based on THIS.

Oh, and yeh, there are a LOT of foreign nationals who work in China and vastly under-report their earnings. Effectively committing tax evasion, just like they would if they could back home. (Not sure about this part, but I also understand that the tank did NOT run down that man, but he was under the body cavity area, uncrushed. If THAT is true, then there are a lot of opportunistic and sensationalistic jerks in the media who need to be brought up/flogged...)

I wonder if China's Wikipedia site will report about the foreigners there who are exploiting the system.