Originally Posted by observer.guardian.co.uk

Wikipedia defies China's censors

David Smith and Jo Revill
Sunday September 10, 2006
The Observer

The founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by its users, has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries.

Jimmy Wales, one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, challenged other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing.

Wikipedia, a hugely popular reference tool in the West, has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia.

His stand comes as Irrepressible.info, a joint campaign by The Observer and Amnesty International for free speech on the web, continues with the support of more than 37,000 people around the world. The campaign calls on governments to stop persecuting political bloggers and on IT companies to stop complying with these repressive regimes.

'We're really unclear why we would be [banned],' Wales told The Observer. 'We have internal rules about neutrality and deleting personal attacks and things like this. We're far from being a haven for dissidents or a protest site. So our view is that the block is in error and should be removed, but we shall see.'

Wales said censorship was ' antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia. We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information, and for us to compromise I think would send very much the wrong signal: that there's no one left on the planet who's willing to say "You know what? We're not going to give up."'

Wikipedia's entry on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 includes the government's official claim that 200-300 died and the Chinese student associations and Chinese Red Cross's estimate of 2,000-3,000 deaths.

Wales said: 'I think it's an interesting question whether they're prepared to understand the difference between advocating one set of figures or another versus simply reporting on what the controversy is. I can understand that they would be upset - although of course I still don't think they have any moral right to ban anything - if we were pushing one set of figures in contrast to their objections, but if we are reporting both, to me that's exactly what an encyclopaedia should do and they should be comfortable with that.'

Wales will meet senior Chinese officials in an attempt to persuade them to allow the website's 1.3 million articles to appear there uncensored.

'One of the points that I'm trying to push is that if there's a small town in China that has a wonderful local tradition, that won't make its way into Wikipedia because the people of China are not allowed to share their knowledge with the world. I think that's an ironic side-effect and something the people in the censorship department need to have a much bigger awareness of: you're not just preventing information about Falun Gong or whatever you're upset about getting into China, you're preventing the Chinese people speaking to the world.'

The Irrepressible.info website will allow visitors next week to access and distribute censored content.

The campaign

Since Amnesty International launched Irrepressible.info with The Observer on 28 May 2006:

· More than 37,000 people around the world have signed the pledge calling on all governments and companies to ensure the internet is a force for political freedom, not repression. They include Coldplay's Chris Martin, dotcom entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox, Bob Geldof and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

· The House of Commons foreign affairs select committee has condemned Google, Microsoft and Yahoo's co-operation with the Chinese government as 'morally unacceptable'.

· Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, has said that the company compromised its principles by accepting Chinese censorship. He said it was 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with.'

· Members of the US Congress have championed the Global Online Freedom Act in a bid to stop major internet companies co-operating with regimes that restrict free expression, including Belarus, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, Tunisia and Vietnam.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

a toltarian government controls its population by controlling the access they have to information.

China is not a free nation. Every aspect of peoples lives is controlled.

Originally Posted by Mike

Looking beyond the obvious good PR this gives Wikipedia (after a recent old-style media backlash against it), they couldn't filter themselves if they wanted to.

How are you going to filter something with such variety as an Encyclopedia, and thousands of editors?

Originally Posted by M. Krass

The United States government controls which information you have access to.

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by thegathering

Freedom of Information Act. Also, you are not at risk of being imprisoned for merely critiquing the US government.

Originally Posted by Budda648

Good job Wikipedia. Defy China and communism! Okay, what China does with their people and censorship is wrong. I read an article in the paper today about Chinese doctors selling human organs.

Originally Posted by lukevanoort

I would like to point out that communism in and of itself has nothing to do with censorship. In fact, at least in Marx style communism, it would not be present, as the workers would control everything and, unless they decided to censor things from themselves, would be free to read whatever they desired. Many communist states' rulers have a tendency to do so, but then it isn't truly communism, which has no 'ruler' class except the people.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

The FOIA contains nine exemption and three exclusion clauses which allow the government to withhold information based on criteria described within. At what point does a government control too much information?

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

you are talking about information from the government, usually information regarding the actions of the government, or information that it deems vital to national security.

China restricts access to all information: information from the government, information from the citizens, information from other governments, other citizens, universities, private businesses, and even history itself.

The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not exist in China. The right of a free presss does not exist. The right to associate or peaceable assemble does not exist. The right to choose your own destiny, your career, to travel where you wish, all are forbidden.

Originally Posted by David55

I think what you have described better represents North Korea. To the best of my knowledge, China does have some freedom. People in China do travel ( but most of the population is too poor and can't afford it ), people can choose their destiny, their career. They can do what makes them happy (with a few limitations of course.)

Originally Posted by thegathering

China censors news, media, and the internet, something that the US government does not.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Sure we do. We call it the FCC.

Originally Posted by David55

I think what you have described better represents North Korea. To the best of my knowledge, China does have some freedom. People in China do travel

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Having a list of 4 words (it use to be 7) that you cannot say on TV is not censorship.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

The FCC and other parts of our government engage in and codify censorship regularly. Your acceptance of their moral ideology does not mean that we're not being censored...

Originally Posted by thegathering

That sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. Our government doesn't control our media, the media controls our media. Or maybe I'm just being optomistic.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The US government cannot censor our media, because that would require every broadcast be reviewed by a government representative before the broadcast happens, and any objectionable material is removed. That is what happens in China.

In the US the FCC has regulations and imposes fines for content and expressions that are considered lewd and vulgar, but they do not censor the content, they have the authority to impose fines and penalties after the fact.

H. Stearn has proven that, if you are willing to pay the fines you can say whatever you want. In his case he has made more money by being obscene and paying the fines. He has never spent a day in prison for saying (*@# or @(#&$&# or even for saying {(&&*!+=;>~%*@+! on the radio.

But what China is doing with Wikipedia is not about obscenity or vulgarity, it is about controlling what anyone is allow to say or read regarding any aspect of the Chinese government.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I worked with an engineer who grew up in China, and came here as a student. He decided to stay. When he was a child the government decided what classes he would take, what school he would attend, and what his assigned career would be.

He was not allowed to travel, inside China or out, without written permission. Every aspect of his life was controlled until he left.

He is a little younger than me, I would guess he was born in 1960. Things may have improved a little, but not much.

Originally Posted by Winged Globe

In that regard, Wikipedia can take whatever stance it wants, and everyone can applaud their moral high ground, but it won't help make the change go faster or more effectively. Whether appeasement is any better, I don't know. I do know, though, that it opens a channel into the country that is not ultimately government controlled (unlike state-sponsored companies). I'd think that would count for something in the long run...

Originally Posted by M. Krass

You've provided myriad examples of why censorship in China is more hurtful to its population than the censorship that takes place in the United States, but what I haven't yet seen is any explanation as to makes it different.

Your assertion is that China censors every word uttered on its television stations, over its airwaves and written in its print and that because the United States fines for the use of some words, arrests people for the use of others and prohibits us from speaking about some smaller amount of topics makes us different; that it makes us free.

The United States gives implicit support to censorship, both by its domestic actions to curb certain forms of speech and by its inaction in China. Dollars, not democracy, are the guiding principles of our foreign policy there. Wikipedia's actions are therefore meaningless, really, because it remains the act of an organization that makes no revenue. When McDonald's, Nike and The Gap refuse to do business with China because of its policies of oppressing its population, then maybe there'd be something worth talking about.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The right to choose your own destiny, your career