Wikipedia defies China's censors! :)

[thegathering]

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.

I agree with Wikipedia's choice. Sure, censorship is necessary to protect a communist government from revolt, but the purpose of Wikipedia was to give information to everyone, even the Chinese.

[SamC]

I agree with Wikipedia for not agreeing to the censorship! Why should they do it for just one country? A little off topic but does anyone else have a class (or school) rules against using wiki as a source for research? My government class does the teacher doesn't allow us to use it for research on papers because it is user submitted and not all of it is reliable...

[thegathering]

We are not allowed to use it as a direct reference, but we can use it to guide our research in different directions. Wikipedia has been immensely helpful in having easily referenceable facts that lead to other (hopefully) more concrete sources.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

My English101CompI professor told us today that he would not accept Wikipedia as a resource, but that doesn't mean I will stop using it for a personal reference like the one stated above.

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.

[DanDon]

We are allowed to use Wikipedia as a source if and only if we cross reference and qualify with at least one other source.

[Astronouth7303]

I think I've used Wikipedia on every reasearch paper I've done. I've always had the URL to the specific revision. Strangely, no teacher has commented on it yet...

[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.

[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?

[Madison]

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.

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

What's the difference?

[thegathering]

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?

The same way you'd filter language in a forum. Keyword filtering and moderator only editing can easily censor wikipedia.

[thegathering]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

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

What's the difference?

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

[Madison]

Originally Posted by thegathering

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

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?

[lukevanoort]

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.

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.

[thegathering]

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.

Unfortunately, Marx style communism also requires a utopian mindset in regards to world politics, being that a true communist government cannot have a military or space program (both take money out of the economy and do not return it to the people). That is why "communism" as we refer to it, must also have censorship to protect the government from the people so that the military does not have to be standing and detract from the economy.

An example of this failing would be the USSR, where corruption, the long standing military, and the space program of the Cold War contributed a great part in the collapse of the Soviet empire. In that way, large scale "practical" communism and censorship do go hand in hand.

[KenWittlief]

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?

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 press does not exist. The right to associate or peaceably assemble does not exist. The right to choose your own destiny, your career, to travel where you wish, all are forbidden.