On 20 Nov 2005 at 22:11, ABCD en.abcd@gmail.com wrote:
... Wikimedia has emerged from the Wikipedia, the freely-available, editable, open and collaborative online encyclopaedia set up by Jimmy Wales. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4450052.stm
But just what did Jimmy mean by this statement:
"We are not talking about dissidents and being critical of the Chinese government," he said, stressing that Wikipedia was about having the tools to promote your culture.
Is Wikipedia (the Chinese version) censoring out any dissident or government-critical views in the hopes of getting unblocked by the Chinese (mainland) government?
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
But just what did Jimmy mean by this statement:
"We are not talking about dissidents and being critical of the Chinese government," he said, stressing that Wikipedia was about having the tools to promote your culture.
Is Wikipedia (the Chinese version) censoring out any dissident or government-critical views in the hopes of getting unblocked by the Chinese (mainland) government?
Whatever Jimbo did mean, I'm sure he didn't mean that NPOV was on hold.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
Whatever Jimbo did mean, I'm sure he didn't mean that NPOV was on hold.
:-) It is always safe to assume that I say the same things all the time and that there will never be any compromises on freedom of speech and neutrality. We will never co-operate with censorship.
--Jimbo
"Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote in message news:43810980.1469.B786808@dan.tobias.name...
On 20 Nov 2005 at 22:11, ABCD en.abcd@gmail.com wrote:
... Wikimedia has emerged from the Wikipedia, the freely-available, editable, open and collaborative online encyclopaedia set up by Jimmy Wales. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4450052.stm
But just what did Jimmy mean by this statement:
"We are not talking about dissidents and being critical of the Chinese government," he said, stressing that Wikipedia was about having the tools to promote your culture.
Is Wikipedia (the Chinese version) censoring out any dissident or government-critical views in the hopes of getting unblocked by the Chinese (mainland) government?
My impression of what he was meaning (and I suspect that quote is much cut-down from his original wording) was that in blocking the Chinese Wikipedia, the information being suppressed is not just that stuff, which you wouldn't really be surprised about the Chinese Government wanting to keep quiet, but also the **other** stuff about general topics.
The block means that people in China cannot see Wikipedia **at all**. They're not simply prevented from accessing articles which might (or might not) be critical about their Government, they can't see even articles about everyday life, utterly non-controversial and often important.
HTH HAND
Phil Boswell wrote:
My impression of what he was meaning (and I suspect that quote is much cut-down from his original wording) was that in blocking the Chinese Wikipedia, the information being suppressed is not just that stuff, which you wouldn't really be surprised about the Chinese Government wanting to keep quiet, but also the **other** stuff about general topics.
The block means that people in China cannot see Wikipedia **at all**. They're not simply prevented from accessing articles which might (or might not) be critical about their Government, they can't see even articles about everyday life, utterly non-controversial and often important.
The argument that I put forward in my talk in Tunis at the World Summit on the Information Society can be summarized as follows:
1. Wikipedia is neither critical nor supportive of the Chinese government. We are not a site for dissidents nor for government supporters. We are neutral. NPOV is non-negotiable. It is impossible to portray Wikipedia as anti-Chinese government unless the Chinese government wants to argue that neutral information is anti-Chinese government, and I don't think that's what they intend to say at all.
2. It isn't *just* that Chinese people cannot read any of Wikipedia, most of which is not about political or sensitive topics at all. It is that Chinese people are unable to *express* their views and culture in the Chinese Wikipedia or English Wikipedia or anywhere else, so long as Wikipedia is blocked. Since, I am told, the Chinese wikipedians tend to have more of a "mainland" view of things, as compared to Chinese living in Taiwan or Hong Kong, the ironic effect of the Chinese censorship is to censor the mainland perspective on world affairs.
It is fine to criticize the Chinese government for censorship of criticism. But my argument was not about that at all, since we are not critics of the Chinese government. My argument was that censoring Wikipedia in China is ironically censoring *the rest of the world* from hearing the voice of the Chinese people.
--Jimbo
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
But just what did Jimmy mean by this statement:
"We are not talking about dissidents and being critical of the Chinese government," he said, stressing that Wikipedia was about having the tools to promote your culture.
Is Wikipedia (the Chinese version) censoring out any dissident or government-critical views in the hopes of getting unblocked by the Chinese (mainland) government?
NPOV is, as always, non-negotiable. It's just that, as I say in the quote, I wasn't talking at that moment about dissidents and being critical of the Chinese government at that moment.
--Jimbo