Thanks for the overview of your thoughts on this. It's my intuition that there's gotta be a way to get around this, even without resorting to any special client configuration. If enough people work together maybe we can at least get it working some large percentage of the time. I mean, short of going to a whitelist configuration I don't see how the Chinese government can keep up (the insecurity of the DNS system gives them a big advantage, though).
I have some other ideas, but someone must have thought of these already, and this is really beyond the scope of this mailing list anyway. Reading http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06045/654754.stm, I think I've found some places to look for more information.
Anthony
On 5/12/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
If anyone has any ideas as to what we can do to help get the real Wikipedia to the masses in China (no client-side setup required), I'd love to help. Maybe some sort of network of distributed servers providing https access through dynamically rotating IP addresses.
I don't think there's any solution left which will work without client configuration, except for a number of loopholes that the Chinese Government hasn't gotten around to closing yet. The foremost among these is our own SSL gateway:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/zh/wiki/
There are various unblocked HTTP proxies, although all unencrypted traffic is sampled, so any popular proxy will be rapidly blocked.
Traffic within China isn't subject to the Great Firewall, which is why a proxy like wikipedia.cnblog.org worked. More proxies like that could be set up, but our recent experience suggests that the Government is watching for such things, and you can fully expect a knock on your door if you set one up.
Periodically changing the IPs returned by a specific DNS entry almost certainly won't work. They have the ability to poll DNS.
So that leaves client configuration. The Tor network is still not blocked, but that might be only a matter of time. And the downside is that it has no system for dealing with abuse.
Having numerous SSL tunnel servers would be useful, along the lines of Anthony's suggestion. However, you need to have some way to distribute the server IPs to the users without letting the Government find them out. I can't think of any way to do this with a public protocol without leading to a very high rate of compromise of IP addresses, assuming the authorities are on the ball. A simple HTTPS gateway like secure.wikimedia.org could be compromised automatically by simply connecting to it and downloading the index page.
We can go on exploiting known holes in the firewall for the time being, but it will certainly become increasingly difficult for people inside China to access Wikipedia, especially for those who are non-technical or not especially motivated.
If Baidupedia does take off, I hope they will license locally generated content under GFDL, to allow for a continuing exchange of content between Wikipedia and Baidupedia.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
http://intelligentdesigns.net/Freedom_Tools
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/ think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong, but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.
Timwi
On Sat, 13 May 2006 11:22:25 +0100, you wrote:
That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/ think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong, but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.
Illegal, maybe, but in the case of suppression of information critical of the government, definitely not immoral.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/13/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/ think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong, but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.
Timwi
A group of people got together and decided to oppress another group of people. Just because the former group is large and powerful and calls itself a country doesn't negate the fact that I have a right and to some extent a duty to assist that oppressed group.
As for the legality of the situation, I'm not going to attempt a guess. For my own personal situation I take some comfort in the fact that the group of people who got together to oppress the group of which I'm a member tend to respect our freedom of speech. But YMMV.
"In capitalism, people exploit people. In communism, it's the other way around."
Anthony
I agree with Timwi, encouraging Chinese citizens to break the laws of their country is probably not the right thing to do, even though such forms of censorship seem unfair. Also, what if the Chinese authorities manage to track down those who break their censorship laws? Let us not forget what the government does to "dissidents" in China. And what is the press gets hold of this? The issue of Wikipedia and Chinese Government censorship has been in the news. If we start encouraging Chinese Wikipedians to break the law, it will only mean bad publicity for the Foundation.
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Timwi, encouraging Chinese citizens to break the laws of their country is probably not the right thing to do, even though such forms of censorship seem unfair. Also, what if the Chinese authorities manage to track down those who break their censorship laws? Let us not forget what the government does to "dissidents" in China. And what is the press gets hold of this? The issue of Wikipedia and Chinese Government censorship has been in the news. If we start encouraging Chinese Wikipedians to break the law, it will only mean bad publicity for the Foundation.
I'm not sure we should be *encouraging* Chinese citizens to break any laws, but I'm fully behind supporting those that choose to do so.
As for bad publicity for the Foundation, I'm not a member of the Foundation and never made any claim to speak for them (not that I accept that it would be bad publicity, mind you). I do feel that this discussion is "beyond the scope of this mailing list" though. If you'd prefer to send any responses to me off-list, please do so. Another place you can reach me is at http://jnanabase.org/index.php/User_talk:Anthony, although I don't log on there as often as I used to.
Anthony
I'm not sure we should be *encouraging* Chinese citizens to break any laws, but I'm fully behind supporting those that choose to do so.
As for bad publicity for the Foundation, I'm not a member of the Foundation and never made any claim to speak for them (not that I accept that it would be bad publicity, mind you). I do feel that this discussion is "beyond the scope of this mailing list" though. If you'd prefer to send any responses to me off-list, please do so. Another place you can reach me is at http://jnanabase.org/index.php/User_talk:Anthony, although I don't log on there as often as I used to.
Anthony
Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I, personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure we should be *encouraging* Chinese citizens to break any laws, but I'm fully behind supporting those that choose to do so.
As for bad publicity for the Foundation, I'm not a member of the Foundation and never made any claim to speak for them (not that I accept that it would be bad publicity, mind you). I do feel that this discussion is "beyond the scope of this mailing list" though. If you'd prefer to send any responses to me off-list, please do so. Another place you can reach me is at http://jnanabase.org/index.php/User_talk:Anthony, although I don't log on there as often as I used to.
Anthony
Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I, personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
I don't feel that even a majority of individuals in a particular geographic location have the right to oppress other individuals (which is not to say that I believe a majority of individuals in China *do* agree with this particular oppression). And yes, putting people in jail for speaking out truths which others want to suppress qualifies as oppression in my opinion.
The fact that I live in a different geographic location than these others is not in my opinion relevant, except to the extent that it means that I am most likely out of the reach of the oppressors in question. I am a citizen of the universe. All else has been thrust upon me without my consent.
Anthony
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I, personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
Were the US government to put into place certain policies "protecting" its citizens from certain information on the Internet, no doubt you'd start complaining about jackbooted thugs and the like. I don't particularly care what you think about the US government, but I don't think the Chinese government should escape similar condemnation because of an accident of geography.
Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair, I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider) oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.The Chinese government is receiving some flak from the international community as a result of these policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to abetting a crime.
PS,Rob:I'm from India, not the U.S so I'm not sure about how the American Government handles privacy issues.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Prasad J stated for the record:
Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair, I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider) oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.The Chinese government is receiving some flak from the international community as a result of these policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to abetting a crime.
And there you have a wonderful summary of the difference in attitudes often seen between Americans and those who did not build their country on the violent overthrow of established government. I, in apparent contrast to Prasad, believe that whenever any form of government -- whether elected or not -- becomes destructive of its people's unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
- -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean@epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin
The U.S was not the only country to gain Independence through war-most nations did choose that method. The point is that the Indian leaders overthrew the British Crown solely through protests and passive resistance with a minimum of bloodshed (except for the few thousand freedom-fighters the English murdered-or as was the case at Jallianwallah Bagh-massacred). But considering that 25% of the world's population is concentrated in the Indian subcontinent, the human toll would have been far higher if a violent struggle had been waged. The path of agressive resistance / rebellion is, in most cases, less effective than a reasonable, calm approach. The destination in both cases is the same, the journey is however much different. Perhaps a compromise can be worked out with the Chinese government that would be acceptable to all the concerned parties. Perhaps, as Mr.Wales suggested the government could agree to filter out certain pages whilst leaving the others uncensored. That, in my opinion would be a much more reasonable solution than for the "resistance" to carry out subversive activities. As a side-note, I ask you which of the two is more courageous and indicative of a firmer desire to topple the government-1) To fight back and deal your opponent blow for blow or 2) To patiently bear every everything he hits you with till a point comes where he himself realises the futility of his trying to beat you into submission and concedes defeat (which, essentially was what Britain realised with regard to India after decades of baton-charges,machine gun firings,deportations and executions, to name a few).
PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly "half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most decorated military commander. You will also learn that though the Indian freedom-fighters may not have retaliated even in the face of brutal British suppression, the fact that they stood by their beliefs inspite of the sheer physical and mental agony they were put through demonstrates how far they were willing to go to bring about the downfall of an oppressive Empire, a display of valour equal to and perhaps (in some cases) more than that shown by the American troops when the latter nation was fighting for it's independence.
Prasad J stated for the record:
The U.S was not the only country to gain Independence through war....
I am very familiar with the process through which India achieved independence from Britain. Note that India was a set of independent nations that were conquered by Britain that then unified and threw Britain out ... and a good job it was, too. The United States, however, were created as colonies by Britain, then rebelled against their own countrymen -- not against a foreign conquerer. I suggest that that difference is what gives you the tendency to say that government should be obeyed even when it is killing you and for me to say that government should be overthrown early and often.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed -- which necessarily implies that the governed can withdraw that consent. See also [[Mandate of Heaven]].
-- Sean Barrett | There are four boxes to use in the defense sean@epoptic.com | of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. | Use in that order. --Ed Howdershelt.
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly "half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most decorated military commander.
You're the only one talking about military commanders here. Reading a banned copy of Wikipedia is hardly a violent military rebellion.
Anthony
Prasad J wrote:
PS-I suggest Sean that you rent a DVD of the Richard Attenborough movie "Gandhi". You will find that very often a soft-spoken, elderly "half-naked fakir" has more courage and willpower than the most decorated military commander. You will also learn that though the Indian freedom-fighters may not have retaliated even in the face of brutal British suppression, the fact that they stood by their beliefs inspite of the sheer physical and mental agony they were put through demonstrates how far they were willing to go to bring about the downfall of an oppressive Empire, a display of valour equal to and perhaps (in some cases) more than that shown by the American troops when the latter nation was fighting for it's independence.
Your inconsistencies are showing. While Gandhi quite rightly supported non-violence, he also was willing to resist with illegal acts. He often engaged in peaceful but illegal marches. It was also illegal for him to encourage Indians to produce their own salt without paying the required British taxes. In a previous message you referred to the section of the Indian Penal Code which criminalized homosexual behaviour. Certainly two loving people who set out to violate that unjust law are well within the nonviolent principles that were preached by Gandhi.
Ec
Sean Barrett wrote:
Prasad J stated for the record:
Having said this, I do stand by my earlier statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to abetting a crime.
And there you have a wonderful summary of the difference in attitudes often seen between Americans and those who did not build their country on the violent overthrow of established government. I, in apparent contrast to Prasad, believe that whenever any form of government -- whether elected or not -- becomes destructive of its people's unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Jefferson would have agreed with this.
Ec
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair, I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider) oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.
From your description the UN doesn't seem like it *is* dealing with
the situation. Maybe the International Human Rights Commission is, but if so they obviously can't solve the problem alone.
Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.
Again let me note that the fact that the Government of China is elected does not make one bit of difference in my opinion. Even the majority of people living in a geographic location does not have the right to oppress.
The Chinese government is receiving some flak from the international community as a result of these policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to abetting a crime.
Sure, it's abetting a crime, pretty much by definition. However, it is my opinion that abetting such a crime as spreading truthful information is perfectly just. In fact, I consider it my duty to abet this crime.
PS,Rob:I'm from India, not the U.S so I'm not sure about how the American Government handles privacy issues.
The US government is itself funding people to "help Chinese users access blocked sites." So the very government which claims me as a citizen is abetting a crime.
"This isn't the first time that Anonymizer has looked for ways to beat Chinese censors. A couple of years ago, the company was hired by the Voice of America (VoA) to develop software to help Chinese users access blocked sites. Anonymizer is now working with the VoA on a similar project for Internet users in Iran."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125303,00.asp
"The Voice of America (VOA) is the official international broadcasting service of the Government of the United States. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_america
Anthony
Prasad J wrote:
Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.
Elected? In what sense? It's a one-party system, the CPC doesn't tolerate any serious opposition. Maybe you should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
North Korea also holds token elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_North_Korea
-- Tim Starling
On 5/13/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Prasad J wrote:
Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one, it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.
Elected? In what sense? It's a one-party system, the CPC doesn't tolerate any serious opposition. Maybe you should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Also see [[Elections in the People's Republic of China]]. The second paragraph is especially relevant. (Not that I think that democracy permits oppression anyway.)
Anthony
If the situation in China is that bad, then why is the U.S developing dimplomatic ties with the former? Why is China given a UNSC seat? These are aspects of China's internal affairs-not even international bodies like the U.N have the right to intervene. The Chinese government probably has geo-political concerns about this matter. Like I stated earlier, if you do help Wikipedia-users in that country circumvent this block, and they are caught they will probably be dealt with very severely. And I know about VoA-it's, quite frankly, just a propaganda tool. If you think the U.S is trying to get Iranians to access blocked sites in the interest of "liberating" them, then you are mistaken. America most likely just wants the Iranian people to hear Mr.Bush talk about why "rogue states" like theirs should not possess "nucular technology". As I said, allowing Chinese users to break the law, is abbetment. And it's not the kind of abettment that's justified-the condition in China is very much liveable-they are not under some Nazi-like fascist regime. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones of citizens without legal consent? If that was justified then so is the Chinese governments' policy.
Also, let us not forget the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the U.S, and though it may international in it's scope, the general perception is that Wikimedia is an American organization. Wikipedia and the Foundation have been receiving quite an ampunt of media-attention of late and an issue like this is unlikely to go unnoticed. This is already a time when most of the world accuses the U.S of meddling in other nations's affairs too much, and like it or not anti-Americanism is gaining support world over (not only in Muslim nations but also in Europe,Asia and else-where). At such a juncture if Wikimedia tries to help Chinese people break the law, the press is hardly likely to portray Wikimedia as "saviour of the oppressed". Infact the Foundation is probably going to be portrayed as a propaganda tool used by the U.S Governement to further the latter's geo-political objectives in China,Iran and the like. Needless to say such accusation are far from good-news for the Foundation.
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
If the situation in China is that bad, then why is the U.S developing dimplomatic ties with the former?
Money
Why is China given a UNSC seat?
Historical reasons.
These are aspects of China's internal affairs-not even international bodies like the U.N have the right to intervene.
I don't think anyone here is an international body.
The Chinese government probably has geo-political concerns about this matter.
Probably who cares?
Like I stated earlier, if you do help Wikipedia-users in that country circumvent this block, and they are caught they will probably be dealt with very severely.
I suspect they know that.
And I know about VoA-it's, quite frankly, just a propaganda tool. If you think the U.S is trying to get Iranians to access blocked sites in the interest of "liberating" them, then you are mistaken. America most likely just wants the Iranian people to hear Mr.Bush talk about why "rogue states" like theirs should not possess "nucular technology".
It is generaly more suptle than that.
As I said, allowing Chinese users to break the law, is abbetment.
So what? I'm not in china. I could allow french and germans to break the law simply by putting Mein Kampf online. Should I be prevented from doing that?
And it's not the kind of abettment that's justified-the condition in
China is very much >liveable-they are not under some Nazi-like fascist regime.
No democracy.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping
phones of citizens >without legal consent? If that was justified then so is the Chinese
governments' policy.
Ad hominem tu quoque
As, I said by allowing Chinese Wikipedians (who are probably just kids who aren't aware of what exactly their government does to "dissidents") will do them more harm than good. You wouldn't be breaking any laws, you would just be getting some Chinese teenager shot for being a "traitor". America tried to bring democracy to Iraq and only succeeded in instigating a civil war.Americans were not put on this planet for the express purpose of preserving democracy-why don't you give it a rest for a while?
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
As, I said by allowing Chinese Wikipedians (who are probably just kids who aren't aware of what exactly their government does to "dissidents") will do them more harm than good. You wouldn't be breaking any laws, you would just be getting some Chinese teenager shot for being a "traitor".
Nope. China doesn't exicute minors. It's one of their better points.
America tried to bring democracy to Iraq and only succeeded in instigating a civil war.
I think the democracy bit was secondary and in any case thier methods sucked
Americans were not put on this planet for the express purpose of
preserving >democracy-why don't you give it a rest for a while?
You do relise I'm not a US citizen?
Free flow of information is the most effective safeguard against tyranny.
Prasad J wrote
As, I said by allowing Chinese Wikipedians (who are probably just kids who aren't aware of what exactly their government does to "dissidents") will do them more harm than good. You wouldn't be breaking any laws, you would just be getting some Chinese teenager shot for being a "traitor". America tried to bring democracy to Iraq and only succeeded in instigating a civil war.Americans were not put on this planet for the express purpose of preserving democracy-why don't you give it a rest for a while?
There are good reasons why this list is dedicated to improving the English Wikipedia. Rather than the world situation in general.
The main purpose of Wikipedia can be defined as a (new) kind of publishing, namely putting high quality and informative and neutral, factual articles into the public domain, under the GFDL. That is what we do. This is not propaganda. If it is difficult for people to read them online, there are other ways they can be distributed, such as on a CD-ROM. It is essentially pointless for governments to try to prevent people having some sort of access to Wikipedia, short of running the country on the lines of North Korea.
I suggest we get back to editing, so that if people have extra difficulty in accessing the English Wikipedia, for any reason, it will be all the more worth reading in the end.
Charles
On 5/13/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
There are good reasons why this list is dedicated to improving the English Wikipedia. Rather than the world situation in general.
The list is dedicated to discussing issues related to the English Wikipedia. With that in mind, you're right, wikipedia-l would have been a better list to use, as the issue of Chinese censorship concerns the Wikipedia community as a whole, not just the English Wikipedia.
Anthony
charles matthews wrote:
Prasad J wrote
As, I said by allowing Chinese Wikipedians (who are probably just kids who aren't aware of what exactly their government does to "dissidents") will do them more harm than good. You wouldn't be breaking any laws, you would just be getting some Chinese teenager shot for being a "traitor". America tried to bring democracy to Iraq and only succeeded in instigating a civil war.Americans were not put on this planet for the express purpose of preserving democracy-why don't you give it a rest for a while?
There are good reasons why this list is dedicated to improving the English Wikipedia. Rather than the world situation in general.
The main purpose of Wikipedia can be defined as a (new) kind of publishing, namely putting high quality and informative and neutral, factual articles into the public domain, under the GFDL. That is what we do. This is not propaganda.
That's what Wikipedia pretends to do according to the policies. I've believed that myself until I've found out, that administrators block editors they disagree with.
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
The main purpose of Wikipedia can be defined as a (new) kind of publishing, namely putting high quality and informative and neutral, factual articles into the public domain, under the GFDL. That is what we do. This is not propaganda.
That's what Wikipedia pretends to do according to the policies. I've believed that myself until I've found out, that administrators block editors they disagree with.
This might be considered an application of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' ([[List of Latin phrases (F-O)]]), to argue that if you could find anything propagandistic in the English Wikipedia, that makes all 1130000 pages propagandistic. Of course that misunderstands. It is quite understandable, psychologically, why such arguments are brought up (this is hardly the first time). Someone with a specialised interest scrutinises our coverage, and sees something they reckon is flawed.
But that is not an argument on the purpose of the encyclopedia. It merely says that it is not finished. We know that.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
The main purpose of Wikipedia can be defined as a (new) kind of publishing, namely putting high quality and informative and neutral, factual articles into the public domain, under the GFDL. That is what we do. This is not propaganda.
That's what Wikipedia pretends to do according to the policies. I've believed that myself until I've found out, that administrators block editors they disagree with.
This might be considered an application of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' ([[List of Latin phrases (F-O)]]), to argue that if you could find anything propagandistic in the English Wikipedia, that makes all 1130000 pages propagandistic. Of course that misunderstands. It is quite understandable, psychologically, why such arguments are brought up (this is hardly the first time). Someone with a specialised interest scrutinises our coverage, and sees something they reckon is flawed.
But that is not an argument on the purpose of the encyclopedia. It merely says that it is not finished. We know that.
I think, that you missunderstand me. I'm not claiming, that I've found an article, which is propagandistic. That would indeed only prove, that Wikipedia is not finished. What I've found is, that administrators abuse their priviledges to have a final say in content disputes. This is a systematic flaw in the Wikipedia, which is excused by accusing the opposition of Wikilaywering or by claiming to follow the policies "in spirit". The policies are great, but there is not seperation of powers in Wikipedia, and power corrupts even in reputed "open" systems like Wikipedia.
Prasad J wrote:
If the situation in China is that bad, then why is the U.S developing dimplomatic ties with the former? Why is China given a UNSC seat?
I suggest you do your own research on this subject. Yes, it is that bad, and there are answers to your questions, but they are off-topic for this list.
These are aspects of China's internal affairs-not even international bodies like the U.N have the right to intervene. The Chinese government probably has geo-political concerns about this matter. Like I stated earlier, if you do help Wikipedia-users in that country circumvent this block, and they are caught they will probably be dealt with very severely. And I know about VoA-it's, quite frankly, just a propaganda tool. If you think the U.S is trying to get Iranians to access blocked sites in the interest of "liberating" them, then you are mistaken. America most likely just wants the Iranian people to hear Mr.Bush talk about why "rogue states" like theirs should not possess "nucular technology". As I said, allowing Chinese users to break the law, is abbetment. And it's not the kind of abettment that's justified-the condition in China is very much liveable-they are not under some Nazi-like fascist regime. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones of citizens without legal consent? If that was justified then so is the Chinese governments' policy.
You should learn a bit more about China before you go making comparisons like that. China is not a democracy, the events of 1989 should have cast away any doubt about that. Yes, things are "generally livable" as long as you don't cross the line, yes the US sucks in its own special way. That doesn't mean we should comply with whatever unfair laws either regime happens to pass. China has a long way to go towards democracy, and in my opinion, unbiased mass education and open discourse can only aid the process. Yes, non-compliance brings risks with it, but there are many people inside China and outside it who are prepared to face those risks in the hope that a long-term benefit might be gained.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
And I know about VoA-it's, quite frankly, just a propaganda tool.
I think it's more than that, but I'm not saying I agree with everything the VoA does.
If you think the U.S is trying to get Iranians to access blocked sites in the interest of "liberating" them, then you are mistaken. America most likely just wants the Iranian people to hear Mr.Bush talk about why "rogue states" like theirs should not possess "nucular technology".
"America" is not a single entity. The Voice of America tends to be at least somewhat independent from Bush and the top level government executives. The fact that they contracted with Anonymizer, Inc. only serves to enhance that independence for this particular action.
As I said, allowing Chinese users to break the law, is abbetment.
And I've agreed with this.
And it's not the kind of abettment that's justified-the condition in China is very much liveable-they are not under some Nazi-like fascist regime.
I don't believe that conditions have to be unliveable in order to justify facilitation of civil disobedience.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones of citizens without legal consent?
I believe they did.
If that was justified then so is the Chinese governments' policy.
I don't believe it was justified, of course.
Anthony
Prasad J wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones of citizens without legal consent? If that was justified then so is the Chinese governments' policy.
Emphasizing again that I am making a personal statement here, not speaking for the Foundation, I rather think that the point is that *neither* of these is justified.
I am going to shut up now because wikien-l is not really the right place for a general discussion of the ethics of civil disobediance in the face of human rights violations.
--Jimbo
On 5/13/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Elected? In what sense? It's a one-party system, the CPC doesn't tolerate any serious opposition. Maybe you should read:
Even more confusing is Singapore - according to what I read on the wikipedia article recently, this is the first election since the eighties that hasn't been won by *default* - in most, more than half the seats were uncontested. And in this one, they won by something like 88 out of 92 seats.
Now that is a situation to confuse any democracy supporter.
Steve
Prasad J wrote:
Although I agree with you guys that these censorship laws are unfair, I do believe that there are other organizations (like the U.N or the International Human Rights Commission) to deal with (what we consider) oppression. However not even the U.N has the authority to prevent people from being prosecuted for breaking laws which were legislated upon by elected Governments-in this case the Chinese Government.Again, let us note an important point-the present Government of China is an elected one,
I must be missing something here. I was looking for the Wikipedia article which gives detailed results of the last national election in China. People interested in such things are usually pretty quick at adding this kind of information. Maybe it's not linked properly? Could you provide a link to the article that contains these results?
it is not a military junta or a dictatorship so it will be rather difficult for us to actually prove that they are suppressing the Chinese in the manner in which (for example) the North Korean Government oppresses its people.The Chinese government is receiving some flak from the international community as a result of these policies, however as the Chinese Government has pointed out-these are their internal affairs. Having said this, I do stand by my earlier statement that to aid Chinese citizens in their efforts to break the law of their land (even if the said law is unjust) is tantamount to abetting a crime.
Providing technical information is different from telling people what to do with it.
Ec
Rob wrote:
On 5/13/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I, personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
Were the US government to put into place certain policies "protecting" its citizens from certain information on the Internet, no doubt you'd start complaining about jackbooted thugs and the like. I don't particularly care what you think about the US government, but I don't think the Chinese government should escape similar condemnation because of an accident of geography.
Some factions in the US government would be very keen to "protect" citizens. You begin with obvious topics like suppressing kiddie-porn, and lever things up from there. There's a big fat middle ground of the population who are willing to allow responsibility to be dictated by fear just to make sure that any criminality is suppressed; they feel no obligations to protect other minorities from friendly fire.
Ec
On May 13, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Prasad J wrote:
Actually I believe it was you who brought this up on the mailing list Anthony,although I do agree that this is not a matter which is within the scope of this list. I must however mention here that you claim the Chinese citizens are being *oppressed* by their Governemnt. I, personally, also feel the same way, but then let us not forget that these policies are put in place by an elected Government-perhaps for legitimate reasons- and the said laws are a part of China's internal affairs. So for us to pass judgement on this matter would not be entirely fair-since we are both citizens of other countries.
The People's Republic of China has never held elections. The Chinese government is not elected, it is appointed by the Chinese Communist Party.
On May 13, 2006, at 11:49 AM, geni wrote:
Nope. China doesn't exicute minors. It's one of their better points.
Well, not without tanks they don't.
On May 13, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Prasad J wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the FBI recently admit to tapping phones of citizens without legal consent?
That would be the NSA, not the FBI.
Like I said, the Chinese government probably has it's reasons for doing what it does. And even if you do bring down this firewall-do you really think the government will just admit defeat? As for 1989, could the U.S or any other nation do anything during the Tien-a-mien massacre? No. Because each country has the right to manage it's own affairs-even if that may see unfair to us.Countries don't go out of their way to help each other without there being something for them to gain The U.S is not trying to bring democracy to China in the interest of goodwill, the former has major geo-political interests in two emerging powers (China and India) the Americans are just trying to achieve their longterm goals by bringing about a change in the Chinese government so that when the U.S tries to better it's ties with that nation, it will not be accused of supporting the oppressive Peoples' Government. If indeed America wanted to rescue the oppressed why did it turn a blind eye to Tibet and (more importantly) the Rwandan genocide? Please do not be taken in when the VoA and other agencies try to de-stabilize (which is in a way what this will do) the government in the (apparent) intention of delivering the Chinese from oppression. Anyway, even if you do bring down the firewall, they will probably have it up again in a jiffy-(the government is hardly likely to concede defeat to the Foundation) then would not your efforts have gone to waste?
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Like I said, the Chinese government probably has it's reasons for doing what it does.
Yeah it doesn't want people asking anoying questions such as "why are we not allowed to ellect a goverment?"
And even if you do bring down this firewall-do you really think the government will just admit defeat?
No. But allowing them to keep it up doesn't help matters.
As for 1989, could the U.S or any other nation do anything during the Tien-a-mien massacre? No. Because each country has the right to manage it's own affairs-even if that may see unfair to us.
"Rights" have no logical basis and thus no position in rational debate.
Countries don't go out of their way to help each other without there
being something for >them to gain
Historicaly that is incorrect.
The U.S is not trying to bring democracy to China in the interest of goodwill, the former has major geo-political interests in two emerging powers (China and India) the Americans are just trying to achieve their longterm goals by bringing about a change in the Chinese government so that when the U.S tries to better it's ties with that nation, it will not be accused of supporting the oppressive Peoples' Government. If indeed America wanted to rescue the oppressed why did it turn a blind eye to Tibet and (more importantly) the Rwandan genocide?
In the first case it didn't have a choice (china can tell pretty much anyone to get stuffed). In the second there was a UN presence. They just followed your doctrien of non interfearence.
Please do not be taken in when the VoA and other agencies try to de-stabilize (which is in a way what this will do) the government in the (apparent) intention of delivering the Chinese from oppression.
We are not VoA.
Anyway, even if you do bring down the firewall, they will probably have it up again in a jiffy-(the government is hardly likely to concede defeat to the Foundation) then would not your efforts have gone to waste?
If it wasn't for people prepeared to follow hopeless causes human history would be very different. I doubt we would have got much beyond Sumer style city states.
On 14/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Countries don't go out of their way to help each other without there
being something for >them to gain
Historicaly that is incorrect.
If you are of that opinion, geni, I must say you are incredibly idealistic. Show me a single instance where one country has helped another with purely good intentions. It has never happened and it never will. Let me illustrate with an example-the Truman Doctrine. The U.S offered billions of dollars in aid to European countries PROVIDED they agreed not to accept Communism. On the surface it appears that America was doing an admirable deed but in reality it was only making sure that it's own needs were met. As I have explained the U.S has a hidden agenda for helping the Chinese destabilise their government, just as they had a hidden agenda for Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L). And it's not only the U.S-every country looks to secure it's own goals. That's the way diplomacy works. Do not be fooled into thinking that nations try to bail each other out just out of compassion and fraternal love. As for Rwanda-I suggest you check the Wikipedia article on the subject-the U.S requested America for help but the latter chose to decline. If the Chinese government can tell other countries to "stuff themselves" about the Tibet issue, can't they do the same about this one? Also, none of you have replied to my earlier mail wherein I expressed concers about how the media (if it learnt about this) would portray Wikipedia. At present anti-Americanism is sweeping the world, if you choose to deny it I suggest you look at the photos of the star-spangled banner being burnt everywhere from Amsterdam to Seoul-, and many accuse the U.S of meddling too much in the affairs of other countries. At such a juncture, the press is less likely to portray Wikipedia as "saviour of the oppresed" than as "U.S government tool". Before doing this I ask that you consider whether such bad publicity is realy neseccary for Wikipedia-which was recently in the news for being used as a propaganda tool by politicians.
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Countries don't go out of their way to help each other without there
being something for >them to gain
Historicaly that is incorrect.
If you are of that opinion, geni, I must say you are incredibly idealistic. Show me a single instance where one country has helped another with purely good intentions.
Polands actions during the Battle of Vienna.
British actions after the invasion of Poland in 1939.
If the Chinese government can tell other countries to "stuff
themselves" about the Tibet >issue, can't they do the same about this one?
They are free to try however I doubt they are going to invade florida.
Also, none of you have replied to my earlier mail wherein I expressed
concers about how >the media (if it learnt about this) would portray Wikipedia.
The media can always trash us if they want.
At present anti-Americanism is sweeping the world, if you choose to
deny it I suggest >you look at the photos of the star-spangled banner being burnt everywhere from >Amsterdam to Seoul-, and many accuse the U.S of meddling too much in the affairs of >other countries. At such a juncture, the press is less likely to portray Wikipedia as >"saviour of the oppresed" than as "U.S government tool".
Doubful. First we have no links to the US goverment. Secondly we are mostly writen by europeans
British actions after the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Incase you are not aware of this Anglo-German relations were hostile at the time-what with Hitler promising to conquer Britain and all. Even otherwise, in 1939 the U.K did not declare war UNTIL the 3rd of September, when Hitler launched a blitzkreig on France. It was at this point that England realised that the Nazis were seriously intent on conquering England. Only when it became clear that Hitler was going to invade England after France fell (which was pretty obvious), did the U.K declare war on Germany. It must be noted here that upto that point of time Britain had been following a "policy of appeasement" allowing Hitler to attack and conquer Austria, and Mussolini to invade Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia) to deter the fascist leaders from concentrating their efforts on Britain. Britain did not wage war on Germany till the former realised that war was, in fact, inevitable. Thus, the U.K's actions were by no means well-intentioned. Also while we're talking about Britain, I hope you know the atrocities committed by that country in it's colonies-have you heard of the Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre?Or the Andaman Cellular Jail? Verify your facts before putting them forward.As for the battle of Vienna, The Polish King had been made the Commander-in-Chief of the Christian forces (if I may call it that). So naturally Poland would have to take part.And diplomacy in it's present form did not exist in the 17th century (when marriages between empires were the only forms of "treaties). Show me MODERN examples-i.e in the last 100-150 years.
First we have no links to the US goverment. Secondly we are
mostly writen by europeans Wikipedia-english is written by Americans or people who come from countries which are U.S allies (U.K Australia etc.). To put in a nutshell-white people. Secondly as I explained the general perception is that Wikipedia is an American organization. Also, though China may not actually send the Peoples' Army into St. Petersburg FL, it is highly likely that Wikimedia will be sued for violating it's own policies which state that the Wikimedia sites may not be used to break local laws. geni _______________________________________________
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
British actions after the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Incase you are not aware of this Anglo-German relations were hostile at the time-what with Hitler promising to conquer Britain and all.
Nope. britian may not have liked germany too much but there was no logical reason to go to war.
Even otherwise, in 1939 the U.K did not declare war UNTIL the 3rd of September, when Hitler launched a blitzkreig on France.
False. France was not seriously attacked untill 10 May 1940.
It was at this point that England realised that the Nazis were seriously intent on conquering England. Only when it became clear that Hitler was going to invade England after France fell (which was pretty obvious), did the U.K declare war on Germany.
Nope Uk declaired war on sept 3rd
It must be noted here that upto that point of time Britain had been following a "policy of appeasement" allowing Hitler to attack and conquer Austria, and Mussolini to invade Abyssinia (now called Ethiopia) to deter the fascist leaders from concentrating their efforts on Britain. Britain did not wage war on Germany till the former realised that war was, in fact, inevitable. Thus, the U.K's actions were by no means well-intentioned. Also while we're talking about Britain, I hope you know the atrocities committed by that country in it's colonies-have you heard of the Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre?Or the Andaman Cellular Jail?
tu quoque and strawman logical fallacies
As for the battle of Vienna, The Polish King had been made the Commander-in-Chief of the Christian forces (if I may call it that). So naturally Poland would have to take part.
No he was made that once the battle started.
Wikipedia-english is written by Americans or people who come from countries which are >U.S allies (U.K Australia etc.). To put in a nutshell-white people.
What has skin colour got to do with anything?
Secondly as I explained the general perception is that Wikipedia is
an American >organization.
Evidences?
Also, though China may not actually send the Peoples' Army into St.
Petersburg FL, it is >highly likely that Wikimedia will be sued for violating it's own policies which state that the >Wikimedia sites may not be used to break local laws.
Nothing against US law in what has been proposed.
Britain did not "like" Germany but as I explained war was inevitable. It was only a question of which country made the first move-this country would also perhaps have the advantage of being the first to act. This much was obvious from Hitler's actions. And I urge you to re-read your history book, Germany declared war on France in 1939 itself. And if Britain really wanted to help countries threatend by the Nazis, why didn't the U.K intervene when Hitler attacked Austria, or for that matter when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia? Britain had many colonies in Africa, they could have helped the Abyssinians if they wanted to. Answer these two questions. Secondly as I stated the Battle of Vienna does not count as an example since at that time diplomacy (in it's present form) was not existent. As for the "logical fallacies" you foynd when I highlighted the atrocities committed by the U.K in India to advance the Crown's agendas there, I will not honour your "objection" with a reply. Although no U.S laws may be broken as a result of this act there are international laws in place to regulate internet-related issues.
PS-What does skin colour have to do with it? As a side-note (unrelated to this discussion) can you name one (active) Arb Com member who is South Asian-as in of Indo-Aryan descent?Or an Arbitrator who is Muslim?No offence but I am pretty sure there are South-Asian and Muslim editors out there. Only none of them will be voted into ArbCom. This is not to say the present Arbitrators are not fair-I've interacted with one of them so I know they are. Just making an interesting observation.
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Britain did not "like" Germany but as I explained war was inevitable.
Doubtful. Hitlers racial ideas included britian as part of the master race.
It was only a question of which country made the first move-this country would also perhaps have the advantage of being the first to act. This much was obvious from Hitler's actions. And I urge you to re-read your history book, Germany declared war on France in 1939 itself.
If His Majesty's Government has not received satisfactory assurances of the cessation of all aggressive action against Poland, and the withdrawal of German troops from that country, by 11 o'clock British Summer Time, from that time a state of war will exist between Great Britain and Germany.
That was how britian declaired war. France did something simular.
And if Britain really wanted to help countries threatend by the Nazis, why didn't the U.K intervene when Hitler attacked Austria, or for that matter when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia?
Britian didn't have much of a militry capacity when hitler occupied Austria. Like most of the world at that time they were not too bothered about the rights of africans. In any case this is beside the point
As for the "logical fallacies" you foynd when I highlighted the atrocities committed by the U.K in India to advance the Crown's agendas there, I will not honour your "objection" with a reply.
So you conceed you are comitting logical fallacies?
Although no U.S laws may be broken as a result of this act there are international laws in place to regulate internet-related issues.
Name one. There are very few international laws and most of them are to do with war.
PS-What does skin colour have to do with it? As a side-note (unrelated to this discussion) can you name one (active) Arb Com member who is South Asian-as in of Indo-Aryan descent?
No. Last I cheacked it was not considered likely that humans evolved there.
Or an Arbitrator who is Muslim?
No idea. Neither do I care. The religion of arbcom members is a matter of supream indifference to me.
No offence but I am pretty sure there are South-Asian and Muslim editors out there. Only none of them will be voted into ArbCom.
How do you know? Generaly any long term admin who hasn't caused much in the way of trouble has a reasonable chance of being elected. I didn't run across any questions relating to religion at the last arbcom election.
You are delibrately refusing to understand the arguements put forth by me in an effort to "win" this "debate". You have an incredibly idealistic view of world politics, and do not seem to comprehend what diplomacy is about. I suggest once again that you brush up on your history so as to be convinced that Britain (definitely) has not done anything for another nation without a hidden agenda favouring the British Crown. As for my "logical fallacies", you may engage me in your trivial wordplay but I hope you realise that the atrocities committed by the British on the Indian freedom-fighters (who, followed a path of non-violence) will serve as a reminder to coming generations of the lengths to which the English were ready to go in order to secure their political objectives. In today's world, it is probably the U.S which is following this policy of "power and influence at all costs" The attempts to encourage subversive movements in China in order to spread capitalist U.S propaganda in that country (in the name of intellectual freedom) are only evidence of this. Again, Geni your statement "...like most of the world they (Britain) weren't bothered about the rights of Africans" casts light on the Caucasian belief in their superiority over other races and even over the Asian-Aryans-who are basically of the same race as Nordic people (the "harrenvolk). You yourself have conceded that the U.K would help Poland (which was a Causasian country, in close proximity to England), but not Abyssinia. This proves that England's help was (at the least) racist in nature. I rest my case.
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
As for my "logical fallacies", you may engage me in your trivial wordplay
Logical fallacies are not trivial wordplay. Makeing your case while avoiding them is the bais of debate. You have no case to rest.
Once again, you have avoided the issue? Also, what you were doing (twisting my words to make them appear like admissions of logical fallacies) IS trivial wordplay. Also am I to assume you have no comments to make on the racist policies adopted by the British Government?
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, you have avoided the issue? Also, what you were doing (twisting my words to make them appear like admissions of logical fallacies) IS trivial wordplay.
You were commiting the tu quoque and strawman logical fallacies.
Also am I to assume you have no comments to make on the racist policies adopted by the British Government?
It isn't relivant to the original issue.
Yes, it is relevant to the original issue. Britain had racist reasons for helping Poland whilst ignoring the plight of Abyssinia which proves my point that countries do not help each other out without having hidden agendas or atleast that they do not do so with genuine fraternal compassion. America has an ulterior motive for wanting to help would-be dissidents from China circumvent this firewall. So, having said that I do not think Wikipedia should go by what the VoA or other American agencies say/do-again it is mainly the U.S which seems to be bothered to a great extent by this issue. Do you see the relevance "Angrezi saheb"?
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
America has an ulterior motive for wanting to help would-be dissidents from China circumvent this firewall. So, having said that I do not think Wikipedia should go by what the VoA or other American agencies say/do-again it is mainly the U.S which seems to be bothered to a great extent by this issue.
Strawman. No one ever said that Wikipedia should go by what the VoA or other American agencies say/do. I pointed out the fact about the VoA only to dispel your belief that Americans or American companies would be committing a crime in the US by helping people circumvent the Chinese firewall.
On the contrary, the US Government would more likely give a company helping to circumvent the Chinese Firewall a grant, not charge it with a crime.
Anthony
On 5/14/06, Prasad J prasad59@gmail.com wrote:
Also, none of you have replied to my earlier mail wherein I expressed concers about how the media (if it learnt about this) would portray Wikipedia.
I did.
Wikimedia has nothing to do with this. It's just something done by a group of individuals.
Of course, I agree with the other answer as well. I don't particularly care about how the media portrays Wikipedia.
On May 13, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Prasad J wrote:
Like I said, the Chinese government probably has it's reasons for doing what it does.
Well, as long as they have *reason*, let's let them get away with murder!
And even if you do bring down this firewall-do you really think the government will just admit defeat? As for 1989, could the U.S or any other nation do anything during the Tien-a-mien massacre? No. Because each country has the right to manage it's own affairs-even if that may see unfair to us.
No one has the right to murder and kidnap people for peacefully expressing their opinions.
Prasad J wrote:
Like I said, the Chinese government probably has it's reasons for doing what it does. And even if you do bring down this firewall-do you really think the government will just admit defeat? As for 1989, could the U.S or any other nation do anything during the Tien-a-mien massacre? No. Because each country has the right to manage it's own affairs-even if that may see unfair to us.
Including Sudan?
Countries don't go out of their way to help each other without there being something for them to gain The U.S is not trying to bring democracy to China in the interest of goodwill, the former has major geo-political interests in two emerging powers (China and India) the Americans are just trying to achieve their longterm goals by bringing about a change in the Chinese government so that when the U.S tries to better it's ties with that nation, it will not be accused of supporting the oppressive Peoples' Government. If indeed America wanted to rescue the oppressed why did it turn a blind eye to Tibet and (more importantly) the Rwandan genocide?
Tibet is a part of China because it was given to them by the British after WWI to keep it out of the hands of the Russians. The British have profitted greatly by giving away what nevr belonged to them. It's a trick they learned from Napoleon.
Rwanda has no strategic importance.
Ec
Prasad J wrote:
I agree with Timwi, encouraging Chinese citizens to break the laws of their country is probably not the right thing to do, even though such forms of censorship seem unfair. Also, what if the Chinese authorities manage to track down those who break their censorship laws? Let us not forget what the government does to "dissidents" in China. And what is the press gets hold of this? The issue of Wikipedia and Chinese Government censorship has been in the news. If we start encouraging Chinese Wikipedians to break the law, it will only mean bad publicity for the Foundation.
It should be noted that Erik posted his own thoughts on his own website as a private person. The Foundation officially neither encourages nor discourages people from doing what they need to do to get around the Chinese firewall.
Our official position is that the block is in error, that there is nothing about Wikipedia in general which fits into the category of things that are normally blocked, and we hope that the block will eventually be lifted when we are able to reach the right decision makers to explain the situation to them.
If they want to filter certain pages, we do not support that, but obviously it would be a lot better than what they are doing now, which is blocking everything. The Chinese intellectual who has studied Swahili and desires to work in a charitable effort to help Africans by bringing uncontroversial knowledge to them in their own language is current blocked from doing so -- this is certainly not consistent with what the Chinese government is trying to achieve.
Speaking personally, and not as the voice of the foundation, which takes no position on these matters, people who take personal risks to edit Wikipedia from places where doing so may be illegal or dangerous to them, are heroes to me.
I was recently awarded a "Pioneer Award" by the EFF. In my acceptance speech, I said, I am not the real pioneer, because it is very easy for me. I live in the United States, firmly protected by the First Amendment, and I am celebrated in the culture as being a "prophet" and "pioneer" and other absurdly kind adjectives. It is easy for me.
The real heroes of this movement live in China, Iran, etc.
--Jimbo
On 5/14/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It should be noted that Erik posted his own thoughts on his own website as a private person. The Foundation officially neither encourages nor discourages people from doing what they need to do to get around the Chinese firewall.
Is the Foundation making a statement on the copying of Wikipedia's material (presumably in breach of the GFDL) by Baidupedia? Or did I miss it already?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/14/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It should be noted that Erik posted his own thoughts on his own website as a private person. The Foundation officially neither encourages nor discourages people from doing what they need to do to get around the Chinese firewall.
Is the Foundation making a statement on the copying of Wikipedia's material (presumably in breach of the GFDL) by Baidupedia? Or did I miss it already?
They are welcome to copy our work, so long as they comply with the license. If they don't comply with the license, then they are doing something unethical. As with other people who start new mirrors and at first often make mistakes in license compliance, I am sure that they will do the right thing in due course. We usually don't have to get too agitated about it. :)
--Jimbo
On 5/14/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Our official position is that the block is in error, that there is nothing about Wikipedia in general which fits into the category of things that are normally blocked, and we hope that the block will eventually be lifted when we are able to reach the right decision makers to explain the situation to them.
I hope so, too, though it seems even less likely now that local corporate interests (Baidu.com) are involved as well. There are at least three things we can also do which, I hope, are relatively uncontroversial.
a)
There are NPOV pages on Wikipedia and Wikibooks about Internet censorship and the "Great Firewall" in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_mainland_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_Tor_users_in_China http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transwiki:Bypassing_the_Great_Firewall_of_China
Improving this information and keeping it up to date almost certainly guarantees its (read-only) availability due to its free content nature, at least against origin-based filters.
b)
Improving our mechanisms of authentication and authorization will, as a side-effect, allow any user of Tor or similar anonymization tools to go through a process of creating a trusted account (which might be upgraded in several steps) for editing. This will be especially relevant when we have single login, and moreover, when we start federating our authentication system with other websites. The process could consist of a new user first having to chat with a human to get permanent editable access, or having to go through a captcha-like process. The user would be pseudonymous, and the pseudonymous identity would be protected by whatever tool they use.
This is by no means limited to China or even to the problem of censorship. Selective authorization of trusted users within a non-trusted group is equally applicable, for instance, to the problem of vandalism from school IPs.
c)
If the new Chinese fork by Baidu.com changes GFDL content, whether they like it or not, we are legally allowed to incorporate their improvements into the Chinese Wikipedia (provided that Baidu or the contributors have the exclusive rights to the content in the first place). This situation is not entirely dissimilar to the Spanish Wikipedia fork "Enciclopedia Libre" which, for some time, was quite successful. At the time, I was told that Spanish Wikipedians were actively copying over improvements. I hope the same will happen on zh.wikipedia.org.
-
Now, if we do all this, there's one additional little step we could take. As noted above, the fact that Wikipedia is free content itself helps to guarantee the availability of the text. So, while China's Wikipedia block is bad, I think in the long run it primarily hurts editors, not readers, who will hopefully find mirrors of the content. Now imagine most mirror copies of Wikipedia content carried a notice like this (in the applicable language):
"The Wikipedia article ''Galileo Galilei'' is licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (see [[history]]). The [[latest, openly editable version]] of the article is located on Wikipedia. If you cannot access or edit Wikipedia, please see the [[Wikimedia Content Access Guidelines]]." [*]
This last link would point to a locally hosted copy of a file which explains various issues, including prominent information about accessing Wikipedia through any kind of filter, and about setting up a trusted account for editing as described under b) above.
Getting these guidelines included by mirrors could, perhaps, be accomplished by attaching a footer like this to our database and HTML dumps. It would be clear that these guidelines exist not for political reasons, but as a matter of providing and protecting access to knowledge. It seems to me that giving a child in Africa a free encyclopedia or textbook is, inherently, based on the same motivation as giving a child in the PRC access to our knowledge and learning resources, to wit:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
To me, this easily translates to: "We don't care who you are or where you live. If you cannot read or edit Wikipedia, we will help you." Far from an all-out campaign against censorship (which I support separately, but not necessarily wtihin Wikimedia), it would be a small step to try to better inform those who cannot otherwise contribute, and who are aware of the risks.
Erik
[*] Anthony, you don't need to tell me about the literal requirements of the GFDL. :-)
Prasad J wrote:
I agree with Timwi, encouraging Chinese citizens to break the laws of their country is probably not the right thing to do, even though such forms of censorship seem unfair. Also, what if the Chinese authorities manage to track down those who break their censorship laws? Let us not forget what the government does to "dissidents" in China. And what is the press gets hold of this? The issue of Wikipedia and Chinese Government censorship has been in the news. If we start encouraging Chinese Wikipedians to break the law, it will only mean bad publicity for the Foundation.
Providing technical information is not the same as encouraging.
The press is often unpredictable. It is also important to remember that China does not like to be embarassed, especially not in the period leading up to the 2008 Olympics. After that event progress may be more difficult, and countries whose international debt is largely bankroled by the Chinese may want to limit their support of freedom to just enough isolated acts of lip service to prevent being accused of hypocrisy.
Ec
Timwi wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I've written down some thoughts on the problem of distributing IP addresses and anonymization tools a while ago:
That page does not consider the possibility that circumventing the censorship may be illegal in the affected countries. Of course /you/ think you're in the right because you "know" that censorship is wrong, but you're nevertheless encouraging people to commit a crime in their country, which itself may be illegal or at least immoral.
Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is wrong; it is merely contrary to the intentions of the state. Getting around copy protect devices on CDs may be illegal, but it's not wrong.
Providing information on how to circumvent laws is not in itself immoral. What would be immoral would be failing to alert the potential user that using this information may be illegal for him. Only when he knows about the laws can he make an informed choice about going ahead.
Ec