Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue, I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it in the right quotation style.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: free speech and wikinews Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 03:52:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthere
Dovi wrote:
I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything).
Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand.
Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy.
I tried to put down a bit on the topic here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_and_free) as I wanted to clarify those terms to those people not developers (such as me). The concept is very much used by developers, but is not so well understood by others.
I actually got stuck with misunderstanding on the english article on what [[free content]] mean... I would welcome your feedback on such issues. Please do.
Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.
I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so.
True. But is our goal to explain governments what is wrong and where they should change the way they set up things in their nation ? I understand what you mean Dovi, and as an individual, I support it. I am not sure every editor would be glad that the Foundation takes a political position on the matter, so I do not feel the Foundation should do it. Just my feeling. I am aware this is a highly contentious point and that not all will agree with me.
It might be that wikinews in chinese IS important to create, but I do not think this is the Foundation role to force its existence somehow against some editors choice. I do not think it is the Foundation role to take a stance against repression of speech. It is a bit tricky... but there is at the same time a strong expectation that the Foundation should not lead the project or impact in the way a project works... and an expectation that we fix issues the communities do not fix themselves.
All with... generally speaking... extremely little feedback on what we do (so, I really thank you for giving feedback on this topic).
I have all along the year wondered where was the limit of what community expected from us. Taking political positions or not ? Taking care of information distribution ourselves or focusing on helping the projects to grow only ? Getting deeply involved in distribution in third world countries thanks to grants or not ? Trying to stimulate release of information under free licences by contacting govermental agencies for example, or not ?
I have my own opinions. I try to listen to others opinions. I do not hear so many :-(
That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for.
Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!
I do not define what we want to do as "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"
What I think we try to do is "to make the sum of human knowledge available to the largest number of people on Earth".
That makes a huge difference :-)
The information being free (as in free speech) or free (as in free beer) is only a MEAN, not an END. To give access to information to the largest number of guys, the following can help * help information to spread (through using a free licence) * provide information for free (to reduce financial bottleneck) * provide information in people mother language (to reduce misunderstanding)
Ideally, we should also work on plateform, since we today only provide information through the net, to which not everyone has access to.
I suggest the following:
Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech" in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing or proposed Wikimedia project."
In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well.
Dovi
I am not sure how to express it exactly, but... We are committed to free software and free content and gratis content in particular because it helps our goal. Most of us ALSO support free software, but it is not our "political goal". Our goal is collecting information, gathering it and making it available.
I feel it is touchy to say this... but at the same time... when I read the article defining [[free content]], when I see how few people mind it being incorrect, or how few people understand and agree on what it means... I feel the ground is much stronger when I focus on our goal than on fluttery concepts :-)
There is a tiny difference here, but relevant. Imho.
In any cases, I appreciate very much your mails :-)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue, I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it in the right quotation style.
Thank you very much. With the volume of email I get daily, most of it important, I was actually not going to read that one because of the extra time investment involved in separating the speakers' words. I appreciate the help you offered in that area as much as I appreciate the effort Anthere put into composing the email in the first place.
That aside, I have my own comments to offer on the subject, now that I've seen Anthere's response:
I actually agree more with Dovi than with Anthere, in terms of what has been said. I very much believe that without simply acting as though free speech in the political sense, we cannot take advantage of free speech in the "free content" sense to gain the benefits we seek for the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. However (yes, there's a however):
The initial goal of this effort as a whole was distributing encyclopedic knowledge to the world at large. If a new Wikinews project might interfere with the ability to get a Wikipedia into the hands of people worldwide, I tend to think that the proposed Wikinews project's goals must take a back seat to those of the already existing Wikipedia project. Even if you remove the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews, the distinction between "already existing" and "proposed" must be taken into account: it is my belief that we cannot in good conscience take steps in the creation of a new project that we have reason to believe will not only bring about its own failure but that of an already existing project. Balance that against my impression that the various Wikipedias should take precedence over their sibling Wikinews projects, and bake at 400 degrees for thirty-five minutes for a nice souffle.
Ahem. What I'm trying to say is this: We should definitely try to make a Chinese Wikinews happen if we can do so without killing off the Chinese Wikipedia, as well as itself, in the same effort. Yes, stand up for principle, but do so in a manner that doesn't kill the principle at the same time.
This is just the opinion of one man. Feel free to disagree. Don't attribute it to anyone else besides me without asking them first. Have a nice day.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Chad Perrin a écrit:
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue, I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it in the right quotation style.
Thank you very much. With the volume of email I get daily, most of it important, I was actually not going to read that one because of the extra time investment involved in separating the speakers' words. I appreciate the help you offered in that area as much as I appreciate the effort Anthere put into composing the email in the first place.
I am sorry :-( It was supposed to be indented... I know not why... it went away...
This is just the opinion of one man. Feel free to disagree. Don't attribute it to anyone else besides me without asking them first. Have a nice day.
I would like to similarly add that what I said is naturally my opinion and not to be attributed to anyone else. In particular, it is certainly not board opinion. I prefer to have an opinion rather than none, I also prefer to voice it rather than not, but I try not to impose it on anyone. I think that taking the stance suggested by Dovi... is a step toward imposing the board view on community. I do not think we have such a right. Sorry Dovi, but I prefer a board, which might sometimes appear indecisive and very slow to take a decision, rather than a board which take decisions for others or collect votes rather than letting the opportunity to editors to find a consensus amongst themselves.
Even though I might on the principle agree with you :-)
Generally, I rather agree with what Chad just wrote
Well, I have one week to think about it :-)
Anthere
Chad-
The initial goal of this effort as a whole was distributing encyclopedic knowledge to the world at large. If a new Wikinews project might interfere with the ability to get a Wikipedia into the hands of people worldwide, I tend to think that the proposed Wikinews project's goals must take a back seat to those of the already existing Wikipedia project.
I find it very dubious that an NPOV Wikipedia can exist in the long term in an environment where an NPOV Wikinews cannot. Either it will be modified to suit the interests of the censors, or it will be censored.
I am deliberately writing "an NPOV Wikipedia" and not "an NPOV encyclopedia." There is an important distinction. Unlike traditional paper encyclopedias, Wikipedia is, in fact, very good at dealing with current events -- so good that, in cases of major global events, it often provides much better background information than Wikinews itself. The Chinese Wikipedia has an "In the news" section on the frontpage just like the English one, and articles about current political issues are created as they happen.
I do not disagree that Wikinews faces an increased risk, since it will cover everyday politics in much greater detail than Wikipedia does. I do, however, also believe that the integrity of our information is of paramount importance, and that the Chinese Wikipedia will face serious issues of integrity, if it does not already do so.
In an environment dominated by fear, NPOV will be difficult to maintain. The peer dynamics may ensure conformity with the government's version of reality: "Don't write this -- you don't want all of Wikipedia to be censored!" Are we, as a community, sending the Chinese Wikipedians the signal that this is the *wrong* thing to do? That, if an NPOV presentation will be censored, then we must face that censorship? That it is important to stand up for this principle?
By launching the Chinese Wikinews when there are enough interested participants, we could send this clear signal. We could let everyone know that the Wikimedia community is not driven by fear, but by a thirst for knowledge and a desire to share it. If the Chinese government wants to censor a community-driven project whose stated goal is a neutral presentation of the facts on any subject, then let it do so. And then let the Chinese people find out about it.
Be bold.
Erik
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:02:05PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Chad-
The initial goal of this effort as a whole was distributing encyclopedic knowledge to the world at large. If a new Wikinews project might interfere with the ability to get a Wikipedia into the hands of people worldwide, I tend to think that the proposed Wikinews project's goals must take a back seat to those of the already existing Wikipedia project.
I find it very dubious that an NPOV Wikipedia can exist in the long term in an environment where an NPOV Wikinews cannot. Either it will be modified to suit the interests of the censors, or it will be censored.
I am deliberately writing "an NPOV Wikipedia" and not "an NPOV encyclopedia." There is an important distinction. Unlike traditional paper encyclopedias, Wikipedia is, in fact, very good at dealing with current events -- so good that, in cases of major global events, it often provides much better background information than Wikinews itself. The Chinese Wikipedia has an "In the news" section on the frontpage just like the English one, and articles about current political issues are created as they happen.
I do not disagree that Wikinews faces an increased risk, since it will cover everyday politics in much greater detail than Wikipedia does. I do, however, also believe that the integrity of our information is of paramount importance, and that the Chinese Wikipedia will face serious issues of integrity, if it does not already do so.
In an environment dominated by fear, NPOV will be difficult to maintain. The peer dynamics may ensure conformity with the government's version of reality: "Don't write this -- you don't want all of Wikipedia to be censored!" Are we, as a community, sending the Chinese Wikipedians the signal that this is the *wrong* thing to do? That, if an NPOV presentation will be censored, then we must face that censorship? That it is important to stand up for this principle?
Hey, I'm not saying we should be timid about issues of NPOV integrity and the like -- I'm just saying that, before launching a new project, we should seriously consider whether it might endanger the already extant projects. Those already extant, and perhaps more important (to the foundation), projects should in no way be limited by the new projects, whether by the danger of unwanted attention they may draw or by any impression that putting off such a project might be a direction toward feaful caution. My entire point is that the integrity of the Wikipedia project must be maintained.
In any case, I'm not even advocating against the adoption and institution of a Chinese Wikinews project. I have nowhere near the familiarity with the details of circumstances needed to make a useful judgment. I'm just advocating a little bit of attention to the very real concerns that may arise in relation to its unintended effects on the Chinese Wikipedia.
By launching the Chinese Wikinews when there are enough interested participants, we could send this clear signal. We could let everyone know that the Wikimedia community is not driven by fear, but by a thirst for knowledge and a desire to share it. If the Chinese government wants to censor a community-driven project whose stated goal is a neutral presentation of the facts on any subject, then let it do so. And then let the Chinese people find out about it.
I'm really not of the opinion that sending any clear signals is anything that we should be trying to do here. The Wikimedia foundation can certainly lead by example, but that should not be its goal or its aim. The Wikimedia Foundation already has a purpose, and doesn't need political advocacy to be added to that. While others may well disagree with me, I'm of the opinion that the "signal" we "send" should in no way be a determining factor in any decisions made about what projects are started and supported.
Much as I'd love to be a part of a revolutionary effort to bring principles of liberty and free speech to the entire world, I don't think that's what the Wikimedia Foundation should be. In fact, I think it does a much, much better job of doing just that by accident than it ever could by design. This is, in fact, one of the reasons that I believe so strongly that Wikipedia is a Good Thing.
Rather than being "bold", as you suggest, I'd recommend that we simply be "true" -- true to the purpose for which, and the principles on which, Wikipedia was created.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Chad Perrin:
Rather than being "bold", as you suggest, I'd recommend that we simply be "true" -- true to the purpose for which, and the principles on which, Wikipedia was created.
Briefly: - Can NPOV in the Chinese WP be respected under the conditions as they are? If not, a principle on which Wikipedia was founded is already being violated. - Chinese WN is not being launched under the same conditions as other WN. As such, an intervention has already been made. In any case, "you cannot not communicate"; through action or inaction, you cannot avoid sending a signal to the Chinese community. We have to carefully observe what the effects of this signal are going to be. - In general, a report from or survey of the Chinese Wikipedia community on NPOV and censorship issues would be very helpful.
Erik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org