On Sep 25, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
We simply communicate to the relevant PRC authorities (through whatever appropriate channels) in detail what we really are: A wiki. We simply expressly explain how things work at the Wikipedia and how our "truth" is mainly formed by two molds: the NPOV and majority rule.
Truth by majority rule. Ouch!
Majority rule is not always compatible with NPOV.
Ec
I'm going to offer different advice, based on some experience in politics on both sides of the pacific. In China, there is a rule of people, not a rule of laws. The best way to get anything accomplished is to make contacts with people in China who make decisions. One of the sensitive projects for China is to develop sources of knowledge which are not encumbered by payments of copyright or intellectual property - since they need the money to by equipment and oil. Wikimedia is an answer, as Linux is an answer, to this problem that they face.
Opening such a channel would take time, and effort, but it will, in the long run, work better than trying to go through the front door. The other component of this is to continue to recruit high quality editors to work on the Chinese wikipedia, so that it becomes more and more valuable as it is. I suspect, at some point, the Chinese government will fork from it, and censor it, as they censor messages to bulletin boards. But that creates its own process - one well understood to people who have to work through it - of finding ways of saying the same thing, without triggering the censor's ire. This is not so much different than working on wiki articles - finding a way to say a particular POV, without upsetting holders of other POVs.
This is not the kind of open and direct process that many westerners on this list will like or be used to, but it is a workable process, and does manage to both make the vast majority of content available, continue the growth of that content, and reach a working understanding.
But above all, it is important to find who is making these decisions and contact them, if they find wikipedia useful, then it will be given the benefit of the doubt. If they find it a threat or a problem, it will be hindered by every means within that person's power. We aren't dealing with a faceless bureaucracy, but with particular people who wikipedia can be seen either as a problem that their superiors press them on, or as a tool to advance their position and the interests of their nation.