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.