...Wikipedia is a threat to closed information, particularly that kind of closed information that governments often dislike: information that undercuts assertions that everything is on track.
Yes, if every other article is about failure of this and breakdown of that, with Falung and Commies and Free Tibet all over the place, I would shut it down too.
I want to see articles about increased privatisation, efforts the government makes in building health, telecom, and transportation infrastructure. I want to see articles about economic growth in Shanghai, about schools in remote locations, about the growing chinese auto assembly and manufacturing capabilities.
These things are happening in China. Not including them in and of itself is admitting western-bias, which, you are right, the Chinese authorities don't look kindly upon.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
Fred
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT) To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
...Wikipedia is a threat to closed information, particularly that kind of closed information that governments often dislike: information that undercuts assertions that everything is on track.
Yes, if every other article is about failure of this and breakdown of that, with Falung and Commies and Free Tibet all over the place, I would shut it down too.
I want to see articles about increased privatisation, efforts the government makes in building health, telecom, and transportation infrastructure. I want to see articles about economic growth in Shanghai, about schools in remote locations, about the growing chinese auto assembly and manufacturing capabilities.
These things are happening in China. Not including them in and of itself is admitting western-bias, which, you are right, the Chinese authorities don't look kindly upon.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
No article at all. It is truly insignificant, if you think about it. When there are 350,000 articles in Chinese about Chinese history, politics, culture and religions, then, a small blurb about efforts by the central govt to curb radicalism that impacted a small number of computer users (anything less than 10 million is small in china.) would be called for.
Let's not focus on the twisted twig while standing in a large forest.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
No article at all. It is truly insignificant, if you think about it. When there are 350,000 articles in Chinese about Chinese history, politics, culture and religions, then, a small blurb about efforts by the central govt to curb radicalism that impacted a small number of computer users (anything less than 10 million is small in china.) would be called for.
Let's not focus on the twisted twig while standing in a large forest.
And ditto for the Tiananmen square articles, since only a couple thousand people died, after all - hardly any at all, percentagewise!
While we're at it, I think there are a bunch of other governments who would like us to remove certain articles. We could surpass "neutral point of view" by being "completely neutered"...
Stan
Stan is being sarcastic, but how would that article be handled?
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:59:22 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
No article at all. It is truly insignificant, if you think about it. When there are 350,000 articles in Chinese about Chinese history, politics, culture and religions, then, a small blurb about efforts by the central govt to curb radicalism that impacted a small number of computer users (anything less than 10 million is small in china.) would be called for.
Let's not focus on the twisted twig while standing in a large forest.
And ditto for the Tiananmen square articles, since only a couple thousand people died, after all - hardly any at all, percentagewise!
While we're at it, I think there are a bunch of other governments who would like us to remove certain articles. We could surpass "neutral point of view" by being "completely neutered"...
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Stan is being sarcastic, but how would that article be handled?
Like I said, no article.
We're building an encyclopedia, not an activist website.
You have to realize that there are reasons the chinese government suppresses news. Just as there are in every country.
In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to show grossly mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets people.
Just because we're npov does not mean that we can't work within the legal frameworks of various countries.
I would say that if there was an article which talked about computing in china, and the article was well-written, balanced, showing on the one hand how computer enthusiasts have "pushed the envelope" and how the government "reins them in", I might see a blurb about the subject at hand.
Let's not forget that the US has draconian laws regarding online behavior and that many people around the world can't understand why we put up with them. It's our way, it's not perfect, but it works ok. Likewise the chinese way.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
CM> You have to realize that there are reasons the chinese government CM> suppresses news. Just as there are in every country.
Don't forget that Chinese Wikipedia not used only in PRC, though.
I agree with this again.
I also think, in the long run, it is worth to drop a couple of topics, or at least to try not to focus to strongly on them, rather than having the whole project blocked.
Is that censorship ?
Well... self-censorship, perhaps.
But * the day clitoris pictures are put on the english wikipedia without causing an uproar (because clitoris are shoking and might get wikipedia censored in schools) * the day we can put ethnic statistics on the french wikipedia without causing an uproar (because "races" do not exist and publishing stats might get wikipedia shut down for publishing illegal information)
we can talk again about self-censorship :-)
Note that I am not saying they should not be npov within articles.
ant
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Stan is being sarcastic, but how would that article be handled?
Like I said, no article.
We're building an encyclopedia, not an activist website.
You have to realize that there are reasons the chinese government suppresses news. Just as there are in every country.
In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to show grossly mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets people.
Just because we're npov does not mean that we can't work within the legal frameworks of various countries.
I would say that if there was an article which talked about computing in china, and the article was well-written, balanced, showing on the one hand how computer enthusiasts have "pushed the envelope" and how the government "reins them in", I might see a blurb about the subject at hand.
Let's not forget that the US has draconian laws regarding online behavior and that many people around the world can't understand why we put up with them. It's our way, it's not perfect, but it works ok. Likewise the chinese way.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Is that censorship ?
Well... self-censorship, perhaps.
But
- the day clitoris pictures are put on the english wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because clitoris are shoking and might get wikipedia censored in schools)
- the day we can put ethnic statistics on the french wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because "races" do not exist and publishing stats might get wikipedia shut down for publishing illegal information)
You should note that the clitoris pictures currently are, and have been for upwards of a year, included in the English Wikipedia.
Also, nobody has seriously suggested removing them: the argument has been over whether to have them inline or linked. There is no measurable support for actually suppressing their availability, so I don't see the similarity---they will be there in some shape or form regardless of which side in the argument prevails.
-Mark
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Is that censorship ?
Well... self-censorship, perhaps.
But
- the day clitoris pictures are put on the english wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because clitoris are shoking and might get wikipedia censored in schools)
- the day we can put ethnic statistics on the french wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because "races" do not exist and publishing stats might get wikipedia shut down for publishing illegal information)
You should note that the clitoris pictures currently are, and have been for upwards of a year, included in the English Wikipedia.
Also, nobody has seriously suggested removing them: the argument has been over whether to have them inline or linked. There is no measurable support for actually suppressing their availability, so I don't see the similarity---they will be there in some shape or form regardless of which side in the argument prevails.
-Mark
I saw with interest that they were online for the time being, which doesnot hide the *true fact* they were rather heated discussions on this topic several times for about 18 months as I remember it.
My memory is not so short :-)
But as you perfectly well say, a lot of the argument was whether they should be inline OR linked. And it did appear agreeable to a *sizeable* part of the community that the image should be censored INLINE, but could appear as external links.
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
Especially if these links lead to the english wikipedia for example ?
There is no difference with a LINKED clitoris, since people can still access the information.
Just as it is helping some american deal with a clitoris picture without fully censoring the information, it might help the chinese government without fully censoring the information. It might just help recognise local sensibilities.
How different is that ?
Anthere wrote:
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
I'm not sure how to easily do this --- we'd still have to have it on Wikipedia if we want to make the information available ourselves, and to have it available in Chinese (having an article in English does no good for people who don't speak English). With the [[en:clitoris]] article, there wasn't any talk of moving it to an external server or anything of that sort---it was still right there on wikipedia.org for anyone to view.
-Mark
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
The problem is no one in a wiki can stop anyone else from editing an article. A "short" article on any subject, especial those closely related to the people, would soon be expanded by contributors. And I don't like the idea of self-censorship too: for a Chinese national living in Singapore for almost five years, I learn from my own experiences that self-censorship sometimes can be even worse than government-imposed censorships: people would just be too concerned if their opinions or descriptions have "crossed the line", and often result in more conservative writings.
I think I would accept the result where some of the "sensitive" articles to be filtered off automatically. These articles would remain in Chinese Wikipedia, but mainland Chinese would not be able to see these pages (unless through proxy). It would be much better than banning the whole site, or periodically blocking us on very "special" dates. However this is not something that we can decide.
Chinese government is fascist? No, but I believe most Chinese would want to see a more liberal and democratic China as soon as possible, though not through revolutions or violence as in 1989.
User:formulax
Jiong Sheng a écrit:
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
The problem is no one in a wiki can stop anyone else from editing an article. A "short" article on any subject, especial those closely related to the people, would soon be expanded by contributors. And I don't like the idea of self-censorship too: for a Chinese national living in Singapore for almost five years, I learn from my own experiences that self-censorship sometimes can be even worse than government-imposed censorships: people would just be too concerned if their opinions or descriptions have "crossed the line", and often result in more conservative writings.
I think I would accept the result where some of the "sensitive" articles to be filtered off automatically. These articles would remain in Chinese Wikipedia, but mainland Chinese would not be able to see these pages (unless through proxy). It would be much better than banning the whole site, or periodically blocking us on very "special" dates. However this is not something that we can decide.
Chinese government is fascist? No, but I believe most Chinese would want to see a more liberal and democratic China as soon as possible, though not through revolutions or violence as in 1989.
User:formulax
I understand all that very much formulax. There is no easy way. But I believe more in attempts to "turn the governement opinion" in a way to have more friendly feelings toward wikipedia, than in forcing attempts such as * sending a press release to shame it * calling for a lawyer (a solution suggested last june) to attack it
There is no good path imho in use of force and shame.
Obviously, trying to apply things like * focusing on articles showing the greatness of the country * being careful on topics likely to raise censorship are no easy things to do. People have to agree collectively to do so, and people have to not censor themselves more than necessarily.
It is difficult.
I might add something though. When the encyclopedists Diderot and co wrote the Encyclopédie, they had to be agreeable to the King. For many articles, there was no upfront criticism, the criticism of our monarchy was quite subtile, seen in the cross links, in the references provided.
Similarly, famous writers, such as Molière or Voltaire succeeded to play or publish ferocious criticisms of a governement system which "was" applying censorship. They succeeded to do it by using various paths, most not using direct confrontation.
I guess using such methods avoided them to be plain put in jail and have their head severed, and allowed their genious writing to cross the centuries and have impact. That was worth it.
Anthere-
But as you perfectly well say, a lot of the argument was whether they should be inline OR linked. And it did appear agreeable to a *sizeable* part of the community that the image should be censored INLINE, but could appear as external links.
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
Especially if these links lead to the english wikipedia for example ?
There is no difference with a LINKED clitoris, since people can still access the information.
You're absolutely correct, there is no difference. That's why I objected so strongly to the "let's link offensive materials" argument when it came up. Any such choice we make is inherently POV. Only if we provide image and text metadata and let the reader decide what they want to see we are in the realm of NPOV, but only if we view or hide everything by default.
Regards,
Erik
I think that rather than go that way, into a little bit of censorship, we ought to go the other way and make sure they know that we welcome their side of the story, provided it is properly attributed. For example I recently put into external links all of their white papers on Tibet. That may not be enough but is at least the start of a win win approach.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:46:51 +0200 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia in China
Now... I ask the question. Why would it be shocking to provide a """short""" article on this board issue (the closing of the board in China) and invite the reader to have further information by following external links ?
Especially if these links lead to the english wikipedia for example ?
There is no difference with a LINKED clitoris, since people can still access the information.
Just as it is helping some american deal with a clitoris picture without fully censoring the information, it might help the chinese government without fully censoring the information. It might just help recognise local sensibilities.
How different is that ?
Anthere wrote:
I agree with this again.
I also think, in the long run, it is worth to drop a couple of topics, or at least to try not to focus to strongly on them, rather than having the whole project blocked.
Is that censorship ?
Well... self-censorship, perhaps.
Hmm...not sure where this will lead. Presumably user pages will also be censored, as are certain politically sensitive user names. And of course, as part of the registration process, users should also digitally pledge that they are not members of certain organizations.
But
- the day clitoris pictures are put on the english wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because clitoris are shoking and might get wikipedia censored in schools)
- the day we can put ethnic statistics on the french wikipedia without
causing an uproar (because "races" do not exist and publishing stats might get wikipedia shut down for publishing illegal information)
we can talk again about self-censorship :-)
There is a difference, though, between editors and readers "causing an uproar" (which is arguably a mark of a healthy wiki) and a state "causing an uproar". As Wikipedia is a wiki, it'd be nice if state agents actually show up and cause such an uproar (even the vandalism kind), but that does not seem to be the case here.
Christopher-
In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to show grossly mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
Does this information endanger and upset people? Yes, it endangers the soldiers who committed abuse and their superiors who tolerated or ordered it, and it upsets those who strongly believe that US troops don't commit such acts of brutality.
Should it be removed? Of course not. It is education where it matters. It is education that can prevent suffering. Similar information, where it applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
You may call that "activism", and you do have a point. If you know anything about the history of encyclopedias, you know that they were born out of enlightenment ideals (and not very NPOV!). People like Diderot deliberately tried to "upset" the status quo in many ways.
We are not like the original encyclopedias in that we don't deliberately promote specific agendas (at least we try not to). But certainly it would make us a parody of an encyclopedia if we went out of our way to prevent information from being distributed that could lead to social change -- it would be the exact opposite of what the original encyclopedists wanted.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Christopher-
In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to show grossly mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets people.
Withholding the names of underage rape victims is based on protecting the rights of the victims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
Does this information endanger and upset people? Yes, it endangers the soldiers who committed abuse and their superiors who tolerated or ordered it, and it upsets those who strongly believe that US troops don't commit such acts of brutality.
How does it endanger them any more than they endangered themselves. Those who don't believe that this sort of thing is happening need upsetting.
Should it be removed? Of course not. It is education where it matters. It is education that can prevent suffering. Similar information, where it applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
AFAIK the Chinese army is not engaging in adventures on the other side of the globe.
You may call that "activism", and you do have a point. If you know anything about the history of encyclopedias, you know that they were born out of enlightenment ideals (and not very NPOV!). People like Diderot deliberately tried to "upset" the status quo in many ways.
We are not like the original encyclopedias in that we don't deliberately promote specific agendas (at least we try not to). But certainly it would make us a parody of an encyclopedia if we went out of our way to prevent information from being distributed that could lead to social change -- it would be the exact opposite of what the original encyclopedists wanted.
The original encyclopedists can oly be judged in the light of their own times. NPOV is radical specific agenda, and it does upset the status quo. That's just fine. Microsoft's and Disney's status quo of maintaining proprietary rights on anything that isn't nailed down are just a small part of the status que that we are confronting.
Ec
There have been instances where Chinese troops have been undisciplined. All it proves is that people who have been desperately poor all their lives were tempted by wristwatches and ballpoint pens.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:11:38 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
Similar information, where it
applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder wrote:
There have been instances where Chinese troops have been undisciplined.
That's a product of the military mentality. The rank-and-file military is not drawn from the upper socio-economic strata of a society. Such examples can be drawn from many countries. The first things that recruits are taught is to march in step. That's a part of insuring that they will ride like Tennyson's 600 into the Valley of Death.
All it proves is that people who have been desperately poor all their lives were tempted by wristwatches and ballpoint pens.
Again, this is not uniquely Chinese, or a specific reflection on the current government of China. It's been over 20 years since I visited India, but at that time I would encounter Indian government employees ogling the cheap ballpoint pens that I carried in my shirt pocket. It may me feel that if I ever went back to India I should do so with an ample supply of cheap pens for use in convincing officials about the right decisions.
Ec
Should it be removed? Of course not. It is education where it matters. It is education that can prevent suffering. Similar information, where it applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
RS> AFAIK the Chinese army is not engaging in adventures on the other side RS> of the globe.
Ever heard of Tibet?
Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Should it be removed? Of course not. It is education where it matters. It is education that can prevent suffering. Similar information, where it applies, should be published about the Chinese government, the Chinese troops, on the Chinese Wikipedia.
RS> AFAIK the Chinese army is not engaging in adventures on the other side RS> of the globe.
Ever heard of Tibet?
Tibet is not on the other side of the globe. At least it has a border with China. That situation is not comparable to the Iraqi fuck-up.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tibet is not on the other side of the globe. At least it has a border with China. That situation is not comparable to the Iraqi fuck-up.
Indeed, there is no reasonable way to compare the abhorrent Chinese atrocities in Tibet, which have included mass forced migrations and attacks on religious shrines, to the comparatively mild US atrocities in Iraq.
-Mark
On 24 Sep 2004, at 22:10, Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tibet is not on the other side of the globe. At least it has a border with China. That situation is not comparable to the Iraqi fuck-up.
Indeed, there is no reasonable way to compare the abhorrent Chinese atrocities in Tibet, which have included mass forced migrations and attacks on religious shrines, to the comparatively mild US atrocities in Iraq.
-Mark
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians? Like the mild scattering of depleted uranium all over the country? Like the mild killings of journalists? Like the mild forcing of people out of certain areas as before the also mild siege of Fallujah? Like the mild shelling of Mosques?
Not to forget the mild murder of Iraqi POVs. And the mild torture of Iraqi POVs. And the mild flouting of the U.N and mild U.N.-confirmed breach of international law that was invading the country in the first place. And the mild taking of civilian hostages by U.S. forces. (I ain't making this up -- the U.S. arrested in large numbers the wifes of *suspected* Iraqi resistance fighters to blackmail their husbands to lay down their arms. (Iraqis have a right to bear arms.) Note that these women were civilians who had not committed any crimes. Add to that the fact that it is internationally known and established by even U.S. military tribunals that Iraqi civilians have previously been tortured and killed while in U.S. custody and you should get an idea why the current despicable acts of Iraqis abducting and killing U.S. civilians didn't come out of the blue. What would YOU do if a militarily superior foreign army occupying your country were to suspect you of being a resistance fighter, possibly purely based on what area you live in? What would you do if your wife then got arrested by an occupying force which you know has previously tortured and killed people they arrest? I'm asking you to seriously follow through this thought experiment: How do you think you would react?)
Mild indeed.
To my mind, Ray's choice of words--"fuck-up"--is FAR more accurate.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 24 Sep 2004, at 22:27, Jens Ropers wrote:
On 24 Sep 2004, at 22:10, Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tibet is not on the other side of the globe. At least it has a border with China. That situation is not comparable to the Iraqi fuck-up.
Indeed, there is no reasonable way to compare the abhorrent Chinese atrocities in Tibet, which have included mass forced migrations and attacks on religious shrines, to the comparatively mild US atrocities in Iraq.
-Mark
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians? Like the mild scattering of depleted uranium all over the country? Like the mild killings of journalists? Like the mild forcing of people out of certain areas as before the also mild siege of Fallujah? Like the mild shelling of Mosques?
Jens Ropers wrote:
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians?
Apparently you are either an idiot or read indymedia for your news, as Napalm has not been used in a war for decades.
Meanwhile, the atrocities in Tibet are well documented.
In any case, the point is that the en: wikipedia should have documented US atrocities, like [[Abu Ghraib]], and the zh: Wikipedia should have documented Chinese atrocities. Advocating removing either of them is unacceptable.
-Mark
For the US, the analog to Tibet would be the overthrow of the monarchy and annexation of Hawaii, or the slaughtering of Native Americans and forcing them to live on undesirable land.
When trying to make this more prominent in the [[Hawaii]] article, folks, including myself, were met immediately with abusive responses from fellow users - "ignorant," "intellectually dishonest," "childish," "blow your own horn."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hawaii/archive2#Hawaii_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hawaii#Bias_against_sovereignty_position
Nationalistic groupthink is exhibited in many articles, not just China related ones.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:23:46 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians?
Apparently you are either an idiot or read indymedia for your news, as Napalm has not been used in a war for decades.
Meanwhile, the atrocities in Tibet are well documented.
In any case, the point is that the en: wikipedia should have documented US atrocities, like [[Abu Ghraib]], and the zh: Wikipedia should have documented Chinese atrocities. Advocating removing either of them is unacceptable.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
BRAVO!
On 25 Sep 2004, at 00:01, Andrew Lih wrote:
For the US, the analog to Tibet would be the overthrow of the monarchy and annexation of Hawaii, or the slaughtering of Native Americans and forcing them to live on undesirable land.
When trying to make this more prominent in the [[Hawaii]] article, folks, including myself, were met immediately with abusive responses from fellow users - "ignorant," "intellectually dishonest," "childish," "blow your own horn."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hawaii/archive2#Hawaii_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk: Hawaii#Bias_against_sovereignty_position
Nationalistic groupthink is exhibited in many articles, not just China related ones.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
For the US, the analog to Tibet would be the overthrow of the monarchy and annexation of Hawaii, or the slaughtering of Native Americans and forcing them to live on undesirable land.
Both circumstances which took place over a century ago and are now universally deplored among our citizens and leaders alike. Modern times demand modern ideals, not arrogant attempts at dynasty.
When trying to make this more prominent in the [[Hawaii]] article, folks, including myself, were met immediately with abusive responses from fellow users - "ignorant," "intellectually dishonest," "childish," "blow your own horn."
As I recall, the overthrow of the monarchy was not state-sponsored, but rather a sort of personal coup undertaken unilaterally by our diplomats and condemned at the time by President Cleveland. I also seem to recall that the monarchy was restored, with annexation occuring after only after it collapsed on itself years later and everyone expected the United States to pick up the pieces (it was, after all, "our mess"). Perhaps the Philippines would be a better analogy.
Murdering Indians is bad. You'll hear no excuses from me on the matter. That said, neither I nor any of my ancestors have ever knowingly killed an aboriginal native of the American continent, so don't kick my ass about it.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Austin Hair wrote:
For the US, the analog to Tibet would be the overthrow of the monarchy and annexation of Hawaii, or the slaughtering of Native Americans and forcing them to live on undesirable land.
Both circumstances which took place over a century ago and are now universally deplored among our citizens and leaders alike. Modern times demand modern ideals, not arrogant attempts at dynasty.
That would be nice. Instead of hereditary kings we have the corprate ideals of Brown & Root in Vietnam and of Haliburton in Iraq.
When trying to make this more prominent in the [[Hawaii]] article, folks, including myself, were met immediately with abusive responses from fellow users - "ignorant," "intellectually dishonest," "childish," "blow your own horn."
As I recall, the overthrow of the monarchy was not state-sponsored, but rather a sort of personal coup undertaken unilaterally by our diplomats and condemned at the time by President Cleveland. I also seem to recall that the monarchy was restored, with annexation occuring after only after it collapsed on itself years later and everyone expected the United States to pick up the pieces (it was, after all, "our mess"). Perhaps the Philippines would be a better analogy.
Plausible deniability. Who was around during the Clinton administration that was directly affected by the sins of the Cleveland administration? It's easy to apologize when it's too late for any other meaningful act. The Catholic Church recently even apologized to Gallileo. Without even getting into whether the Bay of Pigs invasion was a good idea the fact is that the Kennedy administration was quick to distance itself from that operation when it saw that it was turning into a complete failure. What kind of an ally is that?
By allowing free enterprise to start the problems the US govenment can then reject its surrogates when things are going too badly, or send in the marching bands when there's glory to be had.
Murdering Indians is bad. You'll hear no excuses from me on the matter. That said, neither I nor any of my ancestors have ever knowingly killed an aboriginal native of the American continent, so don't kick my ass about it.
This is a question of collective guilt, not individual guilt. Of course those whose families did not immigrate into the US until after that time had no connection with the event.
Ec
That would be nice. Instead of hereditary kings we have the corprate ideals of Brown & Root in Vietnam and of Haliburton in Iraq.
Are you trying to be sardonic? I don't know about you, but I prefer the idea of a meritocracy to its converse.
Plausible deniability. Who was around during the Clinton administration that was directly affected by the sins of the Cleveland administration? It's easy to apologize when it's too late for any other meaningful act. The Catholic Church recently even apologized to Gallileo. Without even getting into whether the Bay of Pigs invasion was a good idea the fact is that the Kennedy administration was quick to distance itself from that operation when it saw that it was turning into a complete failure. What kind of an ally is that?
You may want to take a moment and think about what you're saying. We're talking about the Cleveland administration, after all, a period of time during which the most urgent of diplomatic messages took *weeks* to deliver. Even the wildest conspiracy theories don't propose such orchestration, in part because "plausible deniability" was an entirely alien (and unnecessary -- consider Manifest Destiny) concept.
By allowing free enterprise to start the problems the US govenment can then reject its surrogates when things are going too badly, or send in the marching bands when there's glory to be had.
Brilliance.
This is a question of collective guilt, not individual guilt. Of course those whose families did not immigrate into the US until after that time had no connection with the event.
And those whose great-great-great uncles were plantation slaves do?
Ec
On 24 Sep 2004, at 23:23, Delirium wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians?
Apparently you are either an idiot or read indymedia for your news, as Napalm has not been used in a war for decades.
I do not read indymedia for my news. (Google just told me that indymedia.org was an apparently non-mainstream news website. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.)
Yet I understand your exasperation. I would be exasperated too if my government invaded and napalm-bombed foreign countries. (I'm assuming here that you're a U.S. citizen, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
HOWEVER: It might be a good idea to first do a quick Google search before calling people names:
* The Age (Australian newspaper) http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/23/1048354475977.html? oneclick=true
Interestingly, even the Pentagon's denial (what do you expect?) of the facts U.S. Marine officers repeatedly confirmed (the use of napalm in Iraq) contained the admission that napalm has been used in 1993. So even if you choose to doubt the integrity of your actual troops on the ground and trust the Pentagon's statement instead, then you'd still have to explain how "used in 1993" is "not used in decades".
Finally, this article explains that discrepancy:
NAPALM BY ANOTHER NAME: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145870882.html? oneclick=true
<irony> So I apologize for maliciously drawing the noble and good name of the U.S. military through the mud. If it acts like napalm but just happens to contain ''slightly'' different chemicals, ''plus added oxidisers'', then of course it's ''totally irresponsible'' to call the substance napalm. Jayzuz, that would be like--like calling a land rover a jeep! Or calling a whirlpool a jacuzzi!! Or--gasp--calling photocopying xeroxing!!! How TOTALLY inaccurate!!!! </irony>
No, I don't want you to apologize for publicly insulting me. I want you to do something else instead: Watch a film that actually contains footage of a U.S. soldier mentioning napalm use in Iraq and shows actual napalm inflicted wounds. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be happy to call it quits between us.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Jens Ropers wrote:
No, I don't want you to apologize for publicly insulting me. I want you to do something else instead: Watch a film that actually contains footage of a U.S. soldier mentioning napalm use in Iraq and shows actual napalm inflicted wounds. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be happy to call it quits between us.
Or if you want something with less showmanship than what Moore tends to exhibit try http://csis.org/features/040922_IraqiMinisterVisit.pdf for an analysis of the current situation in Iraq.
Ec
Huh? There's no mention of napalm in there at all AFAICT? I'm not saying it's a bad document, it's just not at all about the napalm issue.
-- ropers
On 25 Sep 2004, at 08:40, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
No, I don't want you to apologize for publicly insulting me. I want you to do something else instead: Watch a film that actually contains footage of a U.S. soldier mentioning napalm use in Iraq and shows actual napalm inflicted wounds. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be happy to call it quits between us.
Or if you want something with less showmanship than what Moore tends to exhibit try http://csis.org/features/040922_IraqiMinisterVisit.pdf for an analysis of the current situation in Iraq.
Ec
I wasn't concerned specifically about napalm. It's just one evil weapon among others. Fahrenheit 9/11 is about more than just napalm. Ec
Jens Ropers wrote:
Huh? There's no mention of napalm in there at all AFAICT? I'm not saying it's a bad document, it's just not at all about the napalm issue.
-- ropers
On 25 Sep 2004, at 08:40, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
No, I don't want you to apologize for publicly insulting me. I want you to do something else instead: Watch a film that actually contains footage of a U.S. soldier mentioning napalm use in Iraq and shows actual napalm inflicted wounds. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be happy to call it quits between us.
Or if you want something with less showmanship than what Moore tends to exhibit try http://csis.org/features/040922_IraqiMinisterVisit.pdf for an analysis of the current situation in Iraq.
Ec
Ok, granted, ''you'' may not have talked specifically about napalm.
''I'' however -- after this email
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-September/ 017502.html
-- I still expect word from Delirium that he has seen the film.
Because as I pointed out in this email
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-September/ 017508.html
Delirium has rudely insulted me and called me an "idiot".
_I find being called an "idiot" on a mailing list quite unacceptable._
I have made it clear to Delirium what he needs to do to make up for defiling me in public. My demands are ''easily'' accomplishable and I have a right to expect of a person who has slurred me for no good reason to make reasonable amends. In that sense, discussions of another PDF or non-napalm F9/11 issues are off-topic to me. If Delirium is a man of honor he will make said amends and then we can consider both our names cleared, forget about the matter and continue collaborating in good faith. The ball is in his court.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
On 25 Sep 2004, at 19:59, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I wasn't concerned specifically about napalm. It's just one evil weapon among others. Fahrenheit 9/11 is about more than just napalm. Ec
Jens Ropers wrote:
Huh? There's no mention of napalm in there at all AFAICT? I'm not saying it's a bad document, it's just not at all about the napalm issue.
-- ropers
On 25 Sep 2004, at 08:40, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
No, I don't want you to apologize for publicly insulting me. I want you to do something else instead: Watch a film that actually contains footage of a U.S. soldier mentioning napalm use in Iraq and shows actual napalm inflicted wounds. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'll be happy to call it quits between us.
Or if you want something with less showmanship than what Moore tends to exhibit try http://csis.org/features/040922_IraqiMinisterVisit.pdf for an analysis of the current situation in Iraq.
Ec
Delirium wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians?
Apparently you are either an idiot or read indymedia for your news, as Napalm has not been used in a war for decades.
Meanwhile, the atrocities in Tibet are well documented.
But don't forget the British responsibility in that. China was allowed to walk into Tibet as a reward for their resistance to the Japanese.
Ec
On Sep 24, 2004, at 9:48 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Jens Ropers wrote:
Like the mild napalm-bombing of civilians?
Apparently you are either an idiot or read indymedia for your news, as Napalm has not been used in a war for decades.
Meanwhile, the atrocities in Tibet are well documented.
But don't forget the British responsibility in that. China was allowed to walk into Tibet as a reward for their resistance to the Japanese.
Ec
This sounds like it belongs on the Tibet discussion page.
More practically is the question of how to deal with the problems of blocking of the Chinese Simplified Wikipedia.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:53 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But don't forget the British responsibility in that. China was allowed to walk into Tibet as a reward for their resistance to the Japanese.
I understood that their reasons were mostly to keep out the Russians without incurring the cost of colonizing Tibet themselves.
Andre Engels
This is thinking regarding [[The Great Game]], an existing article. However it does not contain any information regard Tibet as yet.
Fred
From: "Andre Engels" andrewiki@freemail.nl Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:38:42 +0200 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:53 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But don't forget the British responsibility in that. China was allowed to walk into Tibet as a reward for their resistance to the Japanese.
I understood that their reasons were mostly to keep out the Russians without incurring the cost of colonizing Tibet themselves.
Andre Engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is thinking regarding [[The Great Game]], an existing article. However it does not contain any information regard Tibet as yet.
Thanks for pointing this out. My last comments were made before I read this and the cited article. It certainly fits into the general scheme of things. Put simply, the Afghans and others don't want foreigners running their affairs, and they'll fight off both sides if they have to. That certain invading foreigners might be called communists is of no consequence. A foreigner is a foreigner.
Ec
Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:48:53 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But don't forget the British responsibility in that. China was allowed to walk into Tibet as a reward for their resistance to the Japanese.
I understood that their reasons were mostly to keep out the Russians without incurring the cost of colonizing Tibet themselves.
That too.
Britain and Russia have always had rocky relations, and that goes back to long before the communist regime took over in 1917. The British had ships in the Persian Gulf in the early 1600s out of concern for Russia; it had Russia in mind during the Afghan wars. The Crimean War was a direct confrontation with Russia. The British have always been concerned about the Russians having southern sea access. I would need to dig deeper to understand why, but perhaps it felt a threat to its naval dominance. In the course of these geo-political wranglings backward local tribes like the Tibetans and the Kurds could easily be sacrificed to Britain's greater good.
Ec
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Stan is being sarcastic, but how would that article be handled?
Like I said, no article.
We're building an encyclopedia, not an activist website.
Exactly: look up the definition of encyclopedia. If we are excluding notable information because it is politically unpopular, we are not an encyclopedia, but propaganda. I would rather have no Chinese Wikipedia than an overtly propagandist Chinese Wikipedia.
-Mark
In the US, for example, the press is not supposed to show grossly mutilated bodies. Also, they are not allowed to release the names of underage rape victims. Why is that? Because it endangers and upsets people.
This is a matter of journalistic standards, not a matter of law -- many publications can and do show such photos. Neither is there a law prohibiting the release of underage rape victims' names, although newspapers can't print what the authorities don't tell them (and wouldn't if they did -- again, though, it's not a matter of being illegal, but rather of adherence to an ethical code drilled into their heads during journalism school).
Let's not forget that the US has draconian laws regarding online behavior and that many people around the world can't understand why we put up with them. It's our way, it's not perfect, but it works ok. Likewise the chinese way.
IP law and cryptography controls are regretable, but of marginal impact. I, however, give the rest of the world credit for having the mental capacity to comprehend our government's reasoning.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Like I said, no article.
We're building an encyclopedia, not an activist website.
"Having no article" in order to pander to censorship is activism of the worst kind...
I agree with you. If it is to pander to censorship.
However, it is for balance.
If you opened a book about French history, and the entire book was about the french atrocities in Algeria in the 50's, then the book would be biased, because if didn't mention the rest of the 1600 years and the contributions of countless millions. If the book's title was: "French atrocities in Algeria", it would be apropos. But if the book's title was "The History of France" then that would be wrong, no matter how correct the content was itself.
I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Sep 26, 2004, at 3:05 AM, Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Like I said, no article.
We're building an encyclopedia, not an activist website.
"Having no article" in order to pander to censorship is activism of the worst kind...
I agree with you. If it is to pander to censorship.
However, it is for balance.
If you opened a book about French history, and the entire book was about the french atrocities in Algeria in the 50's, then the book would be biased, because if didn't mention the rest of the 1600 years and the contributions of countless millions. If the book's title was: "French atrocities in Algeria", it would be apropos. But if the book's title was "The History of France" then that would be wrong, no matter how correct the content was itself.
I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
It might be gauche to point this out, but the long digression on the state of the Chinese government isn't relevant to the present question. The present question is not "what would I do if I were in the shoes of someone deciding which sites to censor?" But "what do we do to deal with present attempts to censor wikipedia."
If you feel that there are articles that need balancing, then by all means, balance them - it is part of the work we do here, balancing articles, particularly those that have been tilted by common, but narrow, points of view.
However, that is beside the point, in that many of the entities that decide, or will decide in the future, to censor Wikipedia will not care about the process, but about whether the bottom line meets their needs. This means that wiki will often be censored even, or perhaps especially, when there are POVs documented in an article which upset various holders of the status quo.
This kind of POV processing isn't what will respond to the situation, without some feedback mechanism, we could be altering information that has nothing to do with why wikipedia is being blocked. Anyone who has dealt with the decision to make secret or classify information knows that often information is not classified for reasons that are rational to the outside world. Censoring and blocking is the same way. Articles on websites are censored or blocked, as often as not, based on algorythms: banning all sites that contain certain percentages of certain words. For all anyone here knows, wiki was blocked by a program, and then later unblocked by a human being who realized that the block was not appropriate.
Until there is some data - which can only be acquired by opening lines into the PRC - this discussion is a reflection about how people feel about China, and not about how to make sure that wiki is accessible to its user base, who are the people who we should be more focused on.
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
And ditto for the Tiananmen square articles, since only a couple thousand people died, after all - hardly any at all, percentagewise!
No, not ditto for the Tiananmen stuff. Yes it's horrible, but did you know that a 1850 rebellion cause 50 million deaths in China? Where's that article?
Look at the whole filtering of internet content in america's school and libraries. It's been raging now for a while, with no end in sight. But nobody gets killed. Let's keep things in perspective.
While we're at it, I think there are a bunch of other governments who would like us to remove certain articles. We could surpass "neutral point of view" by being "completely neutered"...
Yes, the US government (bombmaking, etc) , the UK government (a very recent letter on this very mailing list, or is it the other? about the academy for gifted kids), the French government (Nazi stuff), etc. These are the Enlightened countries, with a history seeped in freedom of speech and protection from government interference.
If you want to take the fight for freedom, look no further than your own local city hall, and let the Chinese deal with their 1.3 billion people (perspective: That's more people than North America and Europa combined). Doing anything else will invariably bring accusations of NPOV.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
And ditto for the Tiananmen square articles, since only a couple thousand people died, after all - hardly any at all, percentagewise!
No, not ditto for the Tiananmen stuff. Yes it's horrible, but did you know that a 1850 rebellion cause 50 million deaths in China? Where's that article?
Look at the whole filtering of internet content in america's school and libraries. It's been raging now for a while, with no end in sight. But nobody gets killed. Let's keep things in perspective.
Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. In a wiki you're not going to get very far trying to order people to write on subject A before they write on subject B, and if your purpose is to appease governments, for many editors that's all the excuse they need to write in even more depth on the subjects you're wanting to avoid.
If persons in the PRC want to risk real-world punishment by reading or writing disapproved material, that's a judgement they have to make for themselves; there's nobody on the outside qualified to make that choice for them.
Stan
Stan Shebs a écrit:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
And ditto for the Tiananmen square articles, since only a couple thousand people died, after all - hardly any at all, percentagewise!
No, not ditto for the Tiananmen stuff. Yes it's horrible, but did you know that a 1850 rebellion cause 50 million deaths in China? Where's that article? Look at the whole filtering of internet content in america's school and libraries. It's been raging now for a while, with no end in sight. But nobody gets killed. Let's keep things in perspective.
Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. In a wiki you're not going to get very far trying to order people to write on subject A before they write on subject B, and if your purpose is to appease governments, for many editors that's all the excuse they need to write in even more depth on the subjects you're wanting to avoid.
If persons in the PRC want to risk real-world punishment by reading or writing disapproved material, that's a judgement they have to make for themselves; there's nobody on the outside qualified to make that choice for them.
Stan
He did not say that. This can only be a self-decision of course.
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Yes, the US government (bombmaking, etc) , the UK government (a very
recent letter on this very mailing list, or is it the other? about the academy for gifted kids), the French government (Nazi stuff), etc. These are the Enlightened countries, with a history seeped in freedom of speech and protection from government interference.
I believe we're making every effort possible to fight these as well. Wikipedia is currently hosted in the US partly as an accident of origins, and partly because it seems to have the strongest free-speech protection laws (to actually make us take anything down would take a difficult-to-win court case). If it's determined that there's a better place for it, I'd be all for moving it there, but I certainly don't support taking things down simply because he US, UK, French, or some other government dislikes them. If we're legally forced to remove something by a court with jurisdiction over the Wikipedia servers, then I suppose we'd have to do so as a temporary measure until we can find a way to move the servers, but that's about the only possible justification I can think of for removing such information.
-Mark
Christopher Mahan wrote:
No, not ditto for the Tiananmen stuff. Yes it's horrible, but did you know that a 1850 rebellion cause 50 million deaths in China? Where's that article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_Ping_Rebellion
Yes, the US government (bombmaking, etc),
There is no law in the US which would prevent Wikipedia from publishing detailed bomb-making instructions, despite Senator Feinstein's (D-California) ongoing efforts.
If the US government does attempt to ban speech that properly goes into our encyclopedia, we should disboey that law.
the UK government (a very recent letter on this very mailing list, or is it the other? about the academy for gifted kids),
I think that can *hardly* be classed as an attempt to censor wikipedia, by the UK government. It was a routine complaint about a bad article, and a request for assistance in understanding the best way to fix it.
But to be clear: if the UK government does attempt to ban speech that properly goes into our encycloepdia, we should disobey that law.
the French government (Nazi stuff),
Again, I have been sharply critical of French government censorship policies, but I do not think that their laws directly impact us. But again to be clear: if the French government does attempt to ban speech that properly goes into our encycloepdia, we should disobey that law.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. And the subcategory of speech that we call NPOV is even _moreso_ a fundamental human right. To outlaw advocacy is deeply wrong, but to outlaw information itself...
--Jimbo
Maybe, but there may be an article, [[censorship]]. What goes in that?
Fred
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:46:55 -0700 (PDT) To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
No article at all. It is truly insignificant, if you think about it. When there are 350,000 articles in Chinese about Chinese history, politics, culture and religions, then, a small blurb about efforts by the central govt to curb radicalism that impacted a small number of computer users (anything less than 10 million is small in china.) would be called for.
Let's not focus on the twisted twig while standing in a large forest.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
We should wait a few days to find out how widespread the "block" is first before coming up with an official response. This was discussed in the #wikimedia IRC channel as well.
In the long run, hopefully the Internet authorities will realize that having Wikipedia accessible in the PRC is generally a good thing. This is basically why Google was unblocked two years ago. So instead of a complete ban, general URL-based "blocking" by their filters would be good enough to cut out what they find problematic. PRC Internet blocking takes place in different tiers - DNS blocking entire site names, URL-based blocking based on keywords, E-mail screening for keywords, etc.
As I mentioned to Jimbo in June's London meetup, the Internet authorities work in a way that resemble how administrators work in Wikipedia - it is a distributed team of folks making decisions, and one department may disagree with another and have a block lifted.
I'm not sure WP admins like being compared to the PRC authorities, however. :)
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:05:05 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Maybe, but there may be an article, [[censorship]]. What goes in that?
Fred
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:46:55 -0700 (PDT) To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
All the things you suggest are good and no problem for the government. I have absolutely no problem with writing about all those good things. But the focus of the government is going to be on things like that BBS that got shut down. Should there be no article? A syncopathic article explaining why it was necessary to shut it down from the government viewpoint? Or an article from a Neutral point of view?
No article at all. It is truly insignificant, if you think about it. When there are 350,000 articles in Chinese about Chinese history, politics, culture and religions, then, a small blurb about efforts by the central govt to curb radicalism that impacted a small number of computer users (anything less than 10 million is small in china.) would be called for.
Let's not focus on the twisted twig while standing in a large forest.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Christopher Mahan wrote:
I would shut it down too.
So you personally oppose freedom of speech, and if you were in a position that you could prohibit people from engaging in speech you disagreed with, you would do so? Sounds very fascist to me.
-Mark
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
...Wikipedia is a threat to closed information, particularly that kind of closed information that governments often dislike: information that undercuts assertions that everything is on track.
Yes, if every other article is about failure of this and breakdown of that, with Falung and Commies and Free Tibet all over the place, I would shut it down too.
I want to see articles about increased privatisation, efforts the government makes in building health, telecom, and transportation infrastructure. I want to see articles about economic growth in Shanghai, about schools in remote locations, about the growing chinese auto assembly and manufacturing capabilities.
These things are happening in China. Not including them in and of itself is admitting western-bias, which, you are right, the Chinese authorities don't look kindly upon.
I totally agree with you here.
I do not mean chinese editors should not talk about the controversial issues, but if they should also take *great care* to talk about the good points above mentionned.
They could make it proeminent that wikipedia is not only talking about failure but also about *success* and perhaps their governement will see it not only as a dangerous tool, but also as a tool to show to non-chinese all the success the chinese can be very proud of.
There is no need to censor failure then, but perhaps only to try to make success a bit more proeminent, to gain some support.
ant
Anthere-
I totally agree with you here.
I do not mean chinese editors should not talk about the controversial issues, but if they should also take *great care* to talk about the good points above mentionned.
I have to disagree here, but I also have to say that I consider the Chinese government nothing but fascism with a red touch. Frankly, I don't see Wikipedia working in such an environment, unless we can provide true anonymity for authors and make the site censorship-resistant, i.e. it would have to be hosted on something like Freenet. I believe Wikimedia should definitely pursue such a strategy, but see little hope of convincing the rest of you guys of this.
I can see your point about hypocrisy, but I have been a consistent advocate against any type of self-censorship on any Wikipedia. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Call me unrealistic, but I'd prefer it if the Chinese Wikipedia upheld its freedom of expression, even if that means that it won't be available to most of the Chinese citizens. Education is meaningless when it is immediately instrumentalized and molded according to the demands of a repressive government. It will be unavailable or turned into propaganda in all the areas where it matters most.
If we take a stand for freedom here, then perhaps this will drive more people to realize the true importance of freedom of speech on the Internet. Let's not give in to those who would have people not think for themselves, whether they're religious fundamentalists in the United States or so-called communists in China. And somehow I have the feeling that our work will outlive both.
Our subtitle, "The Free Encyclopedia", should never invite sarcasm and cynicism. It should be taken literally.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I have to disagree here...
I understand your points of view.
I would rather chinese botanists be able to add articles than have chinese wikipedia permanently blocked because of three dozens articles that incense the reds.
I also agree that self-censorship is bad, but I don't think that's what Ant meant. I think she means that if we are respectful of other people' sensitivities, then a greater good will come out in the end.
I also think that having chinese and non-western editors on w is a great advantage to us, because it demonstrates our commitment to NPOV.
I also agree that the W will outlive just about all current governments, and may even be instrumental in their changing for the better.
For this reason, I suggest we proceed with caution.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 24 Sep 2004, at 03:01, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I also think that having chinese and non-western editors on w is a great advantage to us, because it demonstrates our commitment to NPOV.
I also agree that the W will outlive just about all current governments, and may even be instrumental in their changing for the better.
Please don't abbreviate the Wikipedia as "W". Please use "WP" instead. As of late, I tend to get to feel very, very sick whenever I read "W".
Thank you for your consideration.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2004, at 03:01, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I also think that having chinese and non-western editors on w is
a
great advantage to us, because it demonstrates our commitment to NPOV.
I also agree that the W will outlive just about all current governments, and may even be instrumental in their changing for
the
better.
Please don't abbreviate the Wikipedia as "W". Please use "WP" instead. As of late, I tend to get to feel very, very sick whenever I read "W".
Thank you for your consideration.
Don't censor me man!!!
If you feel sick when you see the double-u, then I suggest you take a few days off and see a specialist. It's a letter of the alphabet, for Pete's Sake!
Why WP? It's not Wiki Pedia, it Wikipedia. One word. Anyway. We've strayed in the land of OT, so I'll go home now...
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2004, at 03:01, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I also think that having chinese and non-western editors on w is
a
great advantage to us, because it demonstrates our commitment to NPOV.
I also agree that the W will outlive just about all current governments, and may even be instrumental in their changing for
the
better.
Please don't abbreviate the Wikipedia as "W". Please use "WP" instead. As of late, I tend to get to feel very, very sick whenever I read "W".
Thank you for your consideration.
Don't censor me man!!!
If you feel sick when you see the double-u, then I suggest you take a few days off and see a specialist. It's a letter of the alphabet, for Pete's Sake!
Why WP? It's not Wiki Pedia, it Wikipedia. One word. Anyway. We've strayed in the land of OT, so I'll go home now...
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There are those who do not just "w" but also wiktionary, etc. Wikipedia-l is the list where many general things are discussed..So it is sloppy but understood. Thanks, GerardM
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
On 24 Sep 2004, at 03:01, Christopher Mahan wrote:
I also think that having chinese and non-western editors on w is a great advantage to us, because it demonstrates our commitment to NPOV.
I also agree that the W will outlive just about all current governments, and may even be instrumental in their changing for the better.
Please don't abbreviate the Wikipedia as "W". Please use "WP" instead.
Hm. May be a problem once WikiPeople is set up. :)
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher-
I think she means that if we are respectful of other people' sensitivities, then a greater good will come out in the end.
The censorship of content about the Chinese government's actions is not in the interest of the many, it is in the interest of the ruling elite. Whose "sensitivities" are really at stake here?
I was as concerned about proceeding with caution when they initially censored us as everyone else. When a really big bully pushes you, you may try to reason with him first. Perhaps you can bribe him, or you can hope that he will pick on the other kids and leave you alone.
But that's what all the other kids do, and that's why the bully has his power in the first place. And if you grant him that power, then he will use it and still abuse you. If at that point you are worried about the bully's "sensitivities", you are already a slave at heart.
Sometimes you have to push back.
Even if it hurts. And compared to what happened in 1989, the temporary loss of botanic knowledge is hardly a tragedy.
The way to defeat the bullies of the world is to expose them for what they are, and to realize that we are the many and they are the few. Then we can fight them.
Let them censor us instead of being their fig leaf. What a great way for them to prove the point that they're not interested even in neutral content, only in propaganda. Then let's use our collective intelligence to dig a way through the Great Firewall.
Erik Moeller wrote:
When a really big bully pushes you, you may try to reason with him first. Perhaps you can bribe him, or you can hope that he will pick on the other kids and leave you alone.
But that's what all the other kids do, and that's why the bully has his power in the first place. And if you grant him that power, then he will use it and still abuse you. If at that point you are worried about the bully's "sensitivities", you are already a slave at heart.
Sometimes you have to push back.
In other words you need a bigger and better gang to out-bully the bullies. :-)
Ec
Barring some major collapse Wikipedia will soon have a major international presence on the internet. However we need to be cautious to not let our mouth outrun our gun. Soon means 5 or 10 years.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:47:42 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia in China
Erik Moeller wrote:
When a really big bully pushes you, you may try to reason with him first. Perhaps you can bribe him, or you can hope that he will pick on the other kids and leave you alone.
But that's what all the other kids do, and that's why the bully has his power in the first place. And if you grant him that power, then he will use it and still abuse you. If at that point you are worried about the bully's "sensitivities", you are already a slave at heart.
Sometimes you have to push back.
In other words you need a bigger and better gang to out-bully the bullies. :-)
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Barring some major collapse Wikipedia will soon have a major international presence on the internet. However we need to be cautious to not let our mouth outrun our gun. Soon means 5 or 10 years.
Certainly, but dealing with the PRC is dealing with bureaucracy more than dealing with "communism". Bureaucrats tend not to consider what others are doing as part of their job description. They tend to uphold the law based on their own narrow views of what that law means, and what they feel will please their superiors.. This results in very conservative decisions. They would do Dilbert proud.
The present crisis, like the last one of the kind, will probably be solved by our colleagues in China, who have experience in approaching Kafka's Castle. Those of us on the outside need to be patient, and avoid compromising the situation that our colleagues find themselves in.
Ec
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:47:58 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Certainly, but dealing with the PRC is dealing with bureaucracy more than dealing with "communism". Bureaucrats tend not to consider what others are doing as part of their job description. They tend to uphold the law based on their own narrow views of what that law means, and what they feel will please their superiors.. This results in very conservative decisions. They would do Dilbert proud.
The present crisis, like the last one of the kind, will probably be solved by our colleagues in China, who have experience in approaching Kafka's Castle. Those of us on the outside need to be patient, and avoid compromising the situation that our colleagues find themselves in.
Ec
You are absolutely right. Sometimes it is not the government's will to block certain sites: the government usually only give guide lines. It is in the hands of those bureaucrats who determine the fate of Wikipedia. In fact I am not so worried if this ban can be lifted, but rather I am worrying about this kind of periodical blocking might have adverse effects on the development of Chinese Wikipedia: we will not be able to sustain our growth for long before another block disrupts. Every blocking takes at least three months to recover.
So that was the rationale behind my suggestions in June, when we were first blocked. To take legal actions, or broadcast to worldwide media, so that the top officials notice us, and might give explicit instructions not to block Wikipedia. I believe that is what happens to google few years ago: the top rank governors of the country noticed the event, and an order was given. However this could be a dangerous move too: if we really angers someone on top then we will forever be blocked.
formulax
On 25 Sep 2004, at 05:35, Jiong Sheng wrote:
<snip>
or broadcast to worldwide media, so that the top officials notice us, and might give explicit instructions not to block Wikipedia. I believe that is what happens to google few years ago: the top rank governors of the country noticed the event, and an order was given. However this could be a dangerous move too: if we really angers someone on top then we will forever be blocked.
formulax
IF we're really blocked and IF decide to do anything, then I propose we do this:
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.
This means that we're JUST AS OPEN to input from ordinary PRC citizens (including PRC government officials) as we're open to input from others. This means that if the PRC government isn't happy with our coverage then they have every opportunity do something about it.
This might in the extreme lead to a concerted PRC government-endorsed effort to participate and thus shift the balance, but as long as our processes are fully upheld and respected, that participation should remain constructive -- and I have full faith in the Wikipedia's resilience to ensure that such participation will in the long run be nothing but beneficial.
Let's convince them to join us, not ban us. Because they too can be on an equal footing within the Wikipedia -- no more, no less.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
I am in Qingdao, Shandong Province. The site was seemingly blocked for me for the last day or two but is now accessible. Perhaps the block has been lifted like last time.
- User:Pratyeka
This is misleading and a potential source of embarassment to them. We will jump all over them if they come on and try to rewrite articles, "POV, blah blah blah", "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political advocacy" and so on.
What we want to communicate is the assurance that their viewpoints will be appropriately included and refered to. Of course, there has to be a published viewpoint in order to refer to it.
Social and political information developed by the government of China is often considered confidential and not generally available, people who have made it available have been criminally charged for disclosure of state secrets.
Fred
From: Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:25:40 +0200 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia in China
This means that we're JUST AS OPEN to input from ordinary PRC citizens (including PRC government officials) as we're open to input from others. This means that if the PRC government isn't happy with our coverage then they have every opportunity do something about it.
On 25 Sep 2004, at 17:18, Fred Bauder wrote:
This is misleading and a potential source of embarassment to them. We will jump all over them if they come on and try to rewrite articles, "POV, blah blah blah", "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political advocacy" and so on.
Who says that they won't follow best NPOV practices? Who says their contributions will be sheer advocacy? I'm talking about inviting more contributors from the other side of the globe to participate in the process in the best possible spirit. If that will balance some of our biased views and misconceptions then more power to them. Yes, there could very likely be an initial zealous rush -- but isn't the same true with most other newcomers to our project? I don't see the majority of new and enthusiastic Wikipedians becoming trolls. I have full faith that Chinese individuals are no less capable of learning constructive collaboration than U.S. individuals.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
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
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.
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In other words you need a bigger and better gang to out-bully the bullies. :-)
But, as the CIV rulers are fond of saying: "Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!"
On other words, nobody can out-bully the Chinese. Not Russia, not Europe, not India, not the US. You either play with them, or they take their toys and go home (and cut access to your domain as they leave).
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
... Let them censor us instead of being their fig leaf. What a great way for them to prove the point that they're not interested even in neutral content, only in propaganda. Then let's use our collective intelligence to dig a way through the Great Firewall.
Are we not doing that already by allowing anybody to re-use our content? Unless they created the biggest whitelist is history, I don't think they could find all our mirrors and block each one.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
DM> Are we not doing that already by allowing anybody to re-use our content? Unless DM> they created the biggest whitelist is history, I don't think they could find DM> all our mirrors and block each one. DM> -- mav
But it does not allow our Chinese contributors to edit articles... And I don't think we have Chinese mirrors...
Erik, I actually agree with a a lot of things you said.
HOWEVER, as regards this comment:
On 24 Sep 2004, at 02:35, Erik Moeller wrote:
I have to disagree here, but I also have to say that I consider the Chinese government nothing but fascism with a red touch.
Well... let me get this straight: You're accusing the Chinese government (did you mean "system of government"?) of being "nothing but fascism with a red touch." So you're not just saying there are a couple of very foul apples in the basket -- you're saying there are ''NOTHING BUT'' foul apples (and a dab of red) in there.
You're posting on a mailing list which is frequented by Chinese nationals. You've just told them that EVERYTHING their government has achieved was foul, rotten and worthless.
Isn't that somewhat stark?
Also--correct me if I'm mistaken--you're German. Assuming that you're a socially responsible person you are undoubtedly aware of the "special place" Germany holds in the history of fascism. You're hopefully also aware that Germany's express allies in the Fascist Axis, the Japanese, had a certain role in something known as the (AFAIK still not apologized-for) [[Nanjing Massacre]]. You also must be aware that a historical continuity exists between those Chinese who fought AGAINST a WWII aggressor, Fascist Axis power (i.e. Japan) and those who are now part of the Chinese government at all levels.
Yet you're telling our Chinese contributors--who are of the very people who have paid such a high price--you're telling them to their face that THEIR government, not the Japanese/German Fascist Axis, but rather THEIR government was "nothing but fascism".
Excuse me, but I for one find that stark. I'm not Chinese, but if I was Chinese I would go livid right now and demand a public apology.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
Jens Ropers wrote:
Yet you're telling our Chinese contributors--who are of the very people who have paid such a high price--you're telling them to their face that THEIR government, not the Japanese/German Fascist Axis, but rather THEIR government was "nothing but fascism".
Excuse me, but I for one find that stark. I'm not Chinese, but if I was Chinese I would go livid right now and demand a public apology.
That is the most bizarre line of reasoning I've seen all week.
Stan
Might I suggest that this is not a productive way of dealing with the question of keeping Wikipedia, or most of it, accessible to people within the People's Republic of China. Our POV's on the Chinese government aren't the issue here, it is the government of the PRC's POV on Wikipedia.
Although it seems hopeless we should, without compromising our essential principles, do what we can to negotiate.
Fred
From: Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:10:27 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia in China
Might I suggest that this is not a productive way of dealing with the question of keeping Wikipedia, or most of it, accessible to people within the People's Republic of China. Our POV's on the Chinese government aren't the issue here, it is the government of the PRC's POV on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
When dealing with the "slow pace" of reform, a famous saying in China is: "We were ruled by the Manchus for 300 years, we can wait another ten."
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:23:29 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Although it seems hopeless we should, without compromising our essential principles, do what we can to negotiate.
Fred
From: Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:10:27 -0400 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia in China
Might I suggest that this is not a productive way of dealing with the question of keeping Wikipedia, or most of it, accessible to people within the People's Republic of China. Our POV's on the Chinese government aren't the issue here, it is the government of the PRC's POV on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andrew Lih wrote:
When dealing with the "slow pace" of reform, a famous saying in China is: "We were ruled by the Manchus for 300 years, we can wait another ten."
As the saying invites the question of who "we" represents, there's reason to suspect _it_ itself may require reforming. It'd be ironic but not surprising if a descendent of the defeated Manchu rulers were to utter it.
From our very own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_language):
"Very few native Manchu speakers remain; in what used to be Manchuria virtually no one speaks the language with the entire area having been completely sinicized."
Although "sinicize" need not be interpreted as "forced to be sinocized" (language shift being a complex phenomenon), it remains the case that today there isn't a Manchu Wikipedia (ISO 639-2: mnc).
"In fact, the modern custodians of the language are actually the Sibe who live near the Ili valley in Xinjiang and were moved there by Qianlong Emperor in 1764. Modern Sibe is very close to Manchu, although there are a few slight differences in writing and pronunciation; however, the Sibe consider themselves to be separate from the Manchus."
Given that saying and the attitude behind it, it is understandable why a Sibe may not want to be identified as a Manchu.
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:36 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
Our POV's on the Chinese government aren't the issue here, it is the government of the PRC's POV on Wikipedia.
You have it backwards. The PRC government has not come on line to express its official POV. Ec
It has done so by blocking the site.
Stirling Newberry wrote:
On Sep 24, 2004, at 7:36 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
Our POV's on the Chinese government aren't the issue here, it is the government of the PRC's POV on Wikipedia.
You have it backwards. The PRC government has not come on line to express its official POV. Ec
It has done so by blocking the site.
If I may quote the title of a Dilbert book, "When did Ignorance become a Point of View?"
Ec
Jens-
Yet you're telling our Chinese contributors--who are of the very people who have paid such a high price--you're telling them to their face that THEIR government, not the Japanese/German Fascist Axis, but rather THEIR government was "nothing but fascism".
^is ^with a red touch
History has this ugly tendency of repeating itself, only the roles and costumes change. If you expect political correctness from me, boy have you got the wrong guy.
Erik
On 24 Sep 2004, at 04:40, Erik Moeller wrote:
Jens-
Yet you're telling our Chinese contributors--who are of the very people who have paid such a high price--you're telling them to their face that THEIR government, not the Japanese/German Fascist Axis, but rather THEIR government was "nothing but fascism".
^is ^with a red touch
History has this ugly tendency of repeating itself, only the roles and costumes change. If you expect political correctness from me, boy have you got the wrong guy.
Erik
Recognizing the utility of communicating with others on their level, here is my official response to the above mature, considered, weighed and scrupulous judgment: http://tinyurl.com/3ctz9 http://tinyurl.com/ys9zf
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Recognizing the utility of communicating with others on their level, here is my official response to the above mature, considered, weighed and scrupulous judgment:
Jens,
I strongly advise you not to do this again. A lot of the people on this list (myself included) are in a work environment.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 24 Sep 2004, at 17:47, Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Recognizing the utility of communicating with others on their level, here is my official response to the above mature, considered, weighed and scrupulous judgment: http://tinyurl.com/3ctz9 http://tinyurl.com/ys9zf
Jens, I strongly advise you not to do this again. A lot of the people on this list (myself included) are in a work environment.
Oops. Sorry.
_My apologies to everyone._
Silly me, I didn't consider such "side-effects". To anyone who ''hasn't'' clicked on the above URLs: They are Monty Python audio clips and it may indeed be unsuitable to blast them across your office at full volume, etc.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
Recognizing the utility of communicating with others on their level, here is my official response to the above mature, considered, weighed and scrupulous judgment:
Jens,
I strongly advise you not to do this again. A lot of the people on this list (myself included) are in a work environment.
I think that warning people that these are sound files should be enough. Approaching the subject with a sense of humour is always welcome. I don't think that it is up to us to get into the debate about using an employer's computers for personal uses.
We've been condemning censorship in China, and now your suggesting another kind of censorship.
Ec
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:13 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I strongly advise you not to do this again. A lot of the people on this list (myself included) are in a work environment.
I think that warning people that these are sound files should be enough. Approaching the subject with a sense of humour is always welcome. I don't think that it is up to us to get into the debate about using an employer's computers for personal uses.
We've been condemning censorship in China, and now your suggesting another kind of censorship.
It is not censorship, it's about good netiquette.
Anthere wrote:
I do not mean chinese editors should not talk about the controversial issues, but if they should also take *great care* to talk about the good points above mentionned.
I am not yet sure that Anthere and I agree in every respect on these issues, but I do agree with this point: Chinese editors who are working on sensitive topics should take *great care* to be sure that their writing is impeccable. Force the authorities to implicitly or explicitly concede that it isn't libel or falsehoods being banned, but information itself.
--Jimbo
Oh, yes, he does! You just havn't tangled with him before. However in the context of this discussion I took his suggestion as made in good faith as a way to maintain access to Wikipedia in China.
Fred
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:45:12 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Yes, if every other article is about failure of this and breakdown of that, with Falung and Commies and Free Tibet all over the place, I would shut it down too.
Surely you don't mean that.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Oh, yes, he does! You just havn't tangled with him before. However in the context of this discussion I took his suggestion as made in good faith as a way to maintain access to Wikipedia in China.
Fred
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:45:12 -0700 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] wikipedia in China
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Yes, if every other article is about failure of this and
breakdown of
that, with Falung and Commies and Free Tibet all over the place,
I
would shut it down too.
Surely you don't mean that.
--Jimbo
First, Jimbo, I lived in France, and hold french citizenship. France and China have much better relationships with each other than america dreams of. My ant worked for a company that sold nuclear reactors to china in 1982.
Were a bunch or rubbish be written about a great (not perfect) country on an purportedly international, NPOV encyclopedia, and people were adamant that it was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I would feel ashamed and pull the plug myself, hiding away and hoping people would forget my name.
I personally know two mainland chinese. Both are highly educated, cultured, calm and reliable people. I like them much better than some of my american friends. Their country has few true friends, and they've beasically been pulling themselves by their bootstraps for the last 50 years.
The chinese government has realized many years ago that hardline communism is a dead-end. Yet they also know that if they don't present a unified front, a unified face, the world will walk all over them. So they are tought. They appear tough. They want people to think them tough.
Remember that if PyongYang's nukes can reach Tokyo, they can reach Beijing. The chinese know this, and they're flexing their muscles there too.
China is a very large country with 20% of the world's people. They don't give a damn about our little competition with Brittanica. They don't give a damn about Wikipedia. They are fighting prejudice, fear, and misunderstanding on a grander scale, at the UN, in the WTO, and off their coast, with jetfighters.
They do not want to play hardball with us. They have bigger fish to fry. But if we start interfering with their plans for bringing china in the 21st century as a world power and player on an equal footing with the US and Europe, they will cut us off. And I would agree with them.
All I know is that if Wikipedia is fair and balanced, showing in thousands of articles the true face of china today, then the Chinese government will find no reason to block us, and in fact may participate.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
All I know is that if Wikipedia is fair and balanced, showing in thousands of articles the true face of china today, then the Chinese government will find no reason to block us, and in fact may participate.
This is exactly what I meant.
I agree with Jimbo when he says that "Chinese editors who are working on sensitive topics should take *great care* to be sure that their writing is impeccable", nor libel, nor false, but only true and honest reports.
My only point is this one : the chinese goverment does things that most of us find chocking, but some people also consider the goverment does good things which will help the country enters fully the XXI century as a modern state. Just as any goverment, there is bad and there is good. Similarly, some chinese people did things most of us would consider terribly bad, but there are also many great chinese people.
My opinion is that npov has two levels. The level of the article and the level of the project itself. NPOV at the level of the articles is not negociable. But there is nothing in the requirements about the neutrality a project has to achieve overall. Globally.
Now, I think that an encyclopedia is "supposed" to contain the entirety of human knowledge. Practically, it will be only a subset of human knowledge, and may only at best tend to perfection.
If a project contains 100 articles on history, that all these articles are individually neutral, but ALL 100 are about, say, french atrocities in Algeria in the 50's, and NOTHING else, then, the articles individually will be NPOV, but globally, it would be hard to claim the project is neutral. It will inherently follow a political stance if the only historical topic treated is this one. If only... a european biais that seems to imply that only european history is worth reporting :-)
Similarly, if the chinese (this is an hypothesis) wikipedia is greatly focusing in writing articles mostly dealing about chinese gov atrocities, even though the articles are NPOV, overall, the project will not really be neutral in its description of what human knowledge is.
I just mentionned that the project might greatly benefit from having its overall content balanced, and all facets of a country described, rather than only one facet described. Imho, this goes toward our general goal (well, at least mine) and if that CAN HELP avoiding the site blocked, then that doubly helps.
I do not think this desire for overall balanced information should be confused with censorship. My goal for most projects is that they are complete for all topics, not only focusing on controversial topics. But if such a desire to wish for overall neutrality is only seen as academic discussion and nothing more, it is not really worth discussing imho.
Anthere wrote:
I do not think this desire for overall balanced information should be confused with censorship. My goal for most projects is that they are complete for all topics, not only focusing on controversial topics. But if such a desire to wish for overall neutrality is only seen as academic discussion and nothing more, it is not really worth discussing imho.
I certainly agree with this, but there's two ways of going about balance: the first is writing more about things that are missing, and the second is removing things that are seem as "unbalanced". The first I have no problem with (and I don't think anyone has a real problem with them, so long as they're neutral and accurate), but the second is what I'm worried about. If someone wants to write an article about something "negative" in the zh: Wikipedia, I don't see how we can reasonably tell them not to do so, as long as their article is factual and written from a NPOV. It would be an odd situation if a Chinese-American could only write about some things in the en: Wikipedia and wasn't able to write the exact same things in the zh: Wikipedia.
-Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org