[Foundation-l] Censorship discussion: Thanks to all

[Jimmy Wales]

Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> Wikimedia is committed to free software and free content: All of our
> projects are provided "free as in beer" and licensed to be used
> freely (as in "free speech"). We are also committed to "free speech"
> in the traditional sense, namely that fear or threats of censorship
> will not be allowed to interfere with the development of any existing
> or proposed Wikimedia project."

I agree with you, and I think you've been mostly right about everything
that you've said.

The reason it took me so long to answer this thread (in addition of
course to being insanely busy day and night with everything) is that I
have been thinking about it slowly and carefully.  It's really important
and in my opinion it is really really difficult.

I want to state a hypothetical and then at the end of this letter, I
will also talk about what happens when the assumptions in my
hypothetical are not true.  So read to the end before responding to my
hypothetical. :-)

Imagine for a moment that we knew with absolute certainty (we don't)
that starting a Chinese language Wikinews would result in complete and
total and permanent censorship within mainland China of all Wikipedia
projects.  Remember, all of Wikipedia is currently accessible in China
and Wikipedians in China are doing a wonderful job of building a
wonderful resource.

This is something very important -- if I remember correctly even the BBC
is routinely blocked in China.

Now, imagine that we start Chinese Wikinews anyway, out of a strong
desire not to bow to fear or threat of censorship.  Suppose we start it,
indeed, with a majority of mainland Chinese Wikipedians opposing it, and
only a slim majority of non-mainland Chinese Wikipedians supporting it
(hypothetical assumptions, again).

And then suppose that all of Wikipedia is, as per the hypothetical in
which we are operating, blocked permanently from China.  The Mainland
Chinese Wikipedia community would effectively be destroyed.  Chinese
Wikipedia(s) would continue to grow, but much more slowly, and 1 billion
people would be deprived of the opportunity to learn about it.

We would be lauded as heros in the western media.  I'd have my face on
the cover of Time Magazine and Der Spiegel and so on.  "Wikipedia shut
down by the Chinese government" -- an exciting story!  We feel great
about ourselves for fighting against censorship!

But would we really have done anything useful?  Not really.  We would
have ruined the chance to get free content into China by fighting for
something not even supported very strongly by the Wikipedia community.

Do you agree with me that *if* the conditions of this hypothetical were
true, then as a matter of _tactical_ wisdom in our fight for freedom of
information, it would be a suicidal battle to engage in?

Fighting a war is a bad analogy for what we are doing, but it does
illustrate that not every retreat or avoidance of the enemy is a moral
failing.  So long as we remain strongly committed to winning the overall
battle for freedom of knowledge, we can choose our battles wisely -- let
us choose the battles that we will win, not the battles which will lead
us to a ruinous loss.

Now, if you agree with me that *if my hypothetical were true* then we
should avoid this fight at this time, and if you agree with me that if
an opposite hypothetical were true (i.e. that we _know_ that wikinews
won't hurt anything) we should open it, then the remaining question is
how to make a decision under conditions of uncertainty.

There is only one way: careful deliberation and judgment in consultation
with people who know and care about the overall goals.

And that's where we are.  We aren't surrendering to Chinese censorship,
we are pausing to evaluate the situation.  We are gathering in strength.
 We are learning about what to do to ensure freedom in the long run.

--Jimbo