[Foundation-l] Censorship discussion: Thanks to all

Tue May 3 07:15:32 UTC 2005

I want to express my gratitude for all of the thoughtful responses to my post yesterday ("Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews"). I very much think the topic is an absolutely central one, and I guess I was bothered when it looked like it was just going to slide by and be ignored, or get a passive response of "let's see what the community does" (if anything).

Of all the responses (they were all fascinating), the one I thought was exceptionally perceptive was that of Tim Starling. Tim was 100% right in the distinction he drew between "free speech" in its "free software" context, as used by Richard Stallman, versus its normal political meaning (e.g. in the context of the constitutions of many nations). As Tim pointed out, Stallman's usage is based upon an analogy to the political meaning, but they are not the same. I hadn't thought enough about the distinction beforehand.

Tim writes that Wikimedia has always supported "free speech" as used in Stallman's analogy, but not "free speech" in its usual meaning. The question is whether this is completely true. It is true that endorsing the former meaning (Stallman's) does not *necessarily* imply endorsing the latter meaning. However, it is equally true that endorsing the former strongly suggests endorsing the latter as well, and many or most Wikimedia users probably assume that this is the case, and not wrongly. So it is a strong implication, but has never been made an explicit policy. What I suggest is that we formally honor the implication by making it explicit policy.

Anthere thought that I suggested the board was actively opposed to Chinese Wikinews. I never meant that, and apologise if I was not clear. What I meant was exactly what Anthere wrote, namely that the board is waiting for a clearer community decision. And that attitude is exactly what I am suggesting be changed.

I guess it is relevant pointing out that I have a personal relationship to this whole issue. In my real-life, over the past 6 years, I have been privileged to work on educational and cultural programs side-by-side with extraordinary people (some of them known worldwide) who were persecuted by totalitarian regimes and stood up to them. All of these people agree on one thing, which is relevant to Anthere's points: When it comes to an environment where speech is repressed, one cannot talk about "the will of the community" in an ordinary sense. On the contrary, to just leave things up to the community in question *is by definition* to take a stance *against* those who want to express their views but cannot do so.

That is why this whole issue goes way beyond waiting for a clearer consensus from the community, and to the guts of what Wikimedia stands for.

Do we really want "to make the sum total of human knowledge available for free"? If so, this implies doing so without making exceptions for languages or countries in which the expression of opinion is curtailed. So (to return to Tim) this is deeply implied by the current policies and self-image of Wikimedia. Let's make it explicit!

I suggest the following:

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

In the future it might not just be China. There are many other contries in the world that do not allow a free press. Or it might be financial corporations. Adopting a clear policy on censorship now (beginning with Chinese Wikinews) will set things in the right direction for the future as well.

Dovi

foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org wrote:
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l at wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request at wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner at wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Erik Moeller)
2. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Tim Starling)
3. Re: wikiholidays (Cormac Lawler)
4. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Andre Engels)
5. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Marco Krohn)
6. Chinese wikinews and fundamentals (Anthere)
7. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
8. Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Timwi)
9. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (David Gerard)
10. Re: Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews (Robin Shannon)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:39:15 +0200
From: Erik Moeller 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <4275D923.2080609 at gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Anthere:

> This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy 
> and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation 
> should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but 
> require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what 
> should be done :-)

Dovi makes an important point which I also made in my "State of the 
Wiki" summary, which is that there are millions of Chinese speakers who 
would not be affected by censorship in mainland China. So, effectively, 
there are two communities: one that would feel the censorship, and one 
that wouldn't. The question is, should lack of support in one of them be 
sufficient to deny the project to the other?

Regards,

Erik

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:41 +1000
From: Tim Starling 
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese
> Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was
> reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free
> projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and
> "free speech"?

I think you're getting actual free speech confused with the paradoxical
terminology used by Richard Stallman to describe software with
restricted rights of use and distribution. Wikimedia supports the latter
but has never supported the former. Rightly or wrongly, Wikimedia
projects have been complicit in censorship of various kinds. I don't
think the discussion of censorship is aided by conflating these two
concepts.

-- Tim Starling

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:55:33 +0100
From: Cormac Lawler 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] wikiholidays
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/2/05, Anthere wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I will be away (with no phone, no computer, no internet and likely no
> watch since I do not wear any) from next wenesday till tuesday the 10th.
> I will be in Agadir (Marocco) and surroundings.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Anthere

A *real* holiday! Bon voyage..

Cormac

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:01:51 +0200
From: Andre Engels 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <6faf39c9050502020111bb4769 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/2/05, Dovi Jacobs wrote:

> When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.

Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used,
but do we say that's illegal? In that case I still think we should
shut up and just allow it. The issue should be availability, not
politics. Especially not politics that noone else seems to care about.

Andre Engels

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 12:02:43 +0200
From: Marco Krohn 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <200505021202.43502.marco.krohn at web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Monday 02 May 2005 11:01, Andre Engels wrote:

> Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I
> MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free
> software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free
> software?

FWIW: SuSE as well as RedHat removed the mp3 codecs from their recent 
distributions.

best regards,
Marco

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 04:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthere 
Subject: [Foundation-l] Chinese wikinews and fundamentals
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <20050502115509.58720.qmail at web41804.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we
>>are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user >>request...""This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the >>fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into >>account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy >>to all agree on what should be done :-)"

>Thanks for your reply, Anthere! (That was fast, I was just about to go offline.)

Hello ;-)

>As far as I understand, normally when there is enough interest in a language version of >Wikinews, the language is launched.

>That is normal policy, so I have not fallen back on "community" in my argument.

It is "normal" policy only as far as "normal" indicates a "habit" and that this habit is supported. Note that the fact something is usually done does not mean it will be done forever.

Example : if you noticed, the "freedom" to open new wikipedia languages is actually more restricted today than it was in the past. Typically, we try not to be hasty in decisions regarding sublanguages versions, or artificial languages. It is very likely a language such as Klington could not be launched today. Why so ? Because what was once a "habit" (a sort of policy then) has changed.

Why did it changed ?
Mostly because many users expressed their disapproval with regards to some languages or sub languages. And felt it impacted the perception our audience could have of our work.

>Rather, the point is that *not* to act on normal policy here conflicts with a fundamental policy >of freedom.

>What you hint at is a slightly different issue, one which makes the *discussion* a bit more >"tricky" as you say, but not the gut issue.

>Namely: What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be a way not just >to express interest in building one, but also to vote against one? Intuitively, the answer is >"no", because anyone who doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply >doesn't have to!

>I understand that this latter question caused problems for the French Wikinews, though I >don't know the details.

>However, whatever happened with French Wikinews is connected only to the secondary >policy question, namely, should the policy for creating new languages, when the languages >are legitimate Wikimedia languages, also allow for opposition? Though I think in normal >circumstances probably not, this is completely unconnected to Chinese Wikinews!

>My point is to completely disengage the two issues: Whether or not "opposition" should be >allowed to creating a new language in a project is one question, and it is a completely >legitimate question (though I personally think the answer should be "no" in normal >circumstances).

You make a very good point here.

I would like to make a precision which might have escaped you. In your previous mail, you seem to consider the Foundation as being in sole responsability of the project not being started.

It is not really fair to say the project does not currently exist JUST because the Foundation opposed it. At some point, the chinese decided to express their desire that the project exist and voted. Whether people should be allowed to oppose or only to express support is a different issue; but generally, on wikipedia, people are allowed to oppose things. I think freedom of speech is a bit impaired if people are only allowed to support or to abstain. But well... anyway, the result of the chinese vote is .... unconclusive if one counts both support and opposition.

Since it was unconclusive, the board was asked to take the decision for the chinese community. This step in itself is interesting. Should we necessarily have the role of taking a decision when others can not find a consensus themselves ? Should it be our responsability ?

In any cases, we were requested to decide for others :-)

And just as others have been inconclusive, we have not been able to reach an agreement either :-) You say we oppose it... while amongst ourselves,
* one did not answer
* one opposed
* one thought the decision should be global community one
* one thought the decision should be local community one
* one supported

However, if the chinese community had globally supported it, there is no doubt in my mind that the above opinions voiced would not have mattered.

>But when such "opposition" is based on the threat or fear of censorship - there cannot even >be a question at all. Censorship is not a valid reason to oppose a Wikimedia project, if the >project stands 

As explained above, our position is not opposition.

Which leaves the question : should it be a fundamental rule ? And should we enforce it ?

Ant

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:18:28 +0100
From: Timwi 
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Hi.

I haven't seen the original discussion about a Chinese Wikinews, so this 
is the first time I hear why it was disallowed.

If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you 
are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by 
censoring it yourself?...

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 14:21:16 +0100
From: Timwi 
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Dovi Jacobs wrote:
> 
> What if there is "opposition" to a new language wiki? Should there be
> a way not just to express interest in building one, but also to vote
> against one? Intuitively, the answer is "no", because anyone who
> doesn't want to work on that project in that language simply doesn't
> have to!

Taking as an example the infamous Klingon Wikipedia, it was pretty clear 
that a majority of people felt they were entitled to "vote against" it, 
even though the argument you mentioned had already been brought up at 
the time.

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 00:12:13 +1000
From: David Gerard 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <20050502141213.GQ10417 at thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Timwi (timwi at gmx.net) [050502 23:19]:

> If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you 
> are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by 
> censoring it yourself?...

And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
world ...

Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
projects? Of course it wouldn't.

- d.

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:28:08 +1000
From: Robin Shannon 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Ogg Vorbis versus Chinese Wikinews
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Message-ID: <623d733805050209281a7185ab at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 5/3/05, David Gerard wrote:
> 
> And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the
> world ...
> 
> Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the
> US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language
> projects? Of course it wouldn't.
> 
> 
> - d.

This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference
in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a
billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese
speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers.

paz y amor,
[[wikinews:User:The bellman]]

-- 
hit me: 
jab me: 

This work is released into the public domain.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
*******************************************

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 