Wikipedia shows some spine, refuses Chinese censorship requests

Published on September 11th, 2006

We can’t compromise our principles for gain. How can we say we’re all about spreading freedom while rolling over on censorship requests from dictatorships? I’m glad to see someone stand up to this crap.

The founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by its users, has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries.

Jimmy Wales, one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, challenged other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing.

Wikipedia, a hugely popular reference tool in the West, has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia.

Three cheers for Wikipedia, we need more companies to show some spine. If we all stuck together the Chinese couldn’t pull it off to begin with.

26 users responded in " Wikipedia shows some spine, refuses Chinese censorship requests "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Tim Champ said, on September 11th, 2006 at 6:48 am

Good for them – the Chinese government shouldn’t be bowed down to when they ask these things.

The first step to losing our own freedom is to accept the loss of someone elses.

# 2 Milo said, on September 11th, 2006 at 6:52 am

Wikipedia has no profit to lose. Does this now put Google in a better light? It does for me.

# 3 Curmudgen said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:03 am

Wikipedia has no profit to lose. Does this now put Google in a better light? It does for me.

How do they pay the bills? Enlighten me please. (no sarcasim intended)

# 4 god said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:04 am

We should add a wikipedia definition. Parochialism: the American way of telling every other nation how to live — absent willingness to understand cultural differences, historic stage of development, economic evolution.

The world should all be American vanilla. Or else.

# 5 Smartalix said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:09 am

So you’re saying that one’s support of freedom should be linked to the amount of profit involved?

# 6 John Urho Kemp said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:17 am

Comment deleted

# 7 Uncle Jim said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:20 am

We have the information advantage. Wikipedia doesn’t need China, so Wales and company can do whatever they want to do they just can’t do it in China. It’s not a big deal. If you don’t have enough headaches, go start debating in China. It’s going to be a one sided debate. You might as well stand there and debate your wall.

# 8 Uncle Jim said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:42 am

Dvorak Uncensored could start a Dvorak Wiki and call it Dvorak Uncaged. Let the users write all the material and make changes. You could be bigger than Google and avoid the whole China hassle. Good luck!

# 9 Duncan Maclaren said, on September 11th, 2006 at 8:38 am

Fuck Yeah! I’m giving wiki some money right now for doing the right thing!

# 10 Mario said, on September 11th, 2006 at 9:06 am

For me it is all about principles as many have written. But the principles changes from person to person, from culture to culture. If wikipedia is based on freedom and universality then it just makes me proud to know that they will not bend their principles for other gains…

Now enters Google (and Yahoo, and MSN, and whatever…)… I don’t know much about their principles, but to say that the most important principle of every company is to pay its shareholders no matter what you do is like saying that we don’t need to respect human society rules (whatever those are) because ultimately what matters are jungle and nature rules: the rule of the strongest.

I believe that for Google (or at least for its founders) the most important principle is to manage world information and make it accessible in the best way possible. Now, in some countries you might be able to serve information in some ways while in others the information must flow in some other way. In the US they respect US laws and delivers what they have the right to deliver (while also refuse to deliver what the law does not make them deliver), in China they do the same…

# 11 Sean said, on September 11th, 2006 at 9:33 am

“So you’re saying that one’s support of freedom should be linked to the amount of profit involved?”

You’re missing the point. Companies like Google have shareholders to answer to. Those shareholders expect Google to make money. Period. Wikipedia on the other hand really has nothing to lose or gain by planting seeds in any country. It’s a non-profit entity.

If they had the same bottom line to watch that Google has, they might not be so quick to take the high road. So lets not be too quick in booing Google, and cheering for Wikipedia. It’s apples and oranges.

# 12 Angel H. Wong said, on September 11th, 2006 at 10:03 am

And I bet the online version of the Enciclopaedia Britannica does censor sensitive things because that’s the snobbish way.

# 13 Smartalix said, on September 11th, 2006 at 10:16 am

11,

Nope, sorry. One doesn’t get a dispensation from hypocrisy because money is an issue. True, Wikipedia has more leeway because they are not chasing revenue, but they are risking being banned from China.

# 14 John Urho Kemp said, on September 11th, 2006 at 10:37 am

OH great, now we have the moderators here deleting posts because of my comments about SN and his hatred of Wikipedia which is well documented here.

I commend Wikipedia for standing up to the censorship issues, but obviously Dvorak.org would rather censor their posts. My post didn’t use any bad language, nor was it inaccurate…but granted, it didn’t really add anything to the discussion, but who does? Bravo Wikipedia, shame on you Dvorak.org

# 15 Smartalix said, on September 11th, 2006 at 10:42 am

14,

“…but granted, it didn’t really add anything to the discussion, but who [sic] does?”

The comments that weren’t deleted.

# 16 JimR said, on September 11th, 2006 at 10:54 am

I agree with smartalix on this one. Most shareholders ar just interested in the bottom line. There are lines that can be crossed… fraud, lies and even behaving in a distasteful or immoral manner.

Google wasn’t even publically traded (2004) when they started compromising western ideals in China. BUT in January 2006 when the censorship was brought to light, the stock dropped 20% and is only recently recovering to the January share price.

# 17 JimR said, on September 11th, 2006 at 11:10 am

#16) Oops, thar should be…
“Most shareholders aren’t just interested in the bottom line.

# 18 Mark said, on September 11th, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Anyone know if there is a Wikipedia mirror accessible in China?

# 19 Mr. H. Fusion said, on September 11th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

#17, #16) Oops, thar should be…
“Most shareholders aren’t just interested in the bottom line.
Comment by JimR — 9/11/2006 @ 11:10 am

Maybe most shareholders care, but believe it or not, that doesn’t count. Most shares are controlled by brokers and portfolio managers. They are the ones caring about the bottom line and their reaction is reflected in the stock’s price. So while you are your $50,000 of Google stock is important to you, the fund with $5,000,000,000 gets the attention. And most people keep their stock portfolios invested inside high performing funds.

# 20 Mr. H. Fusion said, on September 11th, 2006 at 4:10 pm

2,
So you’re saying that one’s support of freedom should be linked to the amount of profit involved?
Comment by Smartalix — 9/11/2006 @ 7:09 am

Yes, that is the American way. Things like Haliburton, under Dick Cheney, selling nuclear technology to Iran, or IT&T financing the overthrow of a democratically elected President to save the copper mines, or the United Fruit Company paying private armies to kill labor leaders on the Central American banana plantations. Yup, if there is profit, look for an American company to be there.

# 21 Milo said, on September 11th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

Honestly what stupid responses to my comment!

# 22 Smartalix said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:08 pm

Stupid in what way? It is even more stupid to simply throw out such an idiotic comment. If you want to criticize, criticize. However, to insult without reason is ignorance. If you have something against the responses to your comment, a more intelligent reply would be a rebuttal.

# 23 John S said, on September 11th, 2006 at 7:59 pm

Milo thinks the replies to his post are stupid due to the fact that they questioned it or disagreed with it. You see while Smartalix’s comments in reply in post #22 to Milo’s comment in post #21 are those of a mature intelligent adult that almost anyone of the people who read it can understand they are in error. You see adults talk differently when speaking to other adults as opposed to talking to children or those who are of diminished mental capacities. That is the error that Smartalix and others have made. The following is what Milo wished to see in response.

“Milo you are so smart! Yes you are! Coochy coochy coo! Yes you are smart! My big smart fella! Coochy coochy coo! Of course it puts google in a better light! I will say whatever makes my special little fella happy! Coochy coochy coo! woogy woogy!”

John

# 24 Milo said, on September 12th, 2006 at 5:53 am

Stupid because it should be obvious that the people making them didn’t understand what I wrote. The 2 replies above compounding the original mistake by revealing that they still haven’t.

John makes himself look even stupider yet by basing his response on what I think, which he can’t know.

# 25 Mr. H. Fusion said, on September 12th, 2006 at 6:22 am

Milo,

In this discussion I have leaned to your side while disagreeing with several people. Several others have also leaned in your direction. Now, why would you be upset that not everyone agrees with you. Even if I don’t agree, there have been several questions posed or thoughts brought up that are very worthy of discussion.

The greatest joy in these discussions shouldn’t be winning the argument. It should be in the learning from what others have to add to the discussion. Not every idea will be a gem, but there are enough to make it worth the effort.

# 26 Smartalix said, on September 12th, 2006 at 6:26 am

Milo,

Then please enlighten us. We can only take your comments on face value. If we don’t understand what you’re trying to say it’s because you aren’t expressing yourself.

BTW, I posted this, not John.

You’re the one throwing insults around. Where in any of my comments did I insult you? Your childish behavior only makes you the one looking stupid.

So, back to your original comment:

“Wikipedia has no profit to lose. Does this now put Google in a better light? It does for me. ”

Please explain what you really mean and I will be more than happy to address that point. Since I wasn’t able to get it the first time please explain your point clearly so I don’t miss it this time.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!