Self-Censoring 'Chinese Wikipedia' Launched 429
Billosaur writes "New Scientist is reporting that Baidu, China's largest search engine, is launching its own version of Wikipedia. The site, Baidupedia, differs from the more well-known Wikipedia in that it is self-censoring." From the article: "Unlike Wikipedia, which allows anyone to create and modify entries, Baidupedia is censored by the company to avoid offending the Chinese government. Entries to the encyclopaedia must first pass a filtering system before being added to the site. Baidupedia bars users from including any 'malicious evaluation of the current national system', any 'attack on government institutions', and prevents the 'promotion of a dispirited or negative view of life'."
evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me guess.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Brave New China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they'll give the breakers of this rule a healthy dose of soma [wikipedia.org].
The beginning of the "Wiki Wars" (Score:3, Insightful)
But does it report the authors to the government? (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship rights (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, Chinese companies can censor all they want...so long as the government doesn't force them to use only Baidupedia and block Wikipedia.
By the way, Google owns 2% of Baidu [ucla.edu]. And as we all know, DO NO EVIL! (yes, full of sarcasm)
Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we can do little more.
Freedom in China ultimately depends on the citizenry. Barring external intervention, the future of a people are determined by the people. Period.
Back in 1989, Czechoslovakia had a population of about 15.6 million [wikipedia.org]. In November of that year, 800,000 citizens assembled in Prague and demanded freedom [wikipedia.org]. 800,000 is about 5% of the nation's population.
The story repeated itself in all of Eastern Europe. Once it was free from the external intervention of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Europeans collectively decided that they wanted freedom, and they got it. They forced their authoritarian governments out of power.
The story is quite different in China. No one is imposing authoritarian rule on China. If the Chinese people wanted to enjoy the same democracy and human rights that we have in the West, then the Chinese people could get democracy and human rights tomorrow. The problem is that most Chinese either support authoritarianism or are indifferent to it. President Hu Jintao (the dictator of China), all by himself, cannot impose authoritarian rule on China. Hu has a lot of supporters.
That is the difference between Eastern Europe and China. I respect the Eastern Europeans.
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you can see the difference here... Besides until you can tell me you've read the Analects, as well as the various other works of classical Chinese scholasticism, I don't believe you're in ANY position to claim an understanding of Chinese ways. Period. ~a - b.a. History, focus: China.
Re:evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight...
Because a company chooses to pre-emptively censor its content to avoid government action against it, the government is not responsible for the censorship? Are you kidding?
Do you think Baidu would censor this wiki if it wasn't the policy of China to censor content and prosecute (or otherwise handle) offenders?
That's afwul, awful, apologist logic.
Glass houses and throwing stones and all that (I'm in the US) but really...
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Alot of people don't want to die or go to prison. In the West where you currently have SOME freedom; killing of protestors wouldn't be tolerated. It would be just another day in China. Tiananmen Square, anyone?
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:4, Insightful)
>convinced that the values and beliefs they hold are the ones that should be universally
>observed.
i find your beliefs are wrong, should not be observed and belive you should be silenced...
when you say that intolerant views should be quashed, you are intolerant youself.
you cannot simultanrously hold that value systems which silence opposition with threat of death are on a level playing field with those that allow diverse oppinions.
put another way - If you silence intolerant speech, then you are far worse than the one who speaks intolerantly.
By definition, you cannot speak ill of Chinese policies in China - which places it on equal ground or superior ground to other systems in China. In the US (and some Euro countries), the subject can be debated - therefore, by simple logic, whatever system the US has is better than what China has.
how can i say that?
I'm in the US.
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:2, Insightful)
>Alot of people don't want to die or go to prison.
And we can't make the decision for them, but the bottom line is, as long as they are not willing to pay the price of freedom, they will not have it.
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:1, Insightful)
I can't, because you clearly believe in the idea that a social construct such as freedom of speech has some fundamental, inherent "rightness", and I do not.
There is no possible agreement between us on the topic.
To the contrary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay, go USA! We're Not As Bad As China (TM)!
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I don't agree with you on this, I find that this statement is being said kind of ironic, given the situation in Iraq. I find the parallels and dichotomy staggering.
Iraq was a dictator-led state, governed by a brutal oppressor that would do whatever he had to in order to not only stay in power but advanced his own agenda. The US, invading under false pretenses, topples this government and assists in the formation of a representative democracy (or whatever failing system is being used in the US), and we have no quams about having done so, from the point of view of the US government.
China is a communist state, governed by a brutal government that uses censorship, isolationism, and propaganda (amungst other devices) to force compliance, obedience, and social growth from it's people. The US does NOTHING, dispite countless publicied human rights violations similar to those committed in Iraq. We state as above, if China's fate is to change, then the change must come from the people.
While I think something good came out of the Iraq invasion (no more Sadam), I think that we should not have invaded as we did. If Iraq was to be free, they were more likely to value that freedom if they took it themselves, just as China should.
Offtopic, I know, but an amusing parallel just the same.
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, China has the longest unbroken history of any current civilization. The principles of Confucius, among others, I won't deny the effect of Siddartha or Lao Tzu however their focus was spiritual and Confucius was political (although that in and of itself is a misnomer, because a truly Confucian political system is one in which subtle, yet totalitarian control is exercised from the divine Father, through rites), still linger today.
I mean, if you think these sort of cultural bonds are easy to free yourself from, then try and figure out why English speakers still refer to the sun as 'rising.' I don't *think* people still believe it's a geocentric universe, but that leftover cultural and historical background is exerting pressure on the citizenry.
Now, compare China's 3000+ years of unbroken history with the fragmented mess that is Eastern Europe and you're talking about analogizing teflon fibers with yarn. Yes, I'm proud of the Czechs, they did a grand job, and the Chinese could take a page from their book, no doubt. The point is that until you can UNDERSTAND the Chinese perhaps you shouldn't bandy your 'respect' around like it was God's gift to give.
The Chinese piss me off all the time, but I understand how and why they get there, and trust me, they are deserving of our respect.
Cultural bias and other stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Touching a philosophical issue, the question of censorship being evil or not, relies on which side of the line you are on; sure Western civilizations mosly despise its use (let alone its abuse), but being China a country with 1100 million people, I think that if they're political education supports censorship, even with actual opposition, it is not that evil. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear: even it seems evil to you, and to many others, it's just a point of view, it doesn't matter how logically clear it does seem to you. Besides, China isn't a HR supporter, so legitimizes it a little bit further.
And since they make their laws for their country, yeah, they've got the right (not to mention the means) to carry things like this over.
Don't get me wrong, though; I completely agree with your background idea. Fuck censorship. But in the meantime...
WHOOOOSH! (Score:5, Insightful)
This [google.cn] is where it got them.
Seriously, you need to read up a little more on just how extensive the demonstrations around Tiananmen Square really were. That wasn't one guy and a bunch of tanks. It was thousands and thousands of people, getting shot in the back by troops armed with assault rifles as they fled. I recommend a recent Frontline special, called "The Tank Man," [pbs.org] for more information.
Re:You gotta love (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To the contrary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should be:
Yay, go USA! We're Not Yet As Bad As The Worst Countries In The World (TM)!
Which has always struck me as being like saying "Yay Lyme Disease! At Least It's Not AIDS!
America, where's there no point improving if you haven't hit rock bottom yet.
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Insightful)
What matters is what your ideals are and how closely you live them.
We supposedly value "justice". But we seem to be living "vigilantism". And there are people who are 100% okay with that.
The only difference between them and any Chinese executives filtering content is where they were born. If they had been born in China instead of the US, they'd be 100% behind their government's actions to stop the democracy movement.
Re:Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of H (Score:3, Insightful)
And guess what? I discovered another member of the permanent Security Council [wikipedia.org] that does not feel obliged to follow [wikipedia.org] these [wikipedia.org] declarations (especially the fourth one). Now what exactly was your point? I forgot...
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy for you to say because you already have your freedom. If you don't have freedom today, are you willing to die for the hope of others MAY have that freedom in the future? Also, maybe you wanna tell the parents of the thousands of students that mowed down by tanks, that they were 'not willing to pay the price'?
Not that different from the Bush administration (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't sound much different from the Bush administration's stance toward anyone who disagrees with them.
Re:Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of H (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, so does that mean Hitler was an okay dude? Yes and no. In the bigger picture, there is no right and wrong, and nothing matters. But that's not a useful picture. From a Human point of view, Hitler was bad.
Okay, so something may be okay from a particular culture's perspective and still be bad from the perspective of humanity as a whole. The universal declaration of human rights is a pretty good place to start when looking for what might be good for all of humanity.
Now other things are not so clear cut. Circumcision, for instance. Valued cultural practice, or horrible genital mutilation? Who decides?
Finally, simply because something is bad from humanity's point of view, does that give humanity as a whole the right to force an individual or culture to modify their views or behavior? In the case of Hitler, most people would agree that humanity had a moral right to place a value judgement on what he did and use force to stop him. Do we also have a moral right to go into Africa and stop them from cutting off young girls clitorises? Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, what system do we use to determine where the line should be drawn?
I don't have the answers, but I'm sure the answer isn't a simple "everything is relative and we shouldn't ever place value judgements on other cultures" or an arrogant "What I believe is right, is absolutely right, and everyone else can go hang."
Re:you have to give them credit for trying (Score:2, Insightful)
Information wants to be free. That's a force.
Insecure governments will go to any lengths to protect themselves from their perceived insecurities, even if it means imprisoning or murdering their own citizens, making war on their neighbors, or isolating themselves from the world.
That's a far more dominant force.
Re:You gotta love (Score:5, Insightful)
a) under a government structure that prevents dissent (Cuba)
b) is too apathetic to dissent and hold the government accountable for its actions (the USA)
Socialism and free enterprise are two approaches to the same problems, neither of which have a guaranteed outcome.
Guess what: socialism works in a million American communities every day. Assuming you live in a city, I hope you have water, sewage, and roads. You and your community assign these responsibilities to (and pay) a government that is directly responsible to you. If the jobs don't get done, you should go to meetings and find out what the hell is wrong.
If you are too apathetic or stupid to hold your local government responsible for its failings, it isn't a failing of socialism--it is your fault for being a shitty citizen. That's Democracy, chum. And if your government is competent, you have every right as a citizen of a democracy to elect to give them whatever economic responsibilities you want to.
Go read up on rural electrification in America. It would not have happened without government sponsored electric cooperatives, because no investor in their right mind would have tackled the problem. Socialism is an extension of the idea of the cooperative approach to problem solving. It is a choice, and can coexist with free-market solutions, just like credit unions coexist with banks. It is one approach, and is not itself inherently evil or flawed.
The free enterprise approach is also neither fundamentally evil nor flawed. But, just like a cooperative approach, if you have a nest of corrupt, self-serving players running the game with no oversight or accountability, you will have a shitty outcome (Enron, Qwest, Savings & Loans).
By the way, if your local government sics police dogs on you every time you question their choices, that's not a failing of socialism either--that's a police state, and it would be that way regardless of who is in charge of building roads. The state does whatever the hell they want, to make sure that they can keep exploiting you.
If you're going to be a libertarian, at least get fscking clue. Oppression is the inevitable consequence of a monopoly on power. The monopolist will use their position to fight dirty against anybody who challenges them. This goes for politics and a free market economy. A real libertarian knows that a one-party state run by capitalist oligarchs is far more dangerous and oppressive to its citizens than a socialist democracy, because a socialist democracy has accountability and can change anytime the people are motivated.
It's not censorship, it's distortion of truth. (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of behavior is exposed by Orwell on Animal Farm [online-literature.com] and, guess what? The average citizenry, in total absence of further information will take the government discourse as true.
The worst scenario is when the "West" starts to take their version as truth as well. See what happened to Tibet! What about the Goguryeo antiques found in China? In the latter case, the Chinese government spent a lot of money paying "scientists" to deliberately rewrite documents and papers about the history of that region to hide the fact that Goguryeo also was part of ancient Korea!
And screw the scientists as well (academical independence my ass!) Once the Chinese version of stuff hits Britannica, Larousse, the west will also start to believe in them.
"Self-Censoring" is not accurate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover they explicitly say they are censoring, so you are already warned that the view you get presented there is biased. If you want unbiased information, you know you better go somewhere else. It's not that they would pretend to be completely unbiased while actually showing biased information. They openly say "the information on this site is biased in that way".
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
China = dictatorship, with increased amounts of capitalism.
US = capitalistic society, with increased amounts of dictatorship.
Re:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
If the United States wanted democracy in China it would be easy. All we would have to do is threaten a trade embargo unless the PRC instituted democratic reforms. We could easily convince (or force) most of our allies to join us, even Russia even we played hardball. Of course, those democratic reforms would probably mean higher wages, which would mean all the cheap crap we buy from China would be more expensive. And we wouldn't want that would we?