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)
Re:evil (Score:3, Informative)
It is my impression that one has every right to fork Wikipedia or otherwise imitate it.
Now, restricting access to one site over the other is a completely different story.
Re:evil (Score:2)
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 c
Re:evil (Score:2)
Your argument seems to rest on two implicit premises that are, IMHO, rather questionable. First, that "X is popular" imples "X is not evil", and sec
Re:evil (Score:2)
"Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts. Boy, I'm getting mighty sick of this"
*Poof*
"Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts..."
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 preten
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:evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that analogous to saying jumping is not too terribly different from flying because your feet are off the ground in both cases? My guess is that you know much more about the FCC than I do, but for example it doesn't keep media from criticizing the government. In general, it can't keep the media from discussing any particular idea, although I suppose it can limit the way that the media can discuss the id
Re:evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, you can't honestly believe that the reason that this is being censored is in no way related to China's policy regarding information dissemination? Granted the company is choosing to go along with it, a morally repugnant stance IMHO, but the Chinese government IS responsible.
Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of Huma (Score:5, Interesting)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [wikipedia.org] is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, outlining the organization's view on the human rights guaranteed to all people. Chief amount these rights are:
* The right to life, liberty and security of person.
* The right to an education.
* The right to participate fully in cultural life.
* Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment.
* Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
* Freedom of expression and opinion.
It is interesting to note that China, being a permanent Security Council [wikipedia.org], should feel obliged to follow these declarations, but does not.
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:Cultural Relativism, Universal Declaration of H (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, but they do [people.com.cn]:
And, in case there was any doubt,
Of course, there's Article 51.
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
Absolute relativism is retarded. (Score:3, Funny)
Sweet. I have a strongly held personal belief in stabbing you in the face. Morally, I'm in the clear. Thanks!
But..... (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone knows the USA is much worse than china...
Re:But..... (Score:2)
Re:But..... (Score:3, Funny)
So it should be umpossible, not unpossible.
To the contrary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay, go USA! We're Not As Bad As China (TM)!
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:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Funny)
And we'll string ya up if you disagree!
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
China = dictatorship, with increased amounts of capitalism.
US = capitalistic society, with increased amounts of dictatorship.
In communist china... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In communist china... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Rick
Re:In communist china... (Score:2)
Re:In communist china... (Score:2, Funny)
I tried to load the page, but I get lots of '????' and squares where articles should be....
Let me guess.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me guess.. (Score:2)
Do Not Taunt (Score:4, Funny)
Happy Fun Wiki!
It's an excellent resource (Score:5, Funny)
Brave New China? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, they'll give the breakers of this rule a healthy dose of soma [wikipedia.org].
Re:Brave New China? (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:Brave New China? (Score:2)
Re:Brave New China? (Score:2)
You WILL be happy or else! Can't you see the logic in that??? Damn pessimists.
Re:Brave New China? (Score:2)
The beginning of the "Wiki Wars" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The beginning of the "Wiki Wars" (Score:2, Interesting)
But does it report the authors to the government? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not a Chinese Wikipedia. (Score:5, Funny)
Orlowski would love this (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess this post is kinda flamebaity, but well...
Re:Orlowski would love this (Score:2)
Indeed, it's quite the opposite. The critics of Wikipedia are complaining that WP:OFFICE is now being used to protect living people (that Peppers guy), clamp down on stuff that'll get them sued ("moral responsibility"), and so forth. If they had more accountability, they'd actually have to defend their actions.
-Erwos
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)
Re:Censorship rights (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Censorship rights (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Censorship rights (Score:2)
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: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: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: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'?
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.
Ah, but the reason is simple... (Score:3, Interesting)
China is a 1,300,000,000-strong giant with immense military capability. Now, I would have gladly fought for an actual, worthy ideal, say, liberating China from an oppressive government; however, those that lead my government are not so eager to take on someone their own size, or bigger. Suddenly, logic and reasoning re-enter the equation when confronted with an adversary so behemoth, the
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
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.
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:Freedom Depends on the Citizens (Score:4, Informative)
Students at the Tianamen square were but a tiny ant's piss: they did and do not represent significant proportion of chinese as whole. His point is entirely valid: if enough chinese did want things we in the west take for granted, they would get it. They don't, at least not yet.
You really don't have clue about the scale of it do you. There were protest up to 100,000 people in the streets of Beijing early May. And there were protests in every major cities in China during the month. If you weren't old enough to read in 1989 you can do it now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 [wikipedia.org]
2600 died and 30000 injuried over one single night. That's about the same number on the war with iraq [antiwar.com] since 2003. That's an ant's piss to you eh?
The first rule of Baidupedia... (Score:2)
Ah yes, malicious evaluation (Score:2)
Malicious evaluation, seditious reasoning and logic, and evil, evil truth-telling.
The sweet taste of disillusionment (Score:2)
Then getting back from college and finding out she's living in a trailer.. with a crack habit.. and her pimp...
Not that I would have had experience in that field... or anything...
Ensucklopedia (Score:2, Informative)
Sample Baidupedia Entries (Score:2, Funny)
Freedom: A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference as long as these actions do not undermine the authority of the state.
Democracy: Government of the people by wealthy people.
Communism: Government of the people by the people where the people collectively own all property and the state takes care of you so everyone is happy.
Capitalism: An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means
How is this any different (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait, that's just free-market..
Didn't hackers solve this years ago? (Score:3, Interesting)
Side note: This brings up an interesting discussion a chineese friend and I had the other day.
There are some things in America that simply won't work in China. One, he claims, is all you can eat restaraunts. People will just move in until you kick them out. When they have a salad bar, people will build 3 foot high salads (Search for it on Flicker--it's a pretty amazing sight to behold).
This also came up when we were discussing selling a house. He was wondering why we clean the house when we leave. We don't have to clean the carpets or drapes, but you just do--often spending quite a bit of money that we don't have to.
Apparently there are many other examples, all coming down to, he claims and I paraphrase: Chineese people are much less likely to look out for the "Common Good" unless forced to by law.
With this concept in mind, I kind of wonder if open source concepts (including the contents of the wikipedia) will work in China, or will it all be like our whitehouse/wallmart where everyone is only adding entries when it helps themselves personally.
ps: I wouldn't even consider that this might be a racial issue, it's obviously cultural (if it existis at all--if not please correct me!)
Re:Didn't hackers solve this years ago? (Score:2)
ISTR reading, a long time ago, about a Hong Kong AYCE restaurant that solved this problem by charging for time. Actually, American ones will do this, too, from what I hear, though less formally -- they'll just through you out or exercise the "we reserve the right to refuse service..." clause if you abuse it.
Re:Didn't hackers solve this years ago? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't to suggest that in China there isn't a value for the public good. Quite the contrary. Just a few years ago if you went to the Temple of Heaven the big steps that lead into the temple weren't fenced off at all. Specifically, there is a huge relief carving that goes up through the center of the stairs, and people had enough respect and common sense not to abuse that privelege by walking on it, or vandalizing it. All through Beijing there are landmarks that weren't protected at all from the people, because they didn't need to be. Of course, a lot of this has changed recently, and in the past few years some of these things have started to be fenced off.
On the Linux note, her parents view Linux with a kind of mild amusement. They find it somewhat humorous that people would spend so much time and effort to write free software, and think I'm kind of crazy for choosing a career with Linux.
no music (Score:2)
Well that excludes about all the music from the late 70's (Punk) to the current popular rubbish. And also most of the last 100 years of Blues and others.
censorship (Score:2)
All that energy... (Score:2)
Cultural bias and other stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
oh well... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oh well... (Score:2)
OK This is too much. (Score:5, Funny)
What next self censorship posts? (Score:2, Funny)
Self-censoring (Score:2)
NPOV (Score:5, Funny)
LOL. That's funny stuff. In the US, they reject text for not having a neutral point of view. In China, they reject text for not having a "positive" point of view.
It is the fault of America and Europe!!! (Score:3, Funny)
No need to take this Baidu encyclopedia seriously (Score:4, Informative)
The Chinese version of Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has only 67k articles for several years of development, however this Baidu encyclopedia already has more articles than that within several days. Why is that? It is because Baidu doesn't care about copyrights. According to their user agreement/disclaimer [baidu.com] (which is only available in Chinese), the content will be released under GFDL and/or CC-SA 2.5 (which are incompatible) and at the same time all copyrights are reserved by Baidu. In fact there are a bunch of other contradictions within the same document. On the other hand, its users also doesn't care about copyrights too, because many of the articles are just copied from all the sites around the web.
Therefore we don't have to take this Baidu encyclopedia seriously, because even Baidu doesn't take this encyclopedia seriously. They launch this project just to create cohesion within its users.
<conspiracy>However there is one more interesting thing about this Baidu encyclopedia: Baidu as a search engine raises to prominence in China after Google is blocked. And if you don't know already, the Chinese Wikipedia (actually all the wikimedia projects) is blocked in China. Coincidence?</conspiracy>
Vietnamese Wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
censorship can cut down on spam (Score:5, Interesting)
mostly, the portscan and connect attempts (break-ins) are from
I'm perfectly happy to ban all of
but how about this for a pro-active idea? put photos of tienenmen sq. (the REAL photos - you know what I mean) on your home page. that, alone, should get your IP blocked by the chinese gov.
end result: you've just installed a spamblock closer to the source than you could ever accomplish without their 'help'.
I think I'm going to try this. (what is there to lose?)
Shades of Radio Moscow (Score:3, Interesting)
So, China now manufacture pretty much everything we buy or own due to outsourcing.
Has anybody else noticed what's happening? Where are we heading?
"The protests of 1989 resulted in the killing of Chinese protestors in the streets to the west of the square and adjacent areas. Some sources (Graham Earnshaw and Columbia Journal Review) claim that none died on the square itself. Opponents of the Chinese democracy movement object to the Western Media's labelling of the Tiananmen Massacre, the event known to the Chinese simply as the June Fourth or June Fourth movement, and June Fourth Incident. However, Chinese expatriates that escaped the tyranny after the killing said that the numbers ended up being in the thousands. This was a combination of the hundreds killed on the spot and the miniature purge that followed. These stories are confirmed by intelligence in the country as well. [edit]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianamen_square [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:It's not censorship, it's distortion of truth. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the wall for you. Smile. Your children will be with you. Only one of them will have a real bullet.
KFG
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:5, Interesting)
That it's not okay to speak out against the values of the culture you are in?
Somebody mod this guy down!!!
Er... wait...
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Somebody mod this guy down!!!
That deserves a +5 funny (or even insightful).
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:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
To paraphrase Voltaire:
You are a complete idiot, but I respect your right to express your dumbass opinion, even if you are too stupid to realize that you have such a right. If it ever becomes needed, I'll willingly go to war against tyranical states in order to defend your right to foolishly assert that foreign tyrants are doing nothing wrong by suppres
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:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Democracy isn't like that (Score:2)
When one defends democracy, one stands for the principle that each nation may choose the set of values and beliefs they should observe. It's not Americans and Europeans who fight for democracy in China that are fighting against the right of Chinese people to observe their own values and beliefs.
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Re:I Love Articles Like This (Score:2)
Maybe those tags haven't caught on because most people understand that objections to the Chinese government are all about hatred for communist tyranny, not bigotry against those with thin eyes.
Utter hatred of the PRC and North Korean governments is a sign of genuine love for the people who they are rolling the tanks over (both figuratively and literally).
Re:How is that possible? (Score:2)
Re:How is that possible? (Score:2)
Re:You gotta love (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this a coincidence? (Score:3, Informative)
I did the same; I got an Intel article, a Samsung one, then tried to slip her the old 'Falun Gong' and whaddya know, I drop off their end of the Internet. Permanently.
Are there any other keywords that should have the same effect and that somebody else can try?