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
[email protected] wrote: Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to [email protected]
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 [email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected]
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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Timwi ([email protected]) [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: [email protected] 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]]
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
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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.
I very much agree with this analysis. There is always a need to maintain some focus on the general goals of the projects. Primarily, it involves making information freely available to everyone. This kind of goal has more of the "free as in beer" characteristics. Most of our core principle focus on providing access to both writers and readers. Our discussions on intellectual property laws ultimately relate to how this might be done. Even NPOV focuses on seeing multiple sides of the story, rather than suppressing opposition.
Freedom as in speech may follow as a natural consequence of NPOV. Just as the success of Wikipedia in obscure languages will depend on work done by speakers of those languages so too will free speech in relatively unfree countries depend on the action of the people affected. Those of us in relatively free countries can help but we can't interfere. We also need to accept that freedom in those places may look quite different from what is familiar to us.
I don't know how tongue-in-cheek Jimbo was when he spoke of the way that history is taught in the United States. Notably when it leaves the perception that other countries can be ignored until they go to war against each other, at which point a poerful outsider needs to go in and knock some sense into the combatants. As often as not the effect of that can be that the combatants will then unite, but only to fight against a common enemy.
Free speech is not gained by free idealists haranguing the unfree from the comfort of their armchairs.
I think that so far we have had an easy ride in our free-as-in-beer approach. Phenomenal growth has probably left a lot of people stunned and wondering how this 10-ton weight ended up on their toes. For some, like Britannica that already had to adapt to Encarta in 1994, the blow may be fatal. Others may just be waiting for auditors' reports before they can understand the effect on the bottom line. We are in the lag before the reports. There are bound to be some reactions when they realize that this upstart has undermined their bottom line rather than attacked it. I can forsee some interesting times ahead, which I hope we will face without succombing to panic. That is best accomplished by holding tight to core values. Of the two kinds of freedom, both are important, but only one is a core value.
Ec
Sorry, I don't know how I missed this. Thanks for the reply.
Overall, "pausing to evaluate the situation" is a good idea, and it is important to choose battles wisely. What worries me is that this might be more than just a pause, and put the issue on a back-burner indefinitely. And also how we evaluate which battles we choose to fight.
A couple of points I think should be re-emphasized:
1. I hope Wikinews people won't throw rotten tomatoes at me for saying this, but Wikinews is just a hobby and not a value-product, and not likely to be much more than a hobby for a long time in English and most other languages. I think it will eventually provide great value as it grows, but it doesn't now, because there are much better news sources out there on the net. But this is *not* true of Chinese: Providing an outlet like this for Chinese news would be a thing of tremendous, immediate value to a huge number of people. And it is precisely this language that we are blocking! That is terrible.
2. When it comes to choosing our battles, we should remember that our choices *now* have implications for our *future* choices. Will we also deny Wikinews in Arabic if people in some countries are worried about that being blocked? Or certain other countries in Asia and Africa, or even a few left in Eastern Europe? A firm policy decision now will might prevent damage in the future if people (and governments and corporations) simply know, in advance, that censorship is not on the agenda at Wikimedia.
3. When you decide which battles to fight, you first have to evaluate how strong you are! Wikimedia is not weak; Wikipedia (plus its sisters) have become invaluable resources provided by a well-known, well-respected organization. This is only becoming more and more so, month by month, and the trend is not going to be reversed. In other words, we have the *strength* to stand up to this in the long term. It is not all or nothing: We should assume that even the *worst-case* scenario is a ban that will be eventually be revoked, because no govenment will be able to justify banning it in the long term.
4. Jimbo wrote: "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!" .... I really think that the whole point has been missed here. Of course we are not looking for glory and amazing press releases (though they are nice... :-). The point is that those press releases are not important for making us feel good, but for the good that they can do for our Chinese contributors. If the worst-case scenario happens, and we get press releases like that, their purpose in our eyes will *not* be to *report* on the problem, but to help *solve* the problem. The Chinese government is not impervious to criticism, and such press will make sure that blocking, if it happens, will not stand in the long run.
5. We should also consider negative press, like this story that came out today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm. Do we want to be the same as that? Because we are non-profit, we have the opportunity to provide an alternative that other corporations cannot provide. Let's do it!
6. I wonder if the Chinese censors are reading this right now? If so, let's send them the right message. :-)
Dovi
--------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
Dovi Jacobs ([email protected]) [050615 04:02]:
Overall, "pausing to evaluate the situation" is a good idea, and it is important to choose battles wisely. What worries me is that this might be more than just a pause, and put the issue on a back-burner indefinitely. And also how we evaluate which battles we choose to fight.
Indeed. Presumably the same semi-permanent back burner a Cantonese Wikipedia is on.
- When it comes to choosing our battles, we should remember that our choices *now* have implications for our *future* choices. Will we also deny Wikinews in Arabic if people in some countries are worried about that being blocked? Or certain other countries in Asia and Africa, or even a few left in Eastern Europe? A firm policy decision now will might prevent damage in the future if people (and governments and corporations) simply know, in advance, that censorship is not on the agenda at Wikimedia.
This is fantastically important.
- When you decide which battles to fight, you first have to evaluate how strong you are! Wikimedia is not weak; Wikipedia (plus its sisters) have become invaluable resources provided by a well-known, well-respected organization. This is only becoming more and more so, month by month, and the trend is not going to be reversed. In other words, we have the *strength* to stand up to this in the long term. It is not all or nothing: We should assume that even the *worst-case* scenario is a ban that will be eventually be revoked, because no govenment will be able to justify banning it in the long term.
Yep. It's not hard to phrase it in terms of lost face either.
I agree with everything in this message.
- d.