[Foundation-l] Censorship discussion: Thanks to all

Mon Jun 6 16:59:51 UTC 2005

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