[Foundation-l] REPOST: free speech and wikinews

Tue May 3 21:45:12 UTC 2005

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:02:05PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Chad-
> >The initial goal of this effort as a whole was distributing encyclopedic
> >knowledge to the world at large.  If a new Wikinews project might
> >interfere with the ability to get a Wikipedia into the hands of people
> >worldwide, I tend to think that the proposed Wikinews project's goals
> >must take a back seat to those of the already existing Wikipedia
> >project.
> 
> I find it very dubious that an NPOV Wikipedia can exist in the long term 
> in an environment where an NPOV Wikinews cannot. Either it will be 
> modified to suit the interests of the censors, or it will be censored.
> 
> I am deliberately writing "an NPOV Wikipedia" and not "an NPOV 
> encyclopedia." There is an important distinction. Unlike traditional 
> paper encyclopedias, Wikipedia is, in fact, very good at dealing with 
> current events -- so good that, in cases of major global events, it 
> often provides much better background information than Wikinews itself. 
> The Chinese Wikipedia has an "In the news" section on the frontpage just 
> like the English one, and articles about current political issues are 
> created as they happen.
> 
> I do not disagree that Wikinews faces an increased risk, since it will 
> cover everyday politics in much greater detail than Wikipedia does. I 
> do, however, also believe that the integrity of our information is of 
> paramount importance, and that the Chinese Wikipedia will face serious 
> issues of integrity, if it does not already do so.
> 
> In an environment dominated by fear, NPOV will be difficult to maintain. 
> The peer dynamics may ensure conformity with the government's version of 
> reality: "Don't write this -- you don't want all of Wikipedia to be 
> censored!" Are we, as a community, sending the Chinese Wikipedians the 
> signal that this is the *wrong* thing to do? That, if an NPOV 
> presentation will be censored, then we must face that censorship? That 
> it is important to stand up for this principle?

Hey, I'm not saying we should be timid about issues of NPOV integrity
and the like -- I'm just saying that, before launching a new project, we
should seriously consider whether it might endanger the already extant
projects.  Those already extant, and perhaps more important (to the
foundation), projects should in no way be limited by the new projects,
whether by the danger of unwanted attention they may draw or by any
impression that putting off such a project might be a direction toward
feaful caution.  My entire point is that the integrity of the Wikipedia
project must be maintained.

In any case, I'm not even advocating against the adoption and
institution of a Chinese Wikinews project.  I have nowhere near the
familiarity with the details of circumstances needed to make a useful
judgment.  I'm just advocating a little bit of attention to the very
real concerns that may arise in relation to its unintended effects on
the Chinese Wikipedia.

> 
> By launching the Chinese Wikinews when there are enough interested 
> participants, we could send this clear signal. We could let everyone 
> know that the Wikimedia community is not driven by fear, but by a thirst 
> for knowledge and a desire to share it. If the Chinese government wants 
> to censor a community-driven project whose stated goal is a neutral 
> presentation of the facts on any subject, then let it do so. And then 
> let the Chinese people find out about it.

I'm really not of the opinion that sending any clear signals is anything
that we should be trying to do here.  The Wikimedia foundation can
certainly lead by example, but that should not be its goal or its aim.
The Wikimedia Foundation already has a purpose, and doesn't need
political advocacy to be added to that.  While others may well disagree
with me, I'm of the opinion that the "signal" we "send" should in no way
be a determining factor in any decisions made about what projects are
started and supported.

Much as I'd love to be a part of a revolutionary effort to bring
principles of liberty and free speech to the entire world, I don't think
that's what the Wikimedia Foundation should be.  In fact, I think it
does a much, much better job of doing just that by accident than it ever
could by design.  This is, in fact, one of the reasons that I believe so
strongly that Wikipedia is a Good Thing.

Rather than being "bold", as you suggest, I'd recommend that we simply
be "true" -- true to the purpose for which, and the principles on which,
Wikipedia was created.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]