The power and principle of Wikipedia

September 12, 2006

Google caved, but Wikipedia is standing up to the forces of totalitarianism, “[defying] the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries”.

Of course, Google and Wikipedia aren’t the same thing. The one has shareholders, a share price, and market competitiveness to keep in mind. The other is, well, unbridled internet democracy, an amazingly successful experiment in online communication and content.

I still contend that Google, which perhaps can’t afford to take uniformly principled stands, did the right thing and that, however controversial, its censored presence in China may yet be the thin end of a wedge that is essential to opening up that country to alternatives to its brutal totalitarianism. And yet I credit Wikipedia for remaining true to itself.

One wonders which approach will prove the more successful in China, that is, which online power will end up doing the most to liberate China from its censorious oppression.

Perhaps — and hopefully — the Chinese people will benefit from both in their own way.

September 12, 2006 at 12:24 pm

Cool,

I like Wikipedia. I find mistakes occasionally, but it’s a great tool.

I don’t buy your thinking that Google’s acceptance of censorship will help open borders. Ever since the internet started tearing down national boundaries, and governments’ control of information, EVERY government has been trying to put them back up. Look at a couple of weeks ago, when TIME.com ran an article, but blocked British-based IP addresses from accessing it, because it might have violated British law.

They like to keep us focused on Chinese censorship, but the scarier stuff is the lessons which they are learning from China- a veritable how-to book on censoring in the internet age. And those lessons are starting to be taken back to the home front.

If people aren’t careful, the internet truly will become Ted Steven’s ‘internets’, divided by countries. And that will be a sad day for the freedom of ideas and knowledge.

I give a standing ovation to the Wiki-crowd for daring the audacity of standing up to the sociopolitical tyranny that is the current form of government in China. However, I should not be surprised if these fine folks start getting pressure from “some people” inside the Beltway who do not wish to risk the ire of Beijing, and who have ignored for far too many years the potential harm which that government could inflict upon the global economy in general—and the American economy in specificity. Given all the things that would either not exist, or cease to function, were every last subcomponent that was “made in China” to be suddenly removed from availability, the question begs to be asked: Should America follow the lead of Wikipedia, and thus by saying “no” to China, embark upon a path to completely retool its industrial and commercial base? For just as it would have been a travesty to both the human intellect and the rights of self-expression, had Wikipedia “flipped a Google” for China, so too it will be a travesty when the day comes—not “if,” but “when”—the growing juggernaut across the Pacific even suggests holding this nation hostage by economic, commercial, technological, and industrial means, just to reinforce its own sociopolitical mantra.

So, the question is: What’s better—Being a Wiki—or a Google?

I think Wikipedia provides the better reply….

I share your concerns, Castor Troy. And I think internet censorship — indeed, an internet governed by political considerations — is a real danger. I won’t let Google entirely off the hook, but I can understand why it did what it did and what good could possibly come of it.

And I share your concerns about China, Steve.

Obviously, though, Google and Wikipedia serve different purposes. One’s a search engine and the other’s an ever-growing encyclopedia. I use Google more than I do Wikipedia, but both are essential.

By the way, there’s an excellent article on Wikipedia in the latest Atlantic.

It should be noted, though, that Wikipedia serves as a “multi-dimensional” encyclopedia. Unlike something along the lines of World Book or Colliers—where the entry is written from one disparate group of viewpoints, a Wiki entry can contain data from many sources. This, I believe, is what the Chinese fear; a source-document that provides encyclopedic data that wouldn’t otherwise be found, had its only source been “G.”

By the way, Michael—thanks for the day, and the good posts….

Napoleon is supposed to have said, when asked why he hadn’t invaded China, “Let China sleep. When she awakes the world will tremble.” (I can’t find where/if Bonaparte said that; William Safire, Safire’s New Political Dictionary (1993) says it was spoken to Lord Amherst).

China is crushingly anti-democratic, though I’m not sure how I’d deal with the enormity of previously unimaginable poverty, coupled with a world-threatening demographic nightmare, one beclouded by such myths as the importance of bearing male children (however many females have to be aborted or killed in the process).

That aside, I”m all for open information flows, and I hate to see it shut down or hidden away for whatever reason. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32, KJV)

Comments are closed.