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"?
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
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.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
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.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com