Mailing List Archive

REPOST: free speech and wikinews
Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without
any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue,
I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it
in the right quotation style.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Subject: free speech and wikinews
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 03:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthere

Dovi wrote:
> 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.

I tried to put down a bit on the topic here
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_and_free) as I wanted to clarify
those terms to those people not developers (such as me). The concept is
very much used by developers, but is not so well understood by others.

I actually got stuck with misunderstanding on the english article on
what [[free content]] mean... I would welcome your feedback on such
issues. Please do.

> 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.

True.
But is our goal to explain governments what is wrong and where they
should change the way they set up things in their nation ?
I understand what you mean Dovi, and as an individual, I support it. I
am not sure every editor would be glad that the Foundation takes a
political position on the matter, so I do not feel the Foundation should
do it. Just my feeling. I am aware this is a highly contentious point
and that not all will agree with me.

It might be that wikinews in chinese IS important to create, but I do
not think this is the Foundation role to force its existence somehow
against some editors choice. I do not think it is the Foundation role to
take a stance against repression of speech. It is a bit tricky... but
there is at the same time a strong expectation that the Foundation
should not lead the project or impact in the way a project works... and
an expectation that we fix issues the communities do not fix themselves.

All with... generally speaking... extremely little feedback on what we
do (so, I really thank you for giving feedback on this topic).

I have all along the year wondered where was the limit of what community
expected from us. Taking political positions or not ? Taking care of
information distribution ourselves or focusing on helping the projects
to grow only ? Getting deeply involved in distribution in third world
countries thanks to grants or not ? Trying to stimulate release of
information under free licences by contacting govermental agencies for
example, or not ?

I have my own opinions. I try to listen to others opinions. I do not
hear so many :-(

> 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 do not define what we want to do as "to make the sum total of human
knowledge available for free"

What I think we try to do is "to make the sum of human knowledge
available to the largest number of people on Earth".

That makes a huge difference :-)

The information being free (as in free speech) or free (as in free beer)
is only a MEAN, not an END.
To give access to information to the largest number of guys, the
following can help
* help information to spread (through using a free licence)
* provide information for free (to reduce financial bottleneck)
* provide information in people mother language (to reduce misunderstanding)

Ideally, we should also work on plateform, since we today only provide
information through the net, to which not everyone has access to.

> 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



I am not sure how to express it exactly, but...
We are committed to free software and free content and gratis content in
particular because it helps our goal.
Most of us ALSO support free software, but it is not our "political goal".
Our goal is collecting information, gathering it and making it available.

I feel it is touchy to say this... but at the same time... when I read
the article defining [[free content]], when I see how few people mind it
being incorrect, or how few people understand and agree on what it
means... I feel the ground is much stronger when I focus on our goal
than on fluttery concepts :-)

There is a tiny difference here, but relevant. Imho.

In any cases, I appreciate very much your mails :-)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: REPOST: free speech and wikinews [ In reply to ]
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without
> any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue,
> I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it
> in the right quotation style.
>

Thank you very much. With the volume of email I get daily, most of it
important, I was actually not going to read that one because of the
extra time investment involved in separating the speakers' words. I
appreciate the help you offered in that area as much as I appreciate the
effort Anthere put into composing the email in the first place.

That aside, I have my own comments to offer on the subject, now that
I've seen Anthere's response:

I actually agree more with Dovi than with Anthere, in terms of what has
been said. I very much believe that without simply acting as though
free speech in the political sense, we cannot take advantage of free
speech in the "free content" sense to gain the benefits we seek for the
efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. However (yes, there's a
however):

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. Even if you remove the distinction between Wikipedia and
Wikinews, the distinction between "already existing" and "proposed" must
be taken into account: it is my belief that we cannot in good conscience
take steps in the creation of a new project that we have reason to
believe will not only bring about its own failure but that of an already
existing project. Balance that against my impression that the various
Wikipedias should take precedence over their sibling Wikinews projects,
and bake at 400 degrees for thirty-five minutes for a nice souffle.

Ahem. What I'm trying to say is this: We should definitely try to make
a Chinese Wikinews happen if we can do so without killing off the
Chinese Wikipedia, as well as itself, in the same effort. Yes, stand up
for principle, but do so in a manner that doesn't kill the principle at
the same time.

This is just the opinion of one man. Feel free to disagree. Don't
attribute it to anyone else besides me without asking them first. Have
a nice day.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Re: REPOST: free speech and wikinews [ In reply to ]
Chad Perrin a écrit:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>Anthere appears to have inserted her replies into Dovi's email without
>>any indication of who is saying what. No doubt it's just a client issue,
>>I don't mean to blame anyone. I just wanted to help out by reposting it
>>in the right quotation style.
>>
>
>
> Thank you very much. With the volume of email I get daily, most of it
> important, I was actually not going to read that one because of the
> extra time investment involved in separating the speakers' words. I
> appreciate the help you offered in that area as much as I appreciate the
> effort Anthere put into composing the email in the first place.


I am sorry :-(
It was supposed to be indented... I know not why... it went away...

> This is just the opinion of one man. Feel free to disagree. Don't
> attribute it to anyone else besides me without asking them first. Have
> a nice day.

I would like to similarly add that what I said is naturally my opinion
and not to be attributed to anyone else. In particular, it is certainly
not board opinion. I prefer to have an opinion rather than none, I also
prefer to voice it rather than not, but I try not to impose it on
anyone. I think that taking the stance suggested by Dovi... is a step
toward imposing the board view on community. I do not think we have such
a right. Sorry Dovi, but I prefer a board, which might sometimes appear
indecisive and very slow to take a decision, rather than a board which
take decisions for others or collect votes rather than letting the
opportunity to editors to find a consensus amongst themselves.

Even though I might on the principle agree with you :-)

Generally, I rather agree with what Chad just wrote

Well, I have one week to think about it :-)

Anthere
Re: REPOST: free speech and wikinews [ In reply to ]
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?

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.

Be bold.

Erik
Re: REPOST: free speech and wikinews [ In reply to ]
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 ]
Re: REPOST: free speech and wikinews [ In reply to ]
Chad Perrin:
> 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.

Briefly:
- Can NPOV in the Chinese WP be respected under the conditions as they
are? If not, a principle on which Wikipedia was founded is already being
violated.
- Chinese WN is not being launched under the same conditions as other
WN. As such, an intervention has already been made. In any case, "you
cannot not communicate"; through action or inaction, you cannot avoid
sending a signal to the Chinese community. We have to carefully observe
what the effects of this signal are going to be.
- In general, a report from or survey of the Chinese Wikipedia community
on NPOV and censorship issues would be very helpful.

Erik