At first, Wikipedia might seem much like other recent successes of the internet world. But its founder says there is a difference: this website won't be submitting itself to Chinese censorship.
Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, is now one of the 20 most-visited sites on the Web, according to Alexa rankings.
Started in January 2001 as a complement to the now-defunct Nupedia, the site grew in content based on a "wiki" system that allows anyone to edit its content. The huge volume of free information posted on it has made the site more and more popular.
However, when the site attracted the attention of Chinese censorship authorities, Wikipedia faced a predictable response: it was blocked. But where several internet giants before it had given in to the Chinese Communist Party's censorship, Wikipedia didn't budge. In August, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales publicly stated that "censorship was antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia" and that "we occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up."
Google came under fire earlier this year when it announced it would subject its Chinese website to the censorship of the ruling Communist authorities. Critics said Google had violated its corporate slogan: "Don't be evil."
Wales' comments came at a time when Beijing had blocked Wikipedia for the longest time ever: ten months. Finally, on Oct. 10, nearly one year after the blockage began, the English-language Wikipedia site quietly became unblocked, possibly due to pressure from academics and researchers who fear its blockage would cripple the research environment.
The Chinese-language version remains blocked.
The Epoch Times caught up with Wales, a man Time magazine recently named one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
The Epoch Times: Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have all capitulated to the Chinese Communist Party's demands for self-censorship. What direction do you think Wikipedia might go in the future?
Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia would never go that way in the future, so long as I can prevent it. Our community of passionate users would never tolerate it. I stand for something important and ethical: individual rights.
ET: The big names in the industry say that it is better to operate with some self-censorship, arguing that it helps bring some free speech into China rather than none. What do you think about this?
JW: I think that this argument can make some sense, sometimes, but it is easy for it to become an excuse. We faced the same kinds of questions regarding Apartheid in South Africa… is it better to engage productively, or to refuse to co-operate at all.
The important point is that the public should say to the companies who have compromised: prove it to us that you are doing something good there; we will not accept it if this is only an excuse to make money.
ET: What do you think might have happened if Wikipedia were a commercial entity rather than a non-profit? Do you think self-censorship might have happened at Wikipedia if the result had been access to a new commercial market?
JW: Not if I have anything to do with it. My for-profit company Wikia will also not co-operate with censors. This is a personal ethical point for me.
ET: Do you think that the Chinese Communist Party might devote resources to manipulating Wikipedia articles that present it in a bad light? How would you stop it?
JW: This is really not a problem. There is a strong community that believes passionately in neutrality and transparency and openness. The Chinese government is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia… on the same footing as anyone else.
ET: Several Epoch Times journalists have been arrested in China for exposing the true nature of the Communist regime and the human rights violations there, even as Beijing tightens control over other media. Do you think we will see the winds of change in China soon?
JW: Yes, I do. I think that freedom wins in the end, because the moral is the practical. And the Chinese government will, in the end, realize that they are hurting themselves and their own people with their wildly impractical censorship policies.
Feeds