Beatings, Doxxings, Harassment: the War Over Chinese Wikipedia (fastcompany.com) 50
The Wikimedia Foundation banned seven high-level users in September and temporarily demoted a dozen others for abuses "unprecedented in scope and nature." Slashdot reader harrymcc explains:
The foundation accused these volunteers of biasing it in favor of the Chinese government's viewpoint. This incident involves beatings, doxxings, and harassment designed to ensure pro-Beijing content.
harrymcc is also technology editor at Fast Company, which got more details from Wikimedia's VP of of Community Resilience & Sustainability, Maggie Dennis: Dennis said a monthlong investigation found that the veteran editors were "coordinating to bias the encyclopedia and bias positions of authority" around a pro-Beijing viewpoint, in part by meddling in administrator elections and threatening, and even physically assaulting, other volunteers...
Wikipedians in China have it especially hard, because the government blocks the site and makes accessing it a crime... But as with the dedicated mainland users of blocked apps like Instagram, Telegram, and Twitter, the prohibition hasn't deterred hundreds of volunteers, who tunnel through the Great Firewall with VPNs, and now make up a small but die-hard part of the Chinese Wikipedia community. Despite China's blockade, the site remains one of the ten most active language versions of Wikipedia, thanks largely to growing numbers of editors based in Taiwan and Hong Kong...
[A]mid acute worries over China's influence in both places, the community's mix of users and viewpoints has grown increasingly combustible. In 2014, when mainland editors were in the majority, there were few references to the Hong Kong protests; more recently, swarms of "pro Beijing" editors and "pro democracy" editors have battled over how exactly to depict those and simliar events. Were the students at a particular rally in Hong Kong protesters or were they rioters? Is a state-backed news outlet a reliable source?
In some cases, the Foundation found, the fights had spread beyond online harassment into real-life threats, and worse... Dennis says there is no evidence the banned editors were backed by the government...
[U]ntil September, the Foundation had only issued 86 bans since 2012, and typically only one at a time. Suddenly, the Foundation's bans and penalties had knocked out a third of the Chinese edition's administrators.
China "is home to the world's largest population of internet users and to the world's most sophisticated apparatus for policing them," the article notes.
It argues that the banned users "liked to defend Beijing's point of view, but they also liked their influence over the Wiki community; and a pro-China stance allowed them to more easily fly under the government's radar. To protect their fiefdom, they sometimes resorted to personal threats, harassment, and assault." Since the ban, they've now launched a "hard fork" of Chinese Wikipedia which already has 400,000 articles, "tailored to appease government censors so that anyone on the mainland can access it."
The article also explores the possibility of having one global version of Wikipedia, rather than separate local editions.
harrymcc is also technology editor at Fast Company, which got more details from Wikimedia's VP of of Community Resilience & Sustainability, Maggie Dennis: Dennis said a monthlong investigation found that the veteran editors were "coordinating to bias the encyclopedia and bias positions of authority" around a pro-Beijing viewpoint, in part by meddling in administrator elections and threatening, and even physically assaulting, other volunteers...
Wikipedians in China have it especially hard, because the government blocks the site and makes accessing it a crime... But as with the dedicated mainland users of blocked apps like Instagram, Telegram, and Twitter, the prohibition hasn't deterred hundreds of volunteers, who tunnel through the Great Firewall with VPNs, and now make up a small but die-hard part of the Chinese Wikipedia community. Despite China's blockade, the site remains one of the ten most active language versions of Wikipedia, thanks largely to growing numbers of editors based in Taiwan and Hong Kong...
[A]mid acute worries over China's influence in both places, the community's mix of users and viewpoints has grown increasingly combustible. In 2014, when mainland editors were in the majority, there were few references to the Hong Kong protests; more recently, swarms of "pro Beijing" editors and "pro democracy" editors have battled over how exactly to depict those and simliar events. Were the students at a particular rally in Hong Kong protesters or were they rioters? Is a state-backed news outlet a reliable source?
In some cases, the Foundation found, the fights had spread beyond online harassment into real-life threats, and worse... Dennis says there is no evidence the banned editors were backed by the government...
[U]ntil September, the Foundation had only issued 86 bans since 2012, and typically only one at a time. Suddenly, the Foundation's bans and penalties had knocked out a third of the Chinese edition's administrators.
China "is home to the world's largest population of internet users and to the world's most sophisticated apparatus for policing them," the article notes.
It argues that the banned users "liked to defend Beijing's point of view, but they also liked their influence over the Wiki community; and a pro-China stance allowed them to more easily fly under the government's radar. To protect their fiefdom, they sometimes resorted to personal threats, harassment, and assault." Since the ban, they've now launched a "hard fork" of Chinese Wikipedia which already has 400,000 articles, "tailored to appease government censors so that anyone on the mainland can access it."
The article also explores the possibility of having one global version of Wikipedia, rather than separate local editions.
Quite an Interesting Article. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quite an Interesting Article. (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly why we have Freedom of Speech in the USA. Be thankful!
You were modded down because your support of human rights flies in the face of the movement to the New World Order. 10 social credit points have been deducted from your account.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is about biased editing of a privately owned website
This article is about meddling in the organization of groups with alternative viewpoints using beatings and other forms of harassment. That the goal of the various groups involved is the editing of a few Wikipedia pages is only tangential to the issue.
The Chinese government is not involved in this dispute.
It is in that it is not stepping up to mediate what would be civil rights violations in this country. Civil rights violations can be about one private group or individual violating the rights of another.
Re: Quite an Interesting Article. (Score:2)
The site is banned. It's basically saying all involved already have no rights with regard to content.
We also likely would see similar cases in America. If a white supremacist goes to a Black Panther rally, stands up and declares that blacks should be shipped back to Africa to preserve American Endo-European heritage.... well we can all guess what would happen. Most police departments likely would push minimal charges or say it's impossible to determine individual perpetrators when the whole crowd is beating
Re: (Score:2)
In the US at least, that person would get summarily kicked/carried out of the meeting
Yeah. If it's a private meeting and it's just getting dragged out, the police will just leave well enough alone. But if it's pursuing people in public, doxing them and beating them, that's a crime and civil rights violation in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
I think "she" was modded down because that account has hitherto been used for nothing but shady recruitment spam.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Republicans furiously writing this down (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Republicans furiously writing this down (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Republicans furiously writing this down (Score:5, Informative)
If you think the temper tantrum on Jan 6 was a coup attempt, well it seems you have never cracked a history book. A coup is a very different, violent animal. Read a book and be thankful we live in a society where a real coup attempt is not even close to happening.
Because when people are going through the halls of Congress calling out the vice president by name to hang him [pbs.org], or locate the Speaker of the House and minority Senate leader to physically remove them [cnn.com] from doing their job while wearing a bullet resistant vest and carrying handcuffs, or even to shoot the Speaker of the House [cnn.com], that is no way indicative of an attempted coup.
Nor is having the vice president and his family being protected by Secret Service agents in the capitol loading dock [washingtonexaminer.com] as they hide from the terrorists any indication of any attempted coup.
Nor is Rick Perry and many other Republicans having literal plans [cnn.com] to overturn the will of people [salon.com] and install who they want any indication of an attempted coup.
Nor is preventing the National Guard [trumpfile.org] from being called in to help unless the Secretary of Defense gave the order, completely opposite of what has ever been done at any time in the past, and then delaying the release of the Guard for hours, any indication of an attempted coup.
If lying makes you feel good, have it. The facts clearly show otherwise.
Re: Republicans furiously writing this down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a lot of links, but when I look at it you have roughly this:
* Someone made a powerpoint slide saying they think they could have delayed things politically for a while to make way for legal challenges that went nowhere. This was just a delay in a formality with no legal effect and even Pence realized as much.
* A guy has been charged with, but not convicted of, having a gun and won't be tried for months. We'll have to see if they actually charge insurrection, the prior charges are all glorified tresp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If you think the temper tantrum on Jan 6 was a coup attempt, well it seems you have never cracked a history book. A coup is a very different, violent animal. Read a book and be thankful we live in a society where a real coup attempt is not even close to happening.
Not all coups are violent. When Trump told the governor or Georgia to find more votes, what would you call that? When Trump told Mike Pence to not certify the electoral college results, what would you call that?
Re: (Score:1)
That was sedition. The violence is key to the definition of a coup d'etat.
Re: (Score:1)
No, overthrow of the state is.
Re: (Score:2)
No, violence is NOT key to the definition. Have you never of an autogolpe [wikipedia.org]? When someone in power refuses to relinquish that power to their lawful successor, violence need not be the result but it's still a coup.
Re: Republicans furiously writing this down (Score:4, Informative)
It was not a _competent_ coup, but it certainly fit the Merriam Webster definition:
the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, it was a putsch.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the temper tantrum on Jan 6 was a coup attempt, well it seems you have never cracked a history book. A coup is a very different, violent animal. Read a book and be thankful we live in a society where a real coup attempt is not even close to happening.
Which historical coups are you thinking of?
Honestly, from what I've readi in the news over the past two decades about coups, what happened in the US on Jan 6th seemed quite in keeping with others, at least others that weren't lead by army generals. The first one I paid attention to was Fiji were George Speight seized power and I had to cancel my planned holiday to Kiribati and I'm still sore about that. Never got the chance to go back again.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the temper tantrum on Jan 6 was a coup attempt, well it seems you have never cracked a history book. A coup is a very different, violent animal. Read a book and be thankful we live in a society where a real coup attempt is not even close to happening.
A coup attempt does not have to be competent.
"a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government"
Trump asked for a legal election to be overthrown by force. I'm wondering what distinction you would draw with a "real" coup had the followers who obeyed his call not been a bunch of retarded muppets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think there was *ever* any danger of "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power" by a bunch of FBI agents and a few thousand idiots... well I can't help you.
I didn't say there was any danger. I specifically said there was an attempt. The quality of that attempt is not the issue any more than if you were accused of attempted murder.
"Judge, my client is a moron who could never have successfully dressed himself let along carried out the planned attack on his wife's brother."
"Oh, well, fair enough. Case dismissed."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Judge, my client is a moron who thought he was carrying out an attack on his wife's brother"
Attempted murder.
What exactly do you think the distinction between murder and attempted murder is, if it's not the failure to carry out the intended crime? The reason for the failure is irrelevant, except perhaps if diminished responsibility is involved.
Here's the law (my bold):
720 ILCS 5/8-4. Attempt
Sec. 8-4. Attempt. (a) Elements of the Offense. A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.
(b) Impossibility. It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted.
Re: (Score:1)
If a homeless man thinks he murdered his friend, but he was actually beating up a stop sign, it is not attempted murder.
The same applies here. You misapprehend the situation.
Re: (Score:1)
True enough. Only the groundwork is being laid right now. The actual coup begins Nov. 2024.
Oh, yes? (Score:2)
Were the students at a particular rally in Hong Kong protesters or were they rioters? Is a state-backed news outlet a reliable source?
Fine questions indeed.
Re: Oh, yes? (Score:2)
As it turns out the answer is yes to both Questions for both parties. In most any significant protest of government there are rioters but generally the majority during the day are protestors. As night falls, that often shifts.
I feel like the most notable riots are always about sports because they often always start after dark.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like the most notable riots are always about sports
You must live in the UK.
Re: Oh, yes? (Score:2)
Actually I am an American living in China. My point was most events like HK or BLM are protests that have rioters. Even the Netherlands recently with covid restricts. Most are just trying to generally show their disagreement with policy. Sporting events however seem to lead towards more baseless rioting which yes seems more common in the UK or Canada but their are a few notable examples in America too.
Re: (Score:2)
In China, all news outlets have to be licensed by the state. No third parties are allowed to report the news. So...
Common False Belief (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very common to see this sort of crap: Western people who think that there is some half-way house compromise that can be had with a totalitarian fascist regime and if you are careful you can get some value out of that relationship without poisoning your moral position. You can't. Don't deal with China; don't work with China; don't buy from China; don't set up Chinese websites and expect them not to be filled with propaganda or to be held to ransom at the end of a gun. Oh, and don't fund viral "gain-of-function" research in Chinese labs and expect nothing to go horribly wrong just because it's a long way away from you.
China is a fascist superstate. It's not communist; it's not a people's republic; it's not remotely democratic; it's not "westernised". It's a totalitarian nightmare and an offence to the human race.