Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Speaks Out On China And Internet Freedom

Wales

First Posted: 30/08/11 11:31 Updated: 29/10/11 11:12

Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopaedia and perhaps the most potent symbol of an open and free Internet, has turned his sights on China.

The People's Republic has undergone great transition over the past decade, with a loosening of the economy that has seen global companies pour in, including those at the forefront of information technology.

However, the Chinese political system still rests on orthodoxies of control, fear and a restriction of information. That's not to say China isn't changing, with more than 475 million of the country's 1.3 billion citizens now online. Mandarin is currently the second most popular language on the web behind English.

Yet for some, including the Wikipedia-founder, change isn't coming quickly enough, so much so that the he recently featured in the first episode of Amnesty TV, an online magazine show, talking about internet freedom, with particular reference the situation in China.

As a passionate advocate for the free access to information, Wales believes people should be in control of the content they view. This is not the case for a third of the global population, with regimes as disparate as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea, Syria, Vietnam and China all practising some form of online censorship.

"China now has the largest number of users of the Internet of any country," Wales tells The Huffington Post UK. "It also has the most extensive program of censorship of basic political information of any country. The web can help change that.

"The Internet has already played a role in opening up repressive political systems and it will continue to do so. All around the world, authoritarian governments are coming to the realisation that old methods of information suppression are no longer effective, and simply serve to breed resentment which will result in uprisings."

Currently Wikipedia, Facebook and Twitter remain blocked in China, while Google, who originally worked within Chinese restrictions, censoring what the regime deemed politically sensitive information, has now pulled out completely.

"I think it's important that companies do not give in to demands of censorship from regimes," says Wales. "It goes against the foundation of what the Internet is - free access to information."

The counter argument runs that offering people access to some information, albeit restricted, is better than offering them no information at all.

"That's the argument Google made and I respect that," he responds. "I think that reasonable people can differ on tactics. I did not agree with Google's decision to go into China, but I did respect that they were aware that it was a difficult decision, and that they went into China with a set of principles to try to be a positive influence. And I applauded when they decided that the situation there was no longer worthwhile and decided to pull out."

I put it to Wales that not everyone sees the net as only a force for good. Recently in the UK, some politicians blamed online services (BlackBerry Messenger and Text) for facilitating the riots and disturbances in London and elsewhere.

"The web is a tool, and like all human tools they can be used for good or ill," he says. "There's nothing particular exciting or interesting in noticing that. But we can say without reservation that the Internet has been overwhelmingly a force for good.

"I'm not a web utopian," he continues, "but I think we did see positive responses. While a tiny handful of people may have posted messages planning or encouraging violence, we know that literally thousands of people joined forces to help with the cleanup efforts, and thousands more have joined efforts to identify the criminals and bring them to justice.

"The idea that social networks were used by rioters to plan violence and destruction is just, quite frankly, silly nonsense. You might as well blame the telephone ... or language itself."

Despite his success, Wales remains committed to his central project, the development and evolution of the encyclopaedia that has become a one of the most frequently accessed resources on the web.

"I'm still involved in the company on a day-to-day level," he says, "especially talking to the community about moving forward with editorial policy. The most important think to know about Wikipedia in the next five to 10 years is that we will continue our strong growth in the languages of the developing world, as we move ever closer to realising my original vision of a free encyclopaedia for every single person on the planet in their own language."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopaedia and perhaps the most potent symbol of an open and free Internet, has turned his sights on China. The People's Republic has ...
Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopaedia and perhaps the most potent symbol of an open and free Internet, has turned his sights on China. The People's Republic has ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vdc530
11:14 on 31/08/2011
He should swing by here and put a stop to the Huffpost Gestapo.
photo
Dale Andersen
I use my real name...and you don't...
00:26 on 31/08/2011
Jimmy Wales is the last person in the known universe whose advice I would seek on Internet integrity. His Wikipedia site is riddled with inaccuracies and just plain goofiness. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. But it's not. All the data, if you can call it that, is loaded online by amateurs, volunteers and non-experts. It's the blind leading the blind. So much so that high school teachers tell their pupils to stay away from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an excellent argument for a "Pay-Internet." Because if you want an accurate encyclopedia, you'll probably have to pay for it.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Eric Ehrmann
22:38 on 30/08/2011
Jimmy posted your link here over on my Facebook page and it merits a response. Internet democracy is relative. Not all nations share the same cultural and political values. There is no world passport giving people equal rights on the internet being issued by Petty France, Washington or the World Economic Forum in Davos.

US companies experience job creation providing China with software so they can manage the internet to their own national interests. Also consider that China has considerable influence on the US economy because of its huge stockpile of American debt. China uses different content delivery systems to project their message in different markets. For example, because US media limit their coverage of China, Beijing buys advertorial content in the Washington Post that looks like news articles. This is in keeping with the concept amped up by Steve Rubel of the Edelman PR firm that "PR is the new journalism."

Jimbo can make the same arguments about Russia, Indonesia and other nations. Internet democracy in many nations is limited because many young people face economic marginalization and can not afford to join the middle class and bridge the digital divide. If China had better income distribution they would have more digital democracy in the western sense.

China has created a knowledge base that produces the worlds fastest supercomputers, and the weapons associated with a superpower. And most young Chinese who are familiar with computer skills can work around the barriers to access things they really need.
11:16 on 31/08/2011
Couldn't find Jimmy's post on your Facebook page. But after getting here from your LinkedIn site it looks like he unfriended you on FB for disagreeing with him.
16:33 on 30/08/2011
Ever wondered how some countries are immune to protest movements?

Google the internet and mobile phone surveillance systems such as Narus Insight, Nokia Siemens, Trovicor, Boeing.

Spying on citizens is big business.

Be afraid.
lastpost
see biography
15:33 on 30/08/2011
There is a case for demanding internet freedom in places far closer to home than that Jimmy Wales, my old China.
Just imagine how simple and bloodless it would have been to deal with Gaddafi, if his reasoning had been open to testing on the interweb. For example, he asserted that the people were behind him. An interweb vote for a referendum, would have quickly given the lie to such a claim. How is it in the interests of humanity to be led by those in any country, whose arguments are insulated from challenge? Surely challenge is what refines thought, and ensures that the best possible logic available have been applied. Isn’t anything that acts to frustrate such a quest for excellence working against the promise of continuity for our kind? And isn't that what China is ultimately attempting to provide for its people?
15:19 on 31/08/2011
Calling Jimmy Wales "the creator of Wikipedia" is like calling John F. Kennedy the first man to set foot on the moon. HuffPo, please learn about Dr. Larry Sanger, if you want to throw around the title "creator of Wikipedia".
15:21 on 30/08/2011
I'm wondering where is that guy called Julian Assange
21:02 on 30/08/2011
Dunno. The establishment didn't like what he was doing. He's probably fallen down a mineshaft or something. By accident.