Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Explodes In China

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the people-like-to-post dept.


eldavojohn writes "The Chinese have recently been allowed to enjoy the Chinese version of Wikipedia now that the ban has been lifted. And the result is an explosion in use after being banned for a year. From the article, 'Activity on nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's Chinese Wikipedia site has skyrocketed since its release, which Internet users in China first started reporting on Nov. 10. Since then, the number of new users registering to contribute to the site has exceeded 1,200 a day, up from an average of 300 to 400 prior to the unblocking. The number of new articles posted daily has increased 75% from the week before, with the total now surpassing 100,000, according to the foundation.' No one's sure how long this will be available to the People's Republic of China but hopefully the government will recognize that at least a significant part of the populace enjoys a Wikipedia community."

cancel ×


Censorship is a bad thing (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852548)

If the Chinese government doesn't see the threat that Wikipedia poses, I can only assume they already have filters in place to block objectional content.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (2, Interesting)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852684)

And if the filters don't do the trick, rifles.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (5, Interesting)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852882)

I'd be interested in what the Chinese wikipedia article says (if anything) about the Student Massacre at Tienanmen Square...
For example, would they use the PRC Body count (23) or the Student Association's and the Chinese Red Cross body count? (2000 - 3000, as many as 10,000 injured).

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (2, Informative)

OmnipotentEntity (702752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853078)

It's right here: Original Page [] Google translation. []

As noted at the top though, People behind the Great Firewall may not be able to access it.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (3, Funny)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853662)

It's right here: Original Page [] Google translation. []
Why do idiots keep using numbers as domain names ? It's annoying and demands lots of attention to type over. Words (service.sld.tld ) are way easier to remember !

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (-1, Redundant)

OmnipotentEntity (702752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853746)

That's not a number as a domain name, that's called an IP.

Some servers just don't have a domain name, like some of google's translation servers.

And I can't believe I'm explaining this to someone on /.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854304)

Undeniable proof that /. has jumped the shark.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (1)

Matilda the Hun (861460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16855142)

For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to assume he's saying that tongue-in-cheek.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (3, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#16855280)

Maybe before you respond next time you'll stop for a second and ask yourself; What was that whooshing sound I just heard?

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (5, Informative)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853328)

Actually, the page is locked due to vandalizing and a dispute notice is put up, just like any other controversial article. And just like other articles, the article itself [] is pretty objective. As for the death toll specifically, the article says that the number of deaths is disputed; it cites one of the protesters Chai Ling [] as saying in a recording: "Some say there are about 200 dead, but some claim there are more than 4000. I am not sure of the exact numbers, either." Again, just like any "free" wiki article - explains the controversy and cites an objective source instead of making groundless assertions.

So yeah, I really wish people would stop making snide remarks as if the Chinese wiki is the government's parade ground, without even taking a look at it. Controversial topics aren't really censored, and it operates pretty much like the rest of Wikipedia when it comes to these topics. You have to remember that in the end, it's still managed by Wikipedia moderators, who ideally will try their utmost to ensure that articles are accurate and objective.

Another day, another protest (2, Interesting)

brian.glanz (849625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853158)

I'm not so sure about assuming the quality of Chinese censorship. If you're only watching mainstream news feeds, it looks like "another day, another protest" in China. In the Washington Post via MSNBC this morning, it's One-dog policy resisted in Beijing crackdown [] where in these near-daily articles, juicy quotes like this one are increasingly common, too:

"More and more people own dogs. It is pointless to restrict dog-raising. The stricter the government is, the more people will love to own a dog," said Liu Tao, 26, who was at the unauthorized protest Saturday. "We are not blocked from the outside now. With the Internet, we can see how Western countries treat dogs well. It's hard to stop us from communicating with the outside."

Aside from the groundswell of Western ideals changing China, and back to their Wikipedia: Chinese officials might believe they can handle it. In addition to the drumbeat of articles in our free press indicating their people's increasingly free access to information, I also have known many friends and colleagues in China who have effectively unfettered access. Party-types might think they can handle it, but I would not assume they actually can. BG

Re:Another day, another protest (2, Interesting)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853486)

Seems like a perfectly operational misdirection campaign to me. Why worry about people maybe getting sent to prison for saying something the government doesn't like when, look! we can all have as many puppies as we want now! The government can allow meaningless protests like this one to go on unopposed to take the spotlight off of other, more nefarious things they may be up to.

Re:Another day, another protest (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854356)

+1, Cynical.
-1, Conspiratol.
+1, Probably right.

Slashdot needs more moderation options.

Why censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853172)

Why have censors when anyone can edit the article and provide dis-information or dispute the validity?
It's much more effective to work within the system than outside of it.
Censorship from the outside is the least of the worries in this case.

Re:Censorship is a bad thing (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854338)

Another angle in censoring the sensitive political topics is that it leads to more concentrated efforts on culture, arts and sciences... which themselves are the creations of free societies. Criticism can be masked in articles seemengly not on sensitive topics - history provides great references and people are able to read between lines and think for themselves. The Chinese may well change the world we live in, not their government.

Ugh... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16852554)

...just another of many good reasons to learn Chinese.

Imagine.. a completely different culture that was hidden from us by democracy loving folks exploits itself in 100.000 articles/day...

Re:Ugh... (1)

scottyokim (898934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853594)

If I need to learn Chinese, the site could at least help out a little with anti-aliased fonts ... yuck.

Re:Ugh... (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854092)

If I need to learn Chinese, the site could at least help out a little with anti-aliased fonts ... yuck.

The site looks great to me, anti-aliased fonts at all. You seem to be experiencing an issue with the fonts you have installed on your system, not the Chinese Wikipedia site.

Good Luck!

But.... (3, Insightful)

varmittang (849469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852558)

How many of those people signing up are government agents there to just delete and change everything to what the government wants.

Re:But.... (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852766)

Well, they probably do, but the main benefit, I'm sure, is being able to track who contributes what. Don't just censor history, censor the historians... it's an old trick, but a damn effective one. :-/

Re:But.... (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852806)

How many of those people signing up are government agents there to just delete and change everything to what the government wants.

Probably not as many as you would like. Whatever the number is, it will eventually be offset by "real" users.

In these terms, it makes no difference whether they are "government" or not, they are the same as pranksters or Colbert acolytes who would fake information just for the hell of it

Re:But.... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853184)

Oh, I daresay that fakery isn't limited to Colbert acolytes.
Over the long term, wouldn't exposure to "incorrect thought" tend to trigger some questioning in the minds of censors?
One hopes that this plays a tiny, yet helpful part in the demise of the authoritarian regime in the long term.
How to get some unfiltered information into North Korea would be the next challenge.

Re:But.... (1)

vmcto (833771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853714)

Most useful way would be to put messages on food since a significant portion of the population lives on the threshold of survival.

Re:But.... (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853888)

Not if the censors already know the truth and don't care because their job provides them with either power or money or both. Its not hard to find people who are easily corrupted, and is much safer than employing people who are dedicated to your cause because they don't know the real truth.

Re:But.... (0)

TommyMc (949670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852880)


What answer were you hoping for? You question is only relevant to China by prejudice.

Re:But.... (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853550)

That's a very good question. I suspect many contributors and editors will be Government agents.

There lies the true danger and the power of wikipedia, and the reason why no-one must ever take wikipedia seriously. I think this can't be stressed enough - never ever trust wikipedia, nothing on wikipedia is necessarily true. That should be recited like a mantra. Wikipedia is fine as long as everyone always remembers that and doesn't try to elevate it to anything even approaching truth.

I must say though that I think the last thing the Chinese need is yet another dubious source of information. They need objective reality not wikiality.

I, for one, don't personally see this as progress towards human rights and democracy. I think there's a very real danger this will be exploited and cause more problems than it will solve. Honestly, the Chinese (and all and every other Government for that matter) would be foolish not to exploit the apparent truthiness of wikiality.

Would you trust a MySpace fact? Why do you trust a wikipedia one? There's little difference other than perception. They may be written by the same person.

Ancient Computer Master Says, Sell Their Bones (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853708)

The ancient computer master [] whispered into his student's ear one night, over dinner [] :
  1. Filter them.
  2. Troll them.
  3. Jail them.
  4. ????
  5. Send me the Profit

You are at step 2. Steps 3 and 5 are ongoing and it's not really funny when those in jail might be executed for their organs. [] Yes, Microsoft is still "committed" to business in China [] .

Trade with Communits Countries like China endorses crimes against humanity and makes the criminals stronger and richer.

Re:Ancient Computer Master Says, Sell Their Bones (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16855094)

twitter, please read this carefully. Following this advice will make Slashdot a better place for everyone, including yourself.

  • As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
  • Avoid hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims at all costs. It's unprofessional and will result in unproductive discussions.
  • A thoughtful, well-reasoned response to a posting will not only provide insight for your readers, but will also increase their respect for your knowledge and abilities.
  • Don't bite if offered flame-bait. Too many threads degenerate into a "My O/S is better than your O/S" argument. Let's accurately describe the capabilities of Linux and leave it at that.
  • Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
  • Focus on what Linux has to offer. There is no need to bash the competition. Linux is a good, solid product that stands on its own.
  • Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone's needs.
  • Refer to another product by its proper name. There's nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using "creative spelling". If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.
  • Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project , MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.
  • Don't insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.
  • There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

From cy []

Re:Ancient Computer Master Says, Sell Their Bones (1) (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16855248)

Yes, Microsoft is still "committed" to business in China.

Nasty and unethical, yes (and so is Google's commitment to business in China; let's not even mention the adoption of Linux in China, shall we? That would be the sort of dishonesty you would employ) but completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Re:But.... (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854758)

How many of those people signing up are government agents there to just delete and change everything to what the government wants.

Well, seeing as how our own "freedom" loving governments are doing the exact same thing already, I would have to assume that the Chinese do it as well. And we've got people doing this sort of thing all over the web just to promote Ashley Simpson and the like, so you can be your bottom dollar that our own governments are just as bad.

the other unconvenient truth: why it grows (0, Troll)

bitflusher (853768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852584)

jim can't read it so can't remove articles he doesn't like

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852610)

I hope nobody was hurt...

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China (2, Funny)

NinjaFarmer (833539) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852688)

That title sounds like the climax of a bad erotic novel.

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China (1)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852818)

I hope nobody was hurt...

No injuries were reported. Working together, the users were able to delete all the harmful parts of the explosion. Of course, there was a lot of debate first on whether or not to delete them, since some argued that both the harmful and non-harmful parts should be represented, but in the end the 'delete' votes outnumbered them.

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China (1)

uwnav (1009705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853416)

there's something incredibly strange and symmetrical about your response. not in what you say... just .. visually. it's mind boggling really

Re: Wikipedia Explodes in China (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853538)

All those fire drills [] paid off.

What's it Like? (3, Interesting)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852632)

I can't read Chinese, so I really can't go check this myself. How accurate is the Chinese version of Wikipedia in respect to events and topics China's government sees as threatening? Do "Party-approved" versions of articles win edit wars over other ones?

Re:What's it Like? (2, Funny)

daranz (914716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852842)

I heard the benevolence of the Communist Party of China tripled in the last six months.

give them time (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852852)

contrary to all the ill effects conspiracy and communistic type reasons some of you are citing. The fact remains information wants to be free and people the world over want access to it, to better their lives and to be connected to the global community.
even if there are govermental red herrings in those articles, in a population of 1billion ppl the design of the WWW is on the side of the latter and i believe this chinese wikipedia will let the peoples voice be heard in a resounding way the chinese goverment can't ignore.
Its a new day and the chinese goverment reaslises that. capitalism and freedom [of speech] is slowly creeping in. The peoples voice will be heard, china can't ignore it anymore. this is just an example of that- the other for example is the allowance of a capitilistic style approach to some businesses.
  I truly believe China wants to join the global community they just don't want to be assimilated by Western Culture and mindsets and to be honest i can't totally blame them. They will come to, if ever cautiously.

Re:give them time (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852992)

I mostly think it's that censorship policies in China are arbitrary and change on a rapid basis. Recently blogspot has been flipping between working freely and needing a proxy, about every week or so. Recently has been working fine (as it usually does), but uploading pictures will cause a 5-minute blockout of access to the site. This happens frequently, but usually works normally after a few days.

Half a year ago, Wikipedia was entirely uncensored. Then, the Chinese language version was censored. Then, both were. Then, as of a couple weeks ago, China has decided to censor indivisual articles in the Chinese wikipedia (and a very few in the English wikipedia), but not censor the site entirely. Next month/week/year, their policy could be something different entirely.

ANyway, I don't think you can read too much into this.

Re:What's it Like? (2, Informative)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852936)

This page [] seems to be about the 1989 protests, and it contains the tank man picture (the one mysteriously absent from

It also seems to be protected because of vandalism...

Re:What's it Like? (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853368)

Is this .jpg []
image accessable inside the great firewall?

Re:What's it Like? (2, Informative)

fuzheado (733418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854282)

No it got blocked halfway through loading the HTML page. Likely the filename was caught by the great firewall filter. But if you named it Pokemonactionfigure.jpg it would have made it fine.

Re:What's it Like? (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853650)

A good example is the Tiananmen Square Massacre [] . I'm not sure about the accuracy of facts (I Am Not A Historian... how accurate can you get on controversial topics, anyway?), but it cites multiple sources with several different opinions on topics like the death toll (it cites a pretty well-known protester claiming that various sources report the number of deaths as ranging from 200 to 4000, and also cites Beijing's mayor claiming there are only about 200 dead).

The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853698)

Special Report / China and the internet []

The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk
Apr 27th 2006 | BEIJING
From The Economist print edition

At present the party has the upper hand. It is starting to sweat, though


“DO YOU know how serious a mistake you’ve made?” Yan Yuanzhang recalls an official asking him not long ago. Mr Yan had been summoned to Beijing’s Internet Propaganda Management Office to talk about his websites. They were causing, he was told, the Communist Party to lose face. They were providing material that foreign media could use to attack China. They were illegal and must be closed down within 24 hours.

“Farewell, worker comrades,” wrote Mr Yan in notices posted that day on his China-based websites, China Workers Net and Communist Net. Visitors could hear a lugubrious rendition of the communist anthem, the Internationale, through their computer speakers as they read. “Whether there is any hope of starting again, heaven knows.” He says now that he will relaunch one of the two sites on May 1st, this time on a server in Taiwan.

It is remarkable that the websites lasted as long as they did. Mr Yan, who is not a party member, launched them on May 1st last year to mark Labour Day. The aim, he says, was to provide platforms for a “leftist” critique of China’s embrace of “Dickensian capitalism”. They did not, as he tried to explain to the city government, attack the party itself or its leaders. But they did provide something the party abhors: uncensored news about worker unrest. In September he launched a bulletin board on which visitors could directly post their comments. Messages complained about corruption, the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and the hardships of unemployed workers.

As Mr Yan talks, he gets a text message on his mobile phone. It is from Tan Jiaming, a university student in southern China who has been running a website of similar outlook, Revolutionary Marxism. It too, the message says, has been closed. The student had posted a notice entitled “Strongly Protest the Snuffing Out of the China Workers Website by the Beijing Authorities”. He was summoned to hear a dozen officials threaten him with expulsion from his university for backing Mr Yan.


Six years ago Bill Clinton described China’s efforts to restrict the internet as “sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall”. But as China’s web-filtering technology has grown more sophisticated, and the ranks of its internet police have swelled, some have begun to wonder. A report in 2003 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that, despite the difficulties the internet posed to authoritarian regimes, it could also be used to fortify them. China, the authors concluded, had been “largely successful at guiding use” of the internet. At a congressional hearing in February on American companies involved in internet business in China, a Republican congressman, Christopher Smith, said the internet there had become “a malicious tool, a cyber sledgehammer of repression”.

Some of the companies testifying at the hearing—Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!—deserved a grilling. Why, for instance, had Microsoft, at the request of Chinese officials, removed a popular site in December from its Chinese version of MSN Spaces, a service for personal diaries and blogs? Yahoo! too had questions to answer about reports that information it provided to the police about its e-mail services had helped put dissidents behind bars. More recently Reporters Without Borders, a human-rights group, said that a Hong Kong unit of Yahoo! had given the police a Chinese user’s draft e-mails. These were then used as evidence at his trial for subversion, for which he received a four-year jail sentence. Yahoo! has condemned efforts to suppress freedom of speech, but says it must obey Chinese law.

For foreign companies, the internet business in China is certainly a moral minefield. But the internet should not be dismissed as merely an instrument of control for the Communist Party. In the past three years, China has seen far more extensive use of the internet and the rapid development of groups that share views online that are by no means always the same as the party’s. The numbers of internet-connected computers have more than doubled since the end of 2002, to 45.6m, and internet-users have risen by 75%, to 111m. China now has more internet-users than any country but America, and over half of them have broadband (up from 6.6% at the end of 2002). Users of instant computer-to-computer messaging systems have more than doubled, to 87m. Blogs—online personal diaries, scarcely heard of three years ago—now number more than 30m. And search engines receive over 360m requests a day.

The spread of mobile telephony has been no less spectacular. At the end of last year China had 393m mobile-phone accounts, nearly 200m more than at the end of 2002 and more than any other country. If, as many believe, China’s first third-generation mobile-network licence is to be awarded in the coming year, internet access at broadband speeds will become available on mobile handsets. And, crucially, many people in towns can now afford all this technology. China’s economy in the past three years has been growing at around 10% a year, enriching a growing middle class that increasingly sees the internet as an aid to information-gathering, communication and entertainment. Even many students can afford laptops. In big cities, they congregate in cafés that offer free wireless access.

Moreover, the technological transformation is spreading far into the hinterland. Almost every county now has broadband. Internet cafés with high-speed connections are ubiquitous and cheap even in remote towns. Fixed-line internet access is still uncommon in rural homes. But in many parts of the countryside, it is possible to surf the internet at landline modem speeds using a mobile handset (though few peasants can afford to). With the government’s encouragement, state-owned companies have poured quantities of money into the building of a telecoms infrastructure worthy of the rich world.

Keeping the genie half in the bottle
The government has also spent freely to keep its liberating side-effects under control. The committed few who are brave or foolhardy enough to use the internet to challenge the authorities now face a police force of some 30,000 online monitors, say foreign human-rights groups. They also say that China has jailed over 50 people for expressing views online or in text messages. Worried about the forces unleashed by rapid economic and social change, China’s leaders have stepped up their efforts in recent months to control not only the internet but other media too. A handful of outspoken newspapers have been closed and their editors sacked.

At February’s congressional hearing, representatives of America’s internet companies argued that their presence was helping to promote access to information by encouraging the internet’s development in China. Jack Krumholtz of Microsoft said the Chinese people would be the principal losers if his company’s internet services ceased in China. They would be denied, he said, “an important avenue of communication and expression”. That was an exaggeration. Foreign companies help to spur competition. But it is Chinese companies—some of them listed on American stock exchanges—that in many respects, and often unwittingly, are transforming China faster.

Google’s decision to set up a self-censored version of its search engine in China this year aroused a storm of criticism in America. But iResearch, a Shanghai-based market-analysis firm, says China’s Baidu [] enjoys more than 56% of the search market; Google follows with less than a third, having been the leader three years ago. Popular features of Baidu’s engine are its ability to link searches to related chat forums, and hunt for MP3 music files, most of them pirated.

Baidu’s searches are not nearly as comprehensive as Google’s. But self-censorship, both by Baidu and by Google in its new China-based engine, still allows information through that the party dislikes. For instance, news about the congressional hearing—ignored by China’s print media—can be found on both. Entering the Chinese-character equivalents of the words “Congress America internet freedom” into Baidu produces three prominent results relating to the hearing. All are blogs. Two even contain advertisements with links to pornographic websites.

Google’s engine in China produces more relevant results. But many are blocked by a firewall, the barrier between the internet in China and the rest of the world that filters out banned sites and those containing prohibited keywords. Curiously, it is the Chinese search engine with a more rigorous filtering system than Google’s that provides the readiest access to uncensored information about the congressional hearing. For those who know English, the House of Representatives’ website [] offers copies of evidence and a webcast of the entire proceedings. These are not blocked.

The firewall is porous. Imaginative users can find ways of searching for sensitive topics such as news about Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement. In Google, entering the words “Falun Gong” will cause the entire results page to be blocked, but “FLG movement” will not. Many Chinese internet-users are well practised in configuring their internet browsers to route page requests through unblocked proxy servers outside China. These help bypass the firewall.

Blog-standard evasion
Blogs make the censors’ work all the more difficult. China’s fast-growing legions of bloggers know they must avoid taboo keywords, including those programmed into the Chinese version of MSN Spaces. If you enter any of those, the postings will not be shown or your attempt to set up a blog will be denied. But, as China’s internet companies engage in fierce competition to draw blog traffic to their portals, few checks seem to be made about who is writing them. A blog can easily and quickly be set up on a Chinese portal, and no one asks for verifiable personal information. Bloggers often display postings that would make party censors shudder. Mr Tan, the student who used to run the Revolutionary Marxism website, has a blog [] on MSN Spaces that keeps up his campaign for workers’ rights despite the demise of his own site and continued harassment by officials.

Human intervention is no less fallible than the firewall. In the middle of the huge open-plan newsroom of Sina Corporation [] in north-western Beijing, a score of censors sit in front of their screens. They are young employees whose job is to examine thousands of blogs and comments posted by internet-users on Sina’s news items. It is a round-the-clock task, designed to find anything that could have got through the filters and might still offend the authorities.

Direct attacks on the party, its leaders or on the political system rarely get through (or at least, not for long). But that still allows room for far more vigorous debate on a range of social and economic issues than China has enjoyed before under Communist rule. According to Qian Hualin of the government-affiliated China Internet Network Information Centre, Chinese service-providers report that some 70% of their bandwidth is taken up with pirated music and films. That still leaves lots of room for discourse.

Even the party itself pays attention to the deluge of public comment. Eager to acquire some legitimacy, but anxious to avoid democracy, it is trying its hand at populism. The prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said last month that the government should listen “extensively” to views expressed on the internet. With few other ways of assessing the public mood, the internet is indeed a barometer, even though surveys suggest that users are hardly representative of the general population, being mainly young, better educated and male.

In 2003 many internet-users expressed outrage on bulletin boards over the beating to death in jail of just such a young, well-educated man who had been arrested for failing to carry the right identity documents. This led to the scrapping of a decades-old law giving the police sweeping powers to detain anyone suspected of staying without a permit in a place other than his registered home town. Later that year the commuting of a death sentence of a gang boss prompted a similar online furore. The Supreme Court retried the case and ordered his execution.

The knitting of a network
Guo Liang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences describes 2003 as a “milestone” in the development of the internet in China. During the outbreak early in the year of SARS, an often fatal respiratory disease, many people stayed at home and made extensive use of the internet to gather information and keep in touch. The government’s efforts to block news of the outbreak collapsed as word spread by e-mail, computer and text message. By late 2004 home installation of broadband began to take off, and with it the growth of blogging, instant messaging and internet-based phone and video calls.

The party worries about any unregulated networking among ordinary people. It severely limits the activities of non-governmental organisations, even straightforwardly charitable ones. It ruthlessly suppresses organised dissent. But China’s love affair with the mobile phone, text and instant messaging has helped people to form networks on a scale and with a speed that is beyond the party’s ability to control. Windows Messenger, Microsoft’s instant-messaging system, is one popular tool. But by far the biggest share of this market is enjoyed by a Chinese company, Tencent [] . Its messaging service, QQ, generates revenue by linking a free online system with mobile phones, for which users must pay.

The QQ service has helped Mr Yan retain some of his online network of contacts since the closure of China Workers Net and Communist Net. He replaced the two home pages with notices inviting anyone interested in staying in touch to join a QQ chat group called China Working Class Net. Members can hold discussions with dozens of people all at once. With webcams, some chatters can also see and hear each other. Some even go in for luoliao, naked chatting, which is causing the authorities and parents some concern. The government, however, seems to devote more resources to controlling politics on the internet than to controlling sex.

One frequently criticised aspect of China’s internet development is that nationalist diatribes have a much better chance of getting past the censors than other political comment. But nationalism has also provided a convenient cover for experimenting with new forms of mobilisation. The power of instant messaging, for instance, became evident in April last year, when it was used to organise big anti-Japanese protests in several cities. In the build-up to the protests, Sina organised an online campaign aimed at demonstrating public opposition to Japan’s bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Some 20m people submitted their names. Since starting a similar campaign a few weeks ago, Sina’s rival, Sohu [] , has gathered more than 15m names. “It shows the power” of the internet, says Charles Chao, Sina’s boss.

The government keeps issuing new rules to keep users of both the internet and mobile phones in line. Last September news portals were banned from publishing anything that might incite protests; anything issued in the name of any “illegal civil organisation” was also forbidden. According to news reports, the government plans this year to issue rules to require people buying pre-paid mobile phone cards to submit proof of identity: over half of China’s mobile-phone accounts are not registered in any name, making it easy for criminals—or dissidents—to use them without being identified by the police. “The internet in China is a wild place, it’s crazy,” says Charles Zhang, head of Sohu. “I don’t think it’s monitored enough.”

Catch me if you can
But the market is likely to prevail over restrictions. Limiting phone-card sales to just a few shops with the ability to process registration requirements would be a blow to mobile-phone companies and huge numbers of private vendors who thrive on such business. It is hard to see how it could be enforced any more rigorously than, say, China’s ban on the unauthorised reception of satellite signals. Illegal sales of satellite dishes and cable services offering uncensored foreign satellite channels are big underground businesses in urban China.

China’s news portals, in their competition for traffic, will continue to test the limits of official tolerance. And in a competitive market few internet-café operators pay attention to government requirements that users’ identities should be registered. An hour on a broadband connection in an internet café in a small town can cost as little as one yuan—about 13 cents.

Research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences suggests the scale of the government’s task. Over 20% of people surveyed in five Chinese cities last year said the internet had increased their contacts with others who shared their political interests—a far higher proportion than found in a similar survey conducted in America (8.1%) by collaborators in the investigation. Nearly half of the respondents said going online increased their contacts with people who shared their hobbies, compared with less than 20% in the United States (networked role-playing games, growing fast in popularity in China, may partly account for this). And nearly 63% agreed that the internet gave them greater opportunities to criticise the government.

“China is changing, it’s improving,” says Jack Ma, head of Alibaba [] , which last year took over the running of Yahoo!’s Chinese operations—for, despite an early start in China, Yahoo! has been elbowed aside by domestic rivals. “Ten years ago, 20 years ago, in Chairman Mao’s time, if we came here to talk about these things [government censorship],” he begins. Then he puts an imaginary pistol to his head and, with a grin, fires it. That, of course, was when power just grew out of the barrel of a gun. Now it also grows out of the infinite, albeit virtual, barrels of the internet.
::: yfnET

Is it about people enjoying it? (3, Insightful)

aicrules (819392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852698)

Other than a loose metaphor between the intellectual socialism of wikipedia and the communistic regime that is China, the government will only keep it available for as long as it takes for "unseemly" articles about government tyranny to make there way on to the site. Make no mistake, China's government is allowing this solely for its own benefit. Who knows what that benefit is, but when the potential costs begin to outweigh those benefits, suddenly participation will be down to zero.

Re:Is it about people enjoying it? (3, Interesting)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852966)

If you were the "decider" and had a nasty problem of finding dissenters what would you do? Make it difficult to be a dissenter and rely on spying programs to try and root them out at great cost and effort? Or maybe make it easy, let them out themselves, build up a nice hefty database of potential leads, hunt them all down, expose them for the 'traitors' that they are and a threat to the good people,then destroy them to serve as a warning to any others.

Not that I'm really saying that this is what they are doing. But it is certainly a valid possibility. So many decry this type of thing as paranoid and conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is people with power and control will do anything they can to remain in power and control. This has been proven countless times in human history. It really irritates me when people fail to admit that this type of thing could happen at home or abroad...America had to fight a war to remove ourselves from tyranny. Do people think that you really only have to do that once?

Re:Is it about people enjoying it? (1)

jamar0303 (896820) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852996)

And I'm guessing this is the same logic behind their rather lax enforcement of copyright infringement laws? I don't otherwise see why they would allow something that the whole world has complained to them about. Though, I don't see the potential costs of piracy ever outweighing the potential benefit because otherwise the adoption of technology in China will slow down greatly if people were forced to buy at retail (hardware prices are inflated in China- PS3s are going for US$1000+ in China, and the cheapest computer I can find is a Mac Mini pre-Intel going for $400, although maybe I'm not trying hard enough)

Besides, they already knew (1)

drew_kime (303965) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854154)

The article said that the government might discover people enjoy having it. If they weren't already aware that people enjoyed it, they wouldn't have bothered to ban it to begin with. Why do you think there's no ban on smashing your thumb with a hammer?

sure, (0, Flamebait)

JRWR (1001828) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852748)

man china needs to losen up with there people control, why cant they allow full internet access with no filters , i dont see where they get the idea that they are protecting the people with this

Re:sure, (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852872)

It's probably all about power and the control of "dangerous" information. If the people learn about "xyz", or, on the other hand, people start talking about the government (or a specific person), a revolution may ensue. People in power like to keep that power and will do a lot of things to keep it that way.

What's Chinese for "wikiality?" (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852774)

Did you know that the number of Tiannenmen Squares has tripled in the past six months?

Test of obviousness... (1)

Lissajous (989738) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852794)

Sooo essentially what's being said is that a Chinese-language website has more users now that it's widely accessable from inside China than when it wasn't accessable from widely China.

Does this really come as a suprise to anyone? (apart from the ban being lifted, that is).

In other news, websites around the globe realise that people are more able to read their content when their servers haven't been slashdotted out of existance.

Re:Test of obviousness... (0, Troll)

BishonenAngstMagnet (797469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853074)

Just shut up. You're not funny.

Uh huh... (2, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852828)

"No one's sure how long this will be available to the People's Republic of China"

Just as long as it takes to build a representative statistical sample pool of the individuals doing all the recent updates...once that's ready - OH! ...and the guys are done clubbing dogs. THEN we're gonna see some real head-banging :)

Helpful unit conversion (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852838)

1 Library of Congress == 6.19 * 10^17 fortune cookies

Filters? (-1, Troll)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852840)

I wonder if they would eventually filter entries such as those that state the obvious fact that Taiwan is a separate nation.

Re:Filters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853306)

Taiwan may be a de facto separate state, but definitely not a separate nation.

A lot of the upper class in present Taiwan are actually those who fled from mainland China during the establishment of the PRC. And that's less than 50 years ago.

Re:Filters? (1, Troll)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853408)

"Taiwan may be a de facto separate state, but definitely not a separate nation"

It's a separate nation in reality. Everyone recognizes it as such except for just one foreign country. The only time it is not treated as a separate nation is when someone has to give a wink toward mainland China's wishes. The world operates under the basic attitude of "Of course Taiwan is a separate country. When forced to, we'll agree when Beijing for its own silly reasons says it isn't, but that is just to make them happy and NOT because Beijing's argument has any merit. Otherwise, we treat Taiwan for what it is: a separate nation."

Re:Filters? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854740)

It's a separate nation in reality.

It is certainly a separate state in reality, as the granparent stated. A nation when distinguished from a state is a cultural entity, and insofar as Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese culturally, Chinese consider Taiwanese culturally, they share a common language and history, they are part of the same nation despite being part of separate de facto states. Now, its certainly true that since the split of the ROC and PRC into separate functional entities ruled by separate regimes, there has certainly also been some degree of divergence of culture and history and erosion of shared "Chinese" identity, and certainly one might validly debate whether or not they remain a common nation despite not being a common state, but that has nothing to do with foreign recognition, either de facto or de jure, of the separate political regimes.

Taiwan should be a nuclear nation (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853964)

Indeed it is hypocritical and downright foolish for the US not to back a highly successful Asian democracy. Surrendering it to the communists, like the British did with Hong Kong, would be a disaster. Since the worst has happened and North Korea is nuclear (a Chinese client with weapons of Chinese design), the US should insure that Taiwan and Japan have a nuclear deterrent as well. This would arrest Chinese adventurism in the region permanently.

Re:Taiwan should be a nuclear nation (1)

Annoyed broccoli (912877) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854426)

The British didn't exactly surrender Hong Kong to the communists. The New Territories were on lease for 99 years from 1 July 1898(Expiring on 30 June 1997). in 1982, Margaret Thatcher was very much inclined in keeping Hong Kong Island under British rules (Since the island was under a lease to perpetuity), but the PRC saw it differently- that Hong Kong had been taken from Chinese sovereignty in 1841. What didn't help Mrs. Thatcher was the fact that the United Nation had passed a resolution in 1972 affirming the claim of the PRC over the island of Hong Kong. To ease the transition from British to Chinese rule, Hong Kong has been granted a special administrative status, with its own government (albeit one that is approved by Beijing), but with a great deal of autonomy. In fact, China's main responsibility is to provide defense for HK since it doesn't have its own army. You are of course well aware that you need a visa to visit China, but a simple EU or US passport is enough to visit HK. Or that you can't pay with HKD in China and can't pay with RMB in HK.

Splitting hairs (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16855020)

You are of course well aware that you need a visa to visit China, but a simple EU or US passport is enough to visit HK. Or that you can't pay with HKD in China and can't pay with RMB in HK.

Splitting hairs, don't you think? Democracy is dead in Hong Kong. The UN resolution was used as a fig leaf by Thatcher for withdrawl. But if Hong Kong was good to give away to the communists, what about Singapore? You can't really blame Thatcher. What was she going to do, fight it out with China on their home turf? But it was a sad loss for the free world and a windfall for the slimy maoists. All the more reason to not let ot happen again with Taiwan.

In fact, China's main responsibility is to provide defense for HK since it doesn't have its own army.

What a hoot! Who besides China would ever present a threat to British-aligned Hong Kong.

Re:Taiwan should be a nuclear nation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16855018)

Indeed it is hypocritical and downright foolish for the US not to back a highly successful Asian democracy.
I wouldn't exactly say that Taiwan is highly successful as an Asian democracy.

Explosion... (0, Troll)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852864)

While it is good for some reason I don't really get :), what is the future of Wikipedia as such in China? Especially when Wikipedia itself hardly manages to stop Vandalism, how will it stop the content addition of controversial subjects? Won't that prompt China to have a say in Wikipedia content?

Re:Explosion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16854770)

While it is good for some reason I don't really get :), what is the future of Wikipedia as such in China?

Let me sugest this to you:'s_Brain _Training_2 []

Especially when Wikipedia itself hardly manages to stop Vandalism

Vandalism is a part of human nature and stands for knowledge that can't be put into words.

Tienanmen Square (3, Informative)

Darvin (878219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852924)

Very interesting to see the Tienanmen Square wiki in Chinese. Already it has been locked down due to 'vandalism'


See it

Re:Tienanmen Square (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853356)

Care to post the complete URL? :)

(or at least link to it, that way folks could click on it, even if Slashdot muddles up the characters).

Re:Tienanmen Square (2, Informative)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853530)

Link []

For those who can't read Chinese, the article is pretty objective in nature and cites multiple sources with varying opinion on topics such as the death toll [] .

Re:Tienanmen Square (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853488)

...Just like any other controversial topic in the English wiki. It even has a disputed notice. Are you somehow suggesting that vandalism is related to censorship? The English wiki probably has many times more locked articles [] than its Chinese counterpart.

Re:Tienanmen Square (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16854472)

Here's a Google Translation (Chinese to English) of the article "" (rough translation: June 4 Incident) h-CN%7Cen&u= title%3D%25E5%2585%25AD%25E5%259B%259B%25E4%25BA%2 58B%25E4%25BB%25B6%26variant%3Dzh-cn []

Obviously, slashdot url filter will break this url, so some assembly required. Batteries not included.

Population Bomb (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852932)

Activity on nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation's Chinese Wikipedia site has skyrocketed since its release

How about donation activity? OK, it's only 5 days into the popularity explosion. But if Chinese support of the nonprofit doesn't also explode by, say, Feb 18, 2007 [] , then how will Wikipedia accommodate the huge demand increase that Chinese popularity represents?

Will the "capitalists" now paying to operate Wikipedia have to give the "Communists" a free ride? Just how does Chinese Communism cooperate with global nonprofits when their government isn't managing the process?

Re:Population Bomb (3, Insightful)

estarriol (864512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853704)

I see no evidence to suggest that the people of China will be unable to donate to Wikipedia for any reason. What makes you think that they won't? The concept of charitable donation was not created by, nor is owned by, Capitalism.

Re:Population Bomb (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16855198)

To the contrary, I believe that communists are much more geared towards voluntarily donating to nonprofit community activities than are capitalists.

I pointed out that population explosions aren't necessarily entirely good, when they don't support themselves, and pointed out the mechanism to watch for that support.

I don't think they won't. I just want to know whether they will. What makes you think I don't?

Ain't seen nothin' yet... (2, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852978)

The number of new articles posted daily has increased 75% from the week before, with the total now surpassing 100,000

You gotta love scale. Imagine what will happen once they get genuinely interested in the West and start checking out something more than just college entrance fees...

Maybe this will finally get people outside China to start showing a bit of awareness when told they have no reliable/previous experience with the shear scale of things China brings to the table.

Maybe, just maybe, a few outsiders will get a clue and stop thinking they can judge China according to how they go about their (statistical) lives every day. More than one business model is going out the window, I can promise that much :)

Re:Ain't seen nothin' yet... (1)

hkBst (979461) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854016)

That sentence you quote certainly is open to the interpretation of "having a total of more than 100,000 new articles a day", but that interpretation would be wrong.

ChinaWikipedia entry for Freedom of speech (5, Funny)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16852980)

This article has been marked for deletion. Reason: "Doesn't exist".

Naive much? (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853000)

hopefully the government will recognize that at least a significant part of the populace enjoys a Wikipedia community

As if they care if anyone enjoys it.

The real question is how long before they demand that they be the ones to control it, including full access to the user logs.

First Sony Batteries ... (1)

s21825 (946313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853164)

First laptop batteries, now wikipedia ... when will the chaos end? :)

Actual statistics and charts (3, Informative)

fuzheado (733418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853216)

Strangely, the WSJ article does not mention any links or references to where to find the raw data.

It was based on charts and research I did from Beijing. []


Wikipedia Explodes in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853252)

Hundreds dead, thousands wounded.


Wikipedia Explodes in China -- Recall ordered (5, Funny)

retrosteve (77918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853282)

Sony has recalled all their batteries used in Wikipedias in China. Sony stock fell another 3.75 on the news.

I smell.. (0, Troll)

SQLz (564901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853304)

I smell some re-education torture in the near future.

searches (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853412)

As to be expected, there isn't any critical information in the obvious searches (democracy, Tiananmen Square, PRC). I wonder if any of the edits will add this. I'm also curious of the Chinese authorities have secured a way of seeing all edits to the entire site from day to day, purging all the information that is damning to the government.

  Under "democracy", I wonder intrigued to see how China is described on the map [] [from CIA world factbook originally] as "democratic, but does not allow for alternative parties" - which seems to be the standard Orwellian-speak of a communist nation. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is their most obvious map listing of a non-democractic government.

  FYI, use babelfish [] and use to/from Chinese-trad for best-but-still-poor results. Remember to translate your search words into Chinese-trad before entering.


Re:searches (1)

Total Cult (884224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853716)

What does that map represent? A colour-coded map is nothing without a key.

"significant part of the populace" (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853480)

Yes, 1200 new every day. That would perhaps be a significant part of the Lichtensteinian populace. What country are we talking about again?

Significant part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16853630)

A "significant part of the populace" in China is 10 million people. Anything less does not count.

Why China finally unblocked Wikipedia... (1)

fuzheado (733418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853674)

See also the explanation I gave as to why Wikipedia was unblocked in China [] .

The short version:

November 9, 2006 saw the complete unblocking [] of Wikipedia in China, resulting in a four-fold increase [] in new user registrations. Though it is still subject to URL- and page-level keyword blocking, the vast majority of the site is freely accessible.

Why was it unblocked? No one can know for sure. But in the end, I believe consensus among the Chinese authorities found the benefits of Wikipedia far outweigh the risks, and signals their understanding of a read-write Web.

China wants to read it, the world wants China to write to it.

With Wikipedia blocked, China suffers because its ranks of knowledge workers cannot access the top reference site in the world, and the world suffers from not having China's expertise and input in Wikipedia. Sound familiar? This is Wikipedia as the ultimate implementation of "read-write [] " culture, ala Lawrence Lessig.

And in the end, if you think about it, doesn't it make complete sense that the People's Republic of China would embrace the people's encyclopedia of Wikipedia?

Inflow of Information (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16853754)

What's the point of allowing people outside China to access the Chinese wiki, but censoring the rest of Wikipedia? It still allows access to incoming information.

Quality of articles (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854264)

The number of new articles posted daily has increased 75% from the week before

Um, it's not too hard to increase the article count that fast when the articles are just filled with nothing but question marks. Visit the site and see for yourself!

Dan East


This FP for GNAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16854354)

the BSD license, to this.= For battled in court, other members in is the ultimate On an endeavour to the transmission are inheRently ransom for their maintained that too

Google Translation of Tiananmen Square Page (2, Informative)

dbabbitt (977283) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854488)

Here is the text of %BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 [] above the Table of Contents translated by [] (white space reinsertion attempted):

Due to the recent frequent sabotage half of this page has been protected, anonymous users or users can register new editor. And if that entries can be obtained for the revised use of the discussion page, or for the discharge of the protection. (Protection is not an authorized version of the current page. In addition, notices of the template was used. To protect the pages please request. ), the latter sections or paragraphs, some of the information is not confirmed or suspicious sources failed at all.

Page confirmed discussions have relevant discussions and courage injected Source! Disputed the accuracy of this article.

The editors need to hang up this template pages illustrate the accuracy of the controversial dialogue, in order to allow the editors to discuss and improve.

Produced by the Beijing Central Academy of Art's "Goddess of Democracy" statue, and later became a symbol of the democratic movement in China in 1989.

Original destroyed, in Vancouver, San Francisco and other cities have copies of legislation in public places. Amplification produced by the Beijing Central Academy of Art's "Goddess of Democracy" statue.later in 1989 became a symbol of the democratic movement in China. Original destroyed, in Vancouver, San Francisco and other cities have copies of legislation in public places. June 4, also known as the 1989 pro-democracy movement (Democratic Movement), the 1989 student movement (Students), the June 4 massacre, the incident. 1989 democratic movement, the 1989 pro-democracy movement at Tiananmen Massacre, the Tiananmen incident, the Chinese government has called the unrest, counter-revolutionary rebellion.The recent political turmoil has renamed the turn of spring and summer, referred to the June 4,it is April 15, 1989 to June 4 and the day after the political events taking place in mainland the mass of students, and public processions and demonstrations Movement. However, during the negotiations between the government and the student body failed to reach consensus and political compromise,Finally, the government convened caused some military force to suppress (exact numbers are unknown - exists from several hundred to several thousand of view) the general public and students end up casualties. The center is generally believed that Beijing's Tiananmen Square incident. Besides Shanghai and many other cities are also the expression of different political views during the demonstration. General political commentators say that this incident led to the People's Republic of China since 1978 after the pace of political reform to stop or even reverse it. Today the many controversial incidents which have not been resolved.

bitCh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16854608)

Famous Photo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16854676)

The famous photo of the lone protester standing in front of the tank column IS on the page in the Chinese wikipedia site. Under it is the following caption... if someone can offer a better translation, I'd be interested... it sounds like the page denies the idea he was crushed... which misses the point of his protest anyway.

"By western media widespread report picture: It is said that the name calls "the Wang Wei forest" (status until now to be unable to confirm that, Wei Jingsheng called investigated this person according to it to be run over and die in an afterwards same action by tank, but Wei was unable to provide correlation evidence to prove its view) the young people stood in leave in front of the square tank motorcade, prevented the tank advance. According to the CNN scene photography picture, after afterwards the tank several times was attempting not to detour the fruit not again the forward motion behind, after but the soldier only was finds out to hint the tank motorcade to remove. The Chinese official view was hereafter removes the motion fully to prove the army certainly not recklessly slaughtered the resident and the student. "

Oh Noes! (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854750)

Wikipedia Explodes in China. Oh, the humanity!

Wikipedia Explodes in China! (2, Funny)

teflaime (738532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16854974)

30 Million people dead! News at 11! :p
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account