Beta
×

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!

China Reinstates Wikipedia Ban

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the that-was-depressingly-quick dept.

172

Rob T Firefly writes "The International Herald Tribute reports that the lifting of China's Wikipedia ban earlier this week was short-lived. Wikipedia is once again inaccessible from behind the Great Firewall, along with all other Wikimedia projects. Additionally, the URL of Chinese Wikipedia is once again a banned search term. No reason has yet been given for any of it." From the article: "It wasn't immediately clear if Wikipedia was inaccessible due to technical glitches or because government censors had blocked the site again. The Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Information Industry did not immediately respond when contacted for comment Friday. Beijing blocked access to the English and Chinese versions of Wikipedia in October last year, apparently out of concern about entries touching on the country's sensitive spots -- Tibet, Taiwan and other topics."

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1324tr134f (2, Funny)

riff420 (810435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888818)

China sucks! Hoytie in 2008!

Didn't see that coming at all. (-1, Troll)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888820)

Nothing to see here.
Move along.

The Great Firewall?!?! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16888830)

I love puns!

You like flied lice? (-1, Troll)

phubar (456077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888852)

We fly likipedia! Good dear for you!

Re:You like flied lice? (0, Troll)

phubar (456077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888946)

Troll? Eat me, assholes. It's called a joke.

Re:You like flied lice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889420)

Jokes are funny. That one wasn't.

Re:You like flied lice? (2, Informative)

Gregory Cox (997625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888962)

You're thinking of Japanese. Chinese has different 'l' and 'r' sounds, and a 'wi' sound too.

Re:You like flied lice? (1)

Gregory Cox (997625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889028)

Oops, I'm wrong about the 'wi' part. But there is a 'wei' sound.

Re:You like flied lice? (-1, Offtopic)

phubar (456077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889104)

It was a joke... and no, Chinese does not have different 'r' and 'l' sounds. Nor does it differentiate between 't' and 'd,' 'p' and 'b' or 'g' and 'k.'

Re:You like flied lice? (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889200)

Do you speak Chinese? Because I do, so I know that ri and li are two seperate and distinctly different sounding words.

Re:You like flied lice? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889912)

Who speaks Chinese? Maybe you can speak Mandarin, Cantonese, or one of the other languages that are used to vocalize the Chinese written language, but you don't speak Chinese. Maybe you speak to Chinese (people). Maybe you speak of Chinese (people). You don't speak Chinese because that's not the right noun to use to specify the spoken language. OTOH if you do speak ALL of the Chinese languages, you're still wrong because they're not at all similar and I really doubt ri vs. li exists in all of them. I know what you are saying about ri vs. li in Mandarin.

Perhaps the way for people to think about this (in a kinda backwards way) is that you can transcribe spoken English into written American English, written Queen's English, or l33t, but they're definitely different. Or maybe EBCDIC vs. ASCII -- both can be used to record a work of Shakespeare, but yeah they're different.

Re:You like flied lice? (3, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890766)

and no, Chinese does not have different ...

Says who? Standard High Chinese ("Mandarin") certainly has differences between r, l, t, d, p, b, g, and k. In detail (I assume you use Pinyin):

r: similar to English r, tip of the tongue rolled upwards, voiced
l: like in land or lung

t: like english t, tip of the tongue touches back side of upper front teeth, but strongly aspirated with audible breath following the sound
d: like t but not aspirated; short

p: like english p, but strongly aspirated with audible breath following the sound
b: like p, but not aspirated; short

g: similar to english g; not aspirated, not voiced
k: strongly aspirated with audible breath following the sound; speak nearly like kh

Re:You like flied lice? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891336)

Standard High Chinese ("Mandarin") [...]

Well, it might in the north, and it might not in the south. Even with one unifying language, there is still very little movement within the country, and people learning the provincial language as well as Mandarin. So in the South, the "l" and "n" are pronounced the same. This was pointed out to me while I was talking with someone from the south when a Beijing native was poking fun at him. They are unable to spell some things in Pinyin because of the ambiguity of the sounds. I'd write it down two or three ways, look up all of them in the dictionary and report the correct Pinyin spelling back. So, that you tell me they are distinct when multiple people born in China tell me otherwise when I'm sitting in China, I'm going to believe them over you. Don't take it personally.

Ask 10 English speakers across the globe about the "correct" spelling of color/colour or the pronunciation of patent (specifically whether the "a" is long or short), and you will come up with different answers in different regions. For people half a world away to debate the pronunciation of Chinese is an academic pursuit that will not yield meaningful results. North China has a hard "R". Taiwan does not. The "R" in Taiwan is more like a "J" Southern China has the "R" sounded more like the "L" sound that people make fun of. There are differences in accents and pronunciation around China, just like there are southern, Boston, and other US accents and the UK, within the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Re:You like flied lice? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889346)

-1, Racist & ignorant

Reflects the Politics in Beijing (5, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888882)

In Beijing you have the conservatives and the hard-line conservatives duking it out for control. When policy changes it's because one side has momentarily gained the upper hand, or believed they had, and ordered the change.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0, Offtopic)

riff420 (810435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889112)

I ORDERED ROBSTA CRAW

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (4, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889534)


When policy changes it's because one side has momentarily gained the upper hand, or believed they had, and ordered the change.

I really have no understanding of how policy is set in China, but I might be able to believe that if Wikipedia was accessible for a month or two, but a major blocking policy like this changing over a few days seems a bit insane. Is there really no one in charge over there that makes decisions that last more than a few days? How the hell can you run a country like that?

Since the change from block->no-block->block was all so abrupt I'd say it's more likely that this was just either a technical glitch in the firewall, or a deliberate attempt at trying to perpetuate the belief inside China that there IS no official censorship and it's all just "trouble contacting some sites".

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890120)

You've obviously never heard the head of the MII talk. The dude's INSANE.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (4, Informative)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890412)

I might be able to believe that if Wikipedia was accessible for a month or two, but a major blocking policy like this changing over a few days seems a bit insane.

This pattern of behavior was played out on a much larger scale early on in PRC history: the Hundred Flowers Campaign [wikipedia.org] followed by the Anti-Rightist Movement [wikipedia.org] . The pattern is: open up and seemingly liberalize communications for a brief period; then, once everyone who criticizes the government identifies themselves, you go clean them up. Pretty straightforward.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890956)

The pattern is: open up and seemingly liberalize communications for a brief period; then, once everyone who criticizes the government identifies themselves, you go clean them up


Hmm.. It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't sound very plausible. If your goal was to find anyone with conflicting views that wants to express them wouldn't you leave the doors open more than a couple days? What would be the purpose to close it down so quickly? Word of Wikipedia being open might not have even spread very widely, or the cautious people would still be avoiding revealing themselves. If it was a trap, I'd think they've sprung it waaay too early.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889902)

Just wanted to help you out with this one so you'll know next time...China (where Beijing is) is a communist country. Communism is a liberal ideal; not a conservative ideal. Waaaaay on the other side of the political spectrum from conservatism is communism.

Carry on...

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890160)

Communism is a liberal ideal; not a conservative ideal. Waaaaay on the other side of the political spectrum from conservatism is communism.

If someone is a conservative, they are working to CONSERVE the status quo. So in China, the Communists are conservatives. The liberals would be supporters of democracy.

The words are also used differently in Europe. And once upon a time in the USA, liberals were supporters of democracy and a free market... it's different now. The terms are not bound to any specific ideology.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890310)

I stand corrected. I simply used my Western idea of what conservatism and liberalism are and applied it to China.

I would like to thank you for the friendly correction. You could have said something childish like, "You dumbF* you don't know what you're talking about you f'in idiot!", and you would have been correct. :-) But you didn't and I appreciate that. You are obviously one of the few adults around here.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890208)

I can not believe how incredibly stupid you are. Really, I'm baffled. I thought I had seen so many people be so stupid that I couldn't be shocked by stupidity anymore. You've proven me wrong. Wow.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890868)

I can not believe how incredibly stupid you are. Really, I'm baffled. I thought I had seen so many people be so stupid that I couldn't be shocked by stupidity anymore. You've proven me wrong. Wow.

I don't know about anyone else, but that in-depth analysis sure convinced me.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890948)

One day, son, when you grow up, you will realize that people make mistakes and that it is OK to do so. Adults, can admit when they are wrong. I admitted to the gentleman who corrected my mistake in a grown-up manner that I was indeed wrong. I did so in a self-depricating manner as well. (By basically calling myself an idiot in jest.) Adults tend to do that to hide the embarrassment that comes with putting one's foot in one's mouth. Adults tend to respond to self-depricating humour with laughter or some similar display of emotion that is something other than childish aggression. That is a handy way to diffuse many potentially tension-filled situations. I know, I know...this is all above your head right now but, some day, when you have lived long enough to have matured past the "na-na-na-boo-boo-stick-your-head-in-doo-doo" stage of life, you'll understand. When you finally reach that point in your life, and I'm sure you will because the fact that you are here shows that you at least have the mental capacity to read and comprehend, you will look back on moments like this and cringe with shame and embarrassment. I do so quite frequently.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891364)

Right. I owe you an apology. No, I don't usually talk to people like this. I guess it's the fact that this is slashdot or that the "Carry on" made you sound really condescending but I replied in a way I would to a troll or an asshole. Your other posts made it clear that that wasn't what you deserve. I'm actually very surprised to find such a reply as yours on here.
Anyway, my apologies.

Re:Reflects the Politics in Beijing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890940)

"conservatives"

Incorrect terminology. The proper term is "hard-liners".

Silly lieberal, trix are for kids.

Could be.... (3, Insightful)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888886)

Could be a "technical" problem...

Re:Could be.... (5, Funny)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888954)

And the people pounding on the doors of avid Chinese wiki users could be Avon ladies.

Re:Could be.... (1, Troll)

BurningTyger (626316) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889074)

Yes, it was a "technical" problem that the ban was lifted.
Now the problem has been resolved ^^.
Nothing to see here. Move along ~

Re:Could be.... (4, Funny)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889392)

Chinese Gov: What? You mean you can't access the site? Oh we're terribly sorry, there must be a technical problem. We have identified the problem and we are working on it. Expect to be back on Wikipedia in six to eight years.

Technical Glitches (3, Interesting)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889924)

It wasn't immediately clear if Wikipedia was inaccessible due to technical glitches
My guess is that it was accessible due to technical glitches.

How about adding a million glitches (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891366)

Everyone run a proxy.

 

Reinstate??? (-1, Offtopic)

Kainaw (676073) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888908)

How can China reinstate a ban that wasn't ever lifted (according to Slashdot's coverage)? I tried to submit reports that China lifted the ban earlier in the week, but my attempts were rejected by the Slashdot editors. Now that the ban has been reinstated, Slashdot is all over reporting it. I feel that it is very one-sided to be so eager to report when the Chinese government does something wrong and ignore the news when they do something right.

Re:Reinstate??? (1)

Thraxen (455388) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888958)

How would 'never lifting the ban' be doing 'something right'?

Re:Reinstate??? (1)

3rd_Floo (443611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889004)

Actually, you should notice it was reported the ban was lifted two days ago [slashdot.org] . Although it was cleaverly disguised as a surge in Chinese Wiki-use.

Wikinews link (3, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888914)

Here [wikinews.org] is the Wikinews link I referred to in the submission. I hadn't found the AP article yet.

Never ascribe to malice... (2, Insightful)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888940)

...that which can be explained by incompetence.

Whether the earlier opening up or this latest blocking is on purpose I don't think we'll know. According to the Chinese delegate to the conference in Greece two weeks ago no sites are blocked.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (5, Funny)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888988)

"According to the Chinese delegate to the conference in Greece two weeks ago no sites are blocked."

Wow, China is more liberal with the internet than my employer. Maybe I'll move there, I hear Tiananmen Square is lovely in June.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (4, Insightful)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889010)

" According to the Chinese delegate to the conference in Greece two weeks ago no sites are blocked."

The same delegate would also be glad to tell you of China's wonderful human rights record, how much Chinese occupation has improved Tibet, and how China is democratic.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889500)

And how they've always been at war with Oceania.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889518)

"And how they've always been at war with Oceania."

Pretty hard to do without a navy.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889942)

Their navy is *so* stealthy nobody even believes it exists.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (1)

Kesh (65890) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891072)

The Chinese have a navy. It's just very quiet. [google.com]

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890184)

" According to the Chinese delegate to the conference in Greece two weeks ago no sites are blocked."
The same delegate would also be glad to tell you of China's wonderful human rights record, how much Chinese occupation has improved Tibet, and how China is democratic.


Hey, maybe when the delegate gets back and finds out that his sites are blocked, then they'll become unblocked. I'm sorry, but such a big thing is made of one event of the Chinese government of course they'll want to sweep it under the rug, and they've been very successful at that domestically. I bet you if it you went over to China and asked 10-20 random Chinese people about your selected Chinese government actions that you don't like, they'll either shrug it off, say it's foreign media trying to discredit the Chinese government, or come up with a list of things that your government has done that you might not agree with. The US government doesn't yet have the power to block wikipedia. Wait awhile. It might get that power though or use selective filtering rather than blocking the entire sites. I think that your average citizen around the globe wouldn't be surprised by what their government does that isn't in their citizens best interests.

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (1)

DeltaQH (717204) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889916)

Sabotage?

Re:Never ascribe to malice... (1)

thue (121682) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889986)

"According to the Chinese delegate to the conference in Greece two weeks ago no sites are blocked."

Dishonesty like that just amaze. Who do they think they are fooling? To say something like that with a straight face you have to put no value on truth and honesty.

Unplugged his tubes? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16888966)

It wasn't immediately clear if Wikipedia was inaccessible due to technical glitches or because government censors had blocked the site again. The Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Information Industry did not immediately respond when contacted for comment Friday.
That's probably because somebody unplugged his internet, too. Tubes, right?
http://www.lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/108 /carey_mariah.php/ [lyricslist.com]

Re:Unplugged his tubes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890276)

Jesus christ, quit with the god damn fucking lyrics link spam already. I hope you shitbricks die in fires.

pool's over (5, Funny)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889044)

alright, you heard him, pool's over. who had 2 days?

Excellent tactic (4, Interesting)

Akvum (580456) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889124)

Let the ban lapse so all the free thinkers and government detractors can post on a popular site, then ban it one week later... sounds like they wanted an easy way to find out who to arrest next!

Re:Excellent tactic (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889340)

A small-scale replay of the Hundred Flowers Campaign that preceded the Cultural Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campa ign [wikipedia.org]

Of course it won't seem so small-scale to the people tossed into the jail...

Tick Tock (1)

Virtualtaco (848235) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889138)

Good. With the economy growing the way it is in China, and the technology spreading, it's just a matter of time before that poor excuse for a government loses grip. The more they push, the faster it will happen. These guys can't even get a highway infrastructure for their country, or they don't want to so they can keep the people where they are. Regardless, the clock is ticking.

Re:Tick Tock (4, Interesting)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889582)

You are wrong (I think).

Rich, well-fed people do not drive revolutions. On the other hand, if you are hungry, cannot get a job, live on the street, cannot cloth your kids... in short, if you have nothing to lose, then all the freedom and democracy in the world will not abate your unrest.

So the fact that China becomes prosperous is a very good news for the Dear Leaders. And very bad for our military.

Re:Tick Tock (4, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889826)


Rich, well-fed people do not drive revolutions.

Huh. I could have sworn most of the founding fathers in the US were wealthy land owners. I suppose you could argue that they weren't the ones DRIVING the revolution, merely the ones leading it. But I've also never heard about the American revolution being started because the majority of people were hungry or un-employed. From what I've been told it was that people were pissed off that England was imposing draconian controls on trade, freedom of expression, etc.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890050)

That and taxes, they didn't like being taxed with no say in the matter. It always comes back to the all powerful dollar... Err pound in this case I guess.

Re:Tick Tock (3, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890206)

Huh. I could have sworn most of the founding fathers in the US were wealthy land owners.
The "American Revolution" was a regional separatist movement, which has a bit of a different dynamic than other "revolutions". Still, there is a bit of a point there: both types of revolts are often driven by the at least moderately well-off who see themselves as positioned to be even more well-off if the revolution succeeds, but rely on the plight of the badly off who are easily driven to resent either the physically distant (in the case of regional separatist movements) or socially distant (in other revolutions) ruling class for foot soldiers, though in revolutions other than regional separatist movements, the plight of the poor versus the apparent position of the rich generally has to be very bad, because there is otherwise generally less of a distinct clash of identity between the people revolting and those they are revolting against (though clear differences race, religion, or similar identity between the ruled and the rulers can facilitate in creating a clash that can drive rebellion with less of a visible economic divide.)

Re:Tick Tock (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890332)


Still, there is a bit of a point there: both types of revolts are often driven by the at least moderately well-off who see themselves as positioned to be even more well-off if the revolution succeeds

Hmm.. I sure haven't extensively studied the founding fathers of the US, but it's my understanding that they were quite driven to establish liberty, and not simply driven by greed or a lust for power. If you read what they wrote about (and argued amongst themselves) it becomes quite apparent they weren't just a bunch of greedy bastards looking to make themselves more rich and powerfull.

That's not to say these guys were all perfect and without self interest. Jefferson had frickin slaves. But to simplify the American Revolution down to a few people trying to give themselves more power is simply not true. You only need look at the Bill of Rights to understand they weren't just power-hungry dictators.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890682)

Hmm.. I sure haven't extensively studied the founding fathers of the US, but it's my understanding that they were quite driven to establish liberty, and not simply driven by greed or a lust for power.


I didn't say anything about the US founding fathers in particular, I said both types of revolt are often shaped by certain processes. OTOH, every revolutions leaders, now matter how self-interested their goals actually are, of course mouth propaganda that appeals to the masses with noble ideals. Often (even when they are serving their self-interest) they likely believe it, too, the human mind has a vast capacity for rationalizing self-interest in idealistic terms. And, of course, the leaders of many revolutions of any kind are going to be a diverse bunch, not a bunch of people whose motives, overt and deeper, are all identical.

In any case, I think arguing details of the specific motivations of the American revolution in response to a discussion of the relation of the Chinese situation with general trends it what motivates or produces rebellion is somewhat pointless if it isn't grounded in anything broader than the particular motivation of particular American leaders.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890774)


In any case, I think arguing details of the specific motivations of the American revolution in response to a discussion of the relation of the Chinese situation with general trends it what motivates or produces rebellion is somewhat pointless if it isn't grounded in anything broader than the particular motivation of particular American leaders.

I agree. My only point in bringing up the American revolution was to give an undeniable case where revolution wasn't sparked by hungy, unemployed people. I'm certainly not a historian, so I'm unqualified to discuss revolution in the more general case.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890780)

I agree completely and I think the grandparent is, more or less, correct on the state of things in China. Ignoring obvious exceptions, China's wealthy are businessmen who are efficiently using the country's extraordinary human capital to out compete the rest of the world; they aren't rent seekers supporting the current regime to maintain their privileged position. A government which, as you elegantly stated, "[imposes] draconian controls on trade" garner these "rich, well-fed" ill favor, and some of these corporations have many thousands of employees. In the modern world, I can think of no one more likely and able to start and support a revolution than these rich and well-fed. It may boil down to the all-mighty dollar, but money does tend to push in the direction of more freedom, so, in this case, I'm not complaining.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889992)

"Rich, well-fed people do not drive revolutions"

Sure they do! Certainly the American revolution was driven by the rich and well fed. More often when the non-desperate drive socail change it is by non-violent means, of course. Of the examples I can think of off the top of my head, it would seem social change movements intitated mostly by the not-entirely-desperate are the ones likely to produce lasting positive change. The desperate also drive revolutiuons, but their movements are more likely to get hijacked by strongmen who promise (and deliver) something differnet, but not necessarily better.

The starving do not fight for freedom, they fight for food. When people have some reasonable level of security, they can afford to be concerned about civil liberties and corruption.

So I predict increased prosperity will indeed be a problem for Chinas leaders. Whether they transition away from their repressive policies, or screw up the prosperity, or get messily overthrown remains to be seen.

Re:Tick Tock (1)

Virtualtaco (848235) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890064)

Sorry, not being clear. You know how we have the idea of "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer" here? That's exponential for them. It's not free trade economic growth there. As China's economy picks up the differential between the rich and the poor grows, leading to the unrest. Also, the price tag of oppression in China is already set at a certain level of fear. The government can't all of the sudden act weak and benevolent, lifting the spirits of the poor, unless there is some mock coupe or something thereof. Although, if they keep their own military happy enough to kill their own people (Tiananmen square) then they can most definatly keep the fear alive. Wish there were an easy answer...

Re:Tick Tock (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890520)

Rich, well-fed people do not drive revolutions.

That actually is not true at all. Many, if no most successful revolutions at least have the backing of the middle class. The middle class wields incredible power both in terms of finding intellectual justification for rebellion as well as financial support. Money and education do a lot to drive a revolution forward.

If you want some close to home examples, Europe's slide out of monarchy all came at the hands of a well fed middle class. The American revolution was led by wealthy land owners. Hell, Mao, the leader of the Chinese communist revolution came from a well to do family and was formally educated.

Too much vandalism (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889264)

Looks like they were vandalizing it by replacing all of the text with ?'s anyways...

Our fault? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889436)

China's biggest trading partners are:

1) USA
2) Canada

Has anyone else wondered why are we are so hell bent on propelling a government that still shows so many signs being bullying, authoritarian regime into super-power status?

Re:Our fault? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890976)

They own you. You have no choice.

Searching vs typing in URL? (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889452)

Its says you can't search for it anymore, but does that mean you can't go directly to the site?

I know many non-techie users can't wrap their heads around typing in URLs to go directly to the site without a Google or MSN search, but you'd think they'd block direct access rather than the search.

Re:Searching vs typing in URL? (5, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889624)

According to Wikinews, searching from within China on any non-Chinese search engine (including the English-language Google, Yahoo, and MSN you know and/or love) for the string "zh.wikipedia.org" will apparently get you banned from viewing that search engine for several minutes. I imagine this is to stop people finding references to the blocked site and discussions of its' blocking (like we are now) just as much as it is to discourage people using things like Google's cache to see the blocked material.

Re:Searching vs typing in URL? (2, Interesting)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889978)

i'm in shanghai on china telecoms adsl line, wikipedia is blocked for me, and it was going so well :( i used it for creative research almost hourly..

back to tor i guess

Accordign to Google..... (4, Informative)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889498)

They haven't blocked it:

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid =57869 [ucla.edu] (posted at 2:18 PM EST)
http://www.toptechnews.com/news/China-Abandons-Wik ipedia-Censorship/story.xhtml?story_id=101009A5G2I Q [toptechnews.com] (posted at 12:19 PM EST)

I don't know if I entirely believe it, but that's another story....

did anyone expect differently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889666)

it's a communist, repressive, control-freak 'north korea lite' regime!

i hope the chinese people overthrow this evil government someday...maybe america will actually support them this time instead of turning their back on them like tiannammen square...all for the sake of trade status and access to chinese markets!

Re:did anyone expect differently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890548)

What the hell is wrong with Asians?? They're generally very intelligent, so why are their governments so stupid??

Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist PR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889694)

This is standard operating procedure here at Slashdot.

Give hardcore Communists the benefit of the doubt at all times. Never question their motives. Demand impossibly high levels of evidence before concluding that they are doing anything wrong.

And of course the flipside : America is evil, oppressive, tortureres.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ladies and gentlemen. Slashdot proves it every day.

Re:Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist (1)

Ghostalker474 (1022885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889824)

Forgive me for being someone who looks ahead, not behind. I welcome new ideas without rigid reactions, and care about the welfare of the people (health, school, jobs, rights and liberties). Since thats the definition of a liberal, I'm proud to be a liberal. Back in the day, Conservatives were called Tories.

Re:Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16889970)

"Forgive me for being someone who looks ahead, not behind. I welcome new ideas without rigid reactions, and care about the welfare of the people (health, school, jobs, rights and liberties). Since thats the definition of a liberal, I'm proud to be a liberal. Back in the day, Conservatives were called Tories."

You are forgiven my son.

Re:Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist (2, Funny)

IflyRC (956454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890180)

Right, if John Kerry and John Edwards had have been elected, China would never have restricted Wikipedia in the first place.

Re:Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891282)

>Forgive me for being someone who looks ahead, not behind. I welcome new ideas without rigid reactions, and care about the welfare of the people (health, school, jobs, rights and liberties). Since thats the definition of a liberal, I'm proud to be a liberal. Back in the day, Conservatives were called Tories.

That's the good side of the grits (back in the day that's what we called Liberals). The bad side of the grits the slide of morals and basic rights made in the name of serving those that don't deserve them. And I'm not talking about what you're thinking about, I'm talking about letting serious criminals that plan to kill out of jail (in the name of a "25 years maximum sentence" being fair and just to the offender), and stopping people from watching TV signals broadcast from outside the country (in the name of preserving "Canadian" TV).

What Canada (and most other countries with similar systems) needs is 5 years Tory, 10 years Grit, 5 years NDP, 10 years Grit, wash, rinse, repeat. This lets each government clean up the previous government's screwups, and lets the middle-men (Grits) make most of the decisions, while the other two wings shore up the slides the country makes while they're in power.

Re:Ascribing malice to Bush, lapping up Communist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890044)

I ascribe malice to Bush because stupidity no longer adequately explains his actions. I mean, I have a problem believing that someone could be that stupid without it being intentional.

Run TOR (5, Informative)

Mantus (65568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889844)

TOR helps people in oppressive countries freely access information and it needs to grow.
http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]

Re:Run TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891294)

you can't even post here using tor...and irc.freenode.net blocks tor also, as do others...what makes you think china can't 'manage' tor?

What's happend if China (1)

justelite (990495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16889976)

will make the rules in the world? (it is possible in the future ) They will ban all the Internet?

sh1Nt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16890012)

crisco or l0be. Thes3 early

What a pity (0, Flamebait)

DeltaQH (717204) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890038)

What a pity. For a second I thought that something was really moving in China...

Such thought control system of government are a waste of the most valuable resource, the human mind. Not to speak of other wasted resources... They are puting themselves at a great disadvantage.

I China wants to become again The Middle Kingdom, the center of civilization, they are not going in the right direction IMHO.

Seems we have to wait another 300 years. They say the are a long thinking people, it seems to me they just think toooooooo long.

Sigh... flamebait subject line (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890240)

Editor, PLEASE: "China Reinstates Wikipedia Ban" "It wasn't immediately clear if Wikipedia was inaccessible due to technical glitches or because government censors had blocked the site again." So it is a ban or is it not?

But they don't censor the Internet! (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890334)

Of course it wasn't a ban! China does not censor the Internet [slashdot.org] . I find your lack of faith disturbing...

Re:But they don't censor the Internet! (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890584)

It's not that I don't have faith but I cannot take such 'reporting' as carved in stone facts when it's still speculation. News report is not a religion, news based on speculation is tabloid.


Yes they have a history of doing that but so did Iraq. And you believed in WMD in Iraq?

Re:But they don't censor the Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891374)

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

And i find your use of a star wars line as faggish.

STFU you little star wars fag. dick sucker.

Re:Sigh... flamebait subject line (1)

sponga (739683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890576)

Don't worry we are all waiting for the magic bold lettered Update: "Correction blah blah blah"

A true reason why it blocked. (3, Informative)

imkow (1021759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890408)

All major or minor gateways in china uses a gov-appointed security software installed (sometimes by answering to the gov's requirement), from provincial main cable to a local telcom station, from internet service provider to a router of an unit of a building. From up to down, layer by layer, the software can be everywhere, as a combination of firewall, anti-virus, anti-hacking, anti-porn, word-filtering, user access control and so forth. Many network administrators are quite ok with the software since it provides convinence and secrity to work on.

    The blockage of some websites could be a side effect using that software suit, some websites being blocked occasionaly might because some word trigger(such like some word might be used against The Party) was accidentially fired. Or else, some websites opening occasionally could because some trigger words are removed from the ban list of the software or from the page of the website , in which wikipedia can be the case.

So maybe the control to release a website from ban list isn't in hands of the gov, since that secrity software suit has already been installed in every level of the network and works independently. It's more like a polical-oriented but technical problem now.

Re:A true reason why it blocked. (1)

Malakusen (961638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890826)

So who in The Party do you work for? That's clearly a pro-Chinese Government piece, clearly written by someone with English as a second language, and appears to be raw propaganda.

My 2 cents (2, Insightful)

sheepcentral (914661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16890748)

Slashdot ran a story on how the Chinese Wikipedia because so popular so quickly, now maybe I'm stating what some people must believe to be obvious, but maybe the Chinese gov't saw it as a treat to their power. If you think about it something so community based and free (as in speech not beer) could if it took off in a big way might give the Chinese a taste for unrestricted information, then if the Chinese gov't chose to censor it again then there might be protests etcetera and generally it might reduce their dominative power.

Why Doesn't China.... (2, Insightful)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891214)

Why doesn't China scan Wikipedia for certain keywords and just block certain articles? Don't get me wrong, I think China should be banning no sites, period. However, if China's government insists on blocking Wikipedia due to concerns that articles that touch on their sensitive spots might pop-up, why don't they at least make the rest of Wikipedia available?

Re:Why Doesn't China.... (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891348)

I agree that'd be nice, but -- why would they?

The Planetary Datalinks (4, Insightful)

SMACX guy (1003684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891300)

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

hah! simple! (1)

paniq (833972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891344)

in soviet russia, wikipedia bans you.

I just thought of something (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891430)

If Chinese ppl get service from a satellite based ISP with their own dish, can't they completely ignore the "great firewall" and access whatever they want cuz they're jumping straight from their house to an outside China connection? There's no way to guard against that cuz they CAN be indoors so I'd love to see a US company offer service over there, I'm sure it'd explode (and make China hate us but who cares)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>