Catalonia is an autonomous community inside Spain, and still there's a catalan wikimedia foundation as far as I can see https://www.wikimedia.cat/
It seems to me this Wikimedia Foundation === Country Level Only Status is bullshit.
Yes, we catalans have another separate language besides spanish that grants for ourselves a whole encyclopedia in it (viquipedia. that's catalan wikipedia).
So I don't see why Wikimedia Taiwan should be an issue regardless of the status of Taiwan inside China itself?
And yes, the situations are 0 comparably in real life... just my random POV
> Their last-minute objections claimed Wikimedia’s application was incomplete, and suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation was carrying out political activities via the volunteer-led Wikimedia Taiwan chapter
So seems China has a problem with that the Taiwan chapter is being used for political activism, rather than just serving/working on Wikipedia. Similarly if the Catalan chapter did activism in favor of independence, Spain might react to that in one way or another.
Taiwanese official language is also mandarin, so it doesn't really make sense. Apart from the obvious Civil War issues, there is also another aspect to this: The CPC has done their very best to disemphasize the differences between "Han" Chinese, and discouraging the use of local languages like Shanghainese or Cantonese.
China is obsessed with unity and stability (with good historical reason), and very paranoid about foreigners trying to divide and conquer them (also with good reasons), and sometimes this takes on slightly ridiculous forms as in the wikimedia example.
There probably is a pro Taiwan bias in Wikipedia, but ironically a big part of that is from China blocking access to the Chinese Wikipedia for most of its existence. Who else is left to create the Chinese content?
Amusingly enough back when I was still active editing on Wikipedia, there was a lot of trouble related to sourcing articles. Because the media in PRC itself is restricted, you have very less sources you can trust. You can't source content from sources like GT but do you trust CGTN, Xinhua? Eventually, you have to because if you don't you would be left with very less coverage and one from a western perspective even if Xinhua probably doesn't have the credibility/reputation of say BBC.
Given Taiwan recognizes China but China doesn't recognize Taiwan, a statement of fact--that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state--would be deemed "pro Taiwan" by Beijing.
I'd be interested to read a disinterested account of this, but note that the account at hand says that the objection was not about the Chinese (language) Wikipedia but about the activities of Wikimedia Taiwan; not about the electronic encyclopaedia, in other words, but about the association of people.
Hong Kong, Singapore, and overseas Chinese have a big impact on the Chinese content. Hong Kong even used to have a chapter (now it's a user group, for reporting compliance reasons)
>There probably is a pro Taiwan bias in Wikipedia, but ironically a big part of that is from China blocking access to the Chinese Wikipedia
>pro Taiwan bias in Wikipedia
I have previously seen these baseless accusations of Wikipedia and Reddit being pro-Taiwan and pro-India.
There are tens of thousands of pro-Chinese Leftists in the US and Europe. Just take a look at r/GenZedong and r/Socialism. They are China's main propaganda arm in the West. They are far more organized and agenda-driven than Taiwanese and Indian Internet users. They have completely taken over Wikipedia and the comment section on reddit. Anything even slightly critical of China's government gets accused of being CIA propaganda.
I found WIPO remarkably anti "open access innovation" and very pro "lets promote property rights in the digital realm were copying a product is nearly free".
Maybe Wikimedia should steer clear of such dinosaur of an institute.
Political knowledge from Taiwan is still a part of the human knowledge. I cannot see why the Foundation's application should to be rejected by such a weak argument.
WIPO is about intellectual property. That has nothing to do with human knowledge and everything to do with legal structures to enable government granted monopolies over ideas (patents), expression (copyright), and identification (trademarks).
If anything the "human knowledge" on Wikipedia is the remit of UNESCO, which is "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization".
Wikimedia wanted oberver status at WIPO to be "inside the halls" when WIPO is making decisions that might affect Wikimedia's purpose, which it states as "We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge."
China does not like freedom of press and freedom of information that wikipedia represents. They want the source of information to be only from government approved resources.
I would hope Wikipedia concentrates being Wikipedia. Other "follow WIPO" activities should be left to other parties.
Focus on core with small money. That is the way to go.
Wikipedia is a great source for non political information such as chemistry or computer science facts but at the point material intersects with politics in any tangential way it is strongly biased source of information. I could see it having a particularly difficult time dealing with China and cultural differences its moderators are unable to handle.
China Daily (link below) is known to have ties to the CCP:
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201909/02/WS5d6c719ea310cf...
"Editor's note: This is the first of two stories in which China Daily will examine educational issues that experts say are a root cause of young people's participation in the Hong Kong protests."
And https://www.chinadailyhk.com/articles/49/20/205/156747748453...
"Editor's note: This is the second of two stories in which China Daily examines educational issues that experts see as a root cause of young people's participation in the Hong Kong protests."
"U.S. officials told the Journal that they have been aware of the backdoor access since 2009 but declined to say if the company actually used this access since it was discovered."
(again, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Huawei that details one such security incident/compromise, which U.S. officials declined to mention -- I suppose this puts their decision in context, if you read between the lines)
Does Huawei have ties to the CCP? While not stating this outright, it's hard to argue that $30 billion dollars' worth of funding comes with no strings attached:
The bottom line (tl;dr): " The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company.
[...]
Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned."
It is true. So much as stating that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a de facto independent country with its own territory, military, government, and permanent populace is political. The existence of many Wikipedia pages about Taiwan that reflect that is an inherently political activity (from CCP perspective).
Isn't everything political these days? Advocating against govt backdoors is "political". Advocating for LGBT rights is "political". Joining WIPO is political, because they clearly want to influence how intellectual property laws are developed/written.
Maybe it's time to cut off the giant LAN from the internet WAN proactively.
Picking and injecting selected info to 1.4B people over time is worse than no info IMHO, as the former will produce extreme thoughts which could be dangerous.
[+] [-] agustif|5 years ago|reply
It seems to me this Wikimedia Foundation === Country Level Only Status is bullshit.
Yes, we catalans have another separate language besides spanish that grants for ourselves a whole encyclopedia in it (viquipedia. that's catalan wikipedia).
So I don't see why Wikimedia Taiwan should be an issue regardless of the status of Taiwan inside China itself?
And yes, the situations are 0 comparably in real life... just my random POV
[+] [-] JdeBP|5 years ago|reply
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thematic_organizat...
* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters
[+] [-] kerng|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msoad|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capableweb|5 years ago|reply
So seems China has a problem with that the Taiwan chapter is being used for political activism, rather than just serving/working on Wikipedia. Similarly if the Catalan chapter did activism in favor of independence, Spain might react to that in one way or another.
[+] [-] bakuninsbart|5 years ago|reply
China is obsessed with unity and stability (with good historical reason), and very paranoid about foreigners trying to divide and conquer them (also with good reasons), and sometimes this takes on slightly ridiculous forms as in the wikimedia example.
[+] [-] z2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] actuator|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|5 years ago|reply
Given Taiwan recognizes China but China doesn't recognize Taiwan, a statement of fact--that Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state--would be deemed "pro Taiwan" by Beijing.
[+] [-] JdeBP|5 years ago|reply
I wonder what the actual objection said.
[+] [-] walrus01|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_Baike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baike.com
[+] [-] InfiniteRand|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thackerwayac|5 years ago|reply
>pro Taiwan bias in Wikipedia
I have previously seen these baseless accusations of Wikipedia and Reddit being pro-Taiwan and pro-India.
There are tens of thousands of pro-Chinese Leftists in the US and Europe. Just take a look at r/GenZedong and r/Socialism. They are China's main propaganda arm in the West. They are far more organized and agenda-driven than Taiwanese and Indian Internet users. They have completely taken over Wikipedia and the comment section on reddit. Anything even slightly critical of China's government gets accused of being CIA propaganda.
[+] [-] baybal2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Entalpi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Igelau|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loceng|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taobility|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cies|5 years ago|reply
Maybe Wikimedia should steer clear of such dinosaur of an institute.
[+] [-] tgsovlerkhgsel|5 years ago|reply
And I don't find it surprising that a body for intellectual property rights self-servingly pushes for more intellectual property rights.
[+] [-] bawolff|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breezest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rswail|5 years ago|reply
If anything the "human knowledge" on Wikipedia is the remit of UNESCO, which is "United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization".
Wikimedia wanted oberver status at WIPO to be "inside the halls" when WIPO is making decisions that might affect Wikimedia's purpose, which it states as "We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge."
[+] [-] slowmovintarget|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Iv|5 years ago|reply
China is trying hard to remind the world on every occasion how committed it is to censorship.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] generationP|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stjohnswarts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flimflamm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinzollars|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|5 years ago|reply
WIPO sides with Wikimedia foundation: China is told to chill out
WIPO sides with China: copyright is cheapened and people use and update Wikipedia anyway.
[+] [-] sbmthakur|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zsz|5 years ago|reply
To have an informed discussion on the subject, please be aware of at least the following:
First and foremost, let's dispense with the obvious: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Huawei
Particularly for those not from Australia/NZ:
https://www.afr.com/world/asia/five-dangerous-myths-in-austr...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/spooked-by-china-australias-spi...
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/australasia/article/3038873/c...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/08/29/fore-a29.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/australian-probe-of-possible-in...
https://martinsvillebulletin.com/news/world/australian-lawma... "The [foreign interference] laws angered China and stoked increasing tensions between the nations."
https://thediplomat.com/tag/china-interference-in-australian...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-australia-espionage...
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Fea...
In addition:
https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/china-caught-meddl...
https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/fact-sheet-communist-par...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-19529867
China Daily (link below) is known to have ties to the CCP:
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201909/02/WS5d6c719ea310cf... "Editor's note: This is the first of two stories in which China Daily will examine educational issues that experts say are a root cause of young people's participation in the Hong Kong protests."
And https://www.chinadailyhk.com/articles/49/20/205/156747748453... "Editor's note: This is the second of two stories in which China Daily examines educational issues that experts see as a root cause of young people's participation in the Hong Kong protests."
Then:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3035913/be... ("Beijing reiterates call for Hong Kong to prioritise national security, patriotic education")
Finally, for in depth discussions:
https://jamestown.org/program/xi-jinping-steers-china-back-d...
https://jamestown.org/program/putting-money-in-the-partys-mo...
https://jamestown.org/program/the-china-u-s-exchange-foundat...
https://sinopsis.cz/en/new-zealand-united-frontlings-bearing...
https://jamestown.org/program/united-front-work-by-other-mea...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/25/huawei-xi...
https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-influence-american-in...
https://www.hoover.org/research/chinas-influence-american-in...
https://www.investopedia.com/why-huawei-is-in-the-middle-of-...
This article contains a timeline regarding Huawei (from U.S. perspective):
https://www.cnet.com/news/huawei-ban-full-timeline-us-restri...
[+] [-] zsz|5 years ago|reply
Also, since i already started another post:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/us-gave-allies-e...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/huawei-can-sneak-into-tel...
"U.S. officials told the Journal that they have been aware of the backdoor access since 2009 but declined to say if the company actually used this access since it was discovered."
(again, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Huawei that details one such security incident/compromise, which U.S. officials declined to mention -- I suppose this puts their decision in context, if you read between the lines)
Does Huawei have ties to the CCP? While not stating this outright, it's hard to argue that $30 billion dollars' worth of funding comes with no strings attached:
Published in 2009: https://www.telecomasia.net/content/huawei-gets-30b-credit-l...
Then 2011: https://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/eu-huawei-and-zte-bene...
And: https://www.benton.org/headlines/eu-finds-china-gives-aid-hu...
On Huawei's links to the CCP: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/25/huawei-xi...
And finally, regarding the claims that Huawei is "employee owned" -- if you read nothing else, read at least this (meaning, the PDF): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669 Link to PDF: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3372669_cod...
The bottom line (tl;dr): " The Huawei operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee” for the holding company. [...] Given the public nature of trade unions in China, if the ownership stake of the trade union committee is genuine, and if the trade union and its committee function as trade unions generally function in China, then Huawei may be deemed effectively state-owned."
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zozbot234|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bzb5|5 years ago|reply
Is this true?
[+] [-] eloisius|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ausjke|5 years ago|reply
Picking and injecting selected info to 1.4B people over time is worse than no info IMHO, as the former will produce extreme thoughts which could be dangerous.