Talk:Chinese block of Wikimedia enters tenth week

zh.wikinews does not exist (yet ;)

i don't live in China (honest!) and my browser says for the page http://zh.wikinews.org/ Wiki does not exist. In other words, the chinese-language wikinews project has not yet started.

Isn't it a bit confusing to mention both wikipedia and wikinews in the first sentence of the article, if people in the PRC don't have a wikinews site anyway?

Sure, some of them read other languages and may read en.wikinews, ja.wikinews, etc. but from my experience of language barriers in many parts of the world, probably most wikimedia readers/editors in the PRC are mostly interested in the chinese language wikipedia: zh:wikipedia, rather than en.wikinews, ja.wikinews, ...

IMHO there's no point mentioning wikinews (even though i'm sure we have consensus that wikinews is a Good Thing). Boud 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Wikinews point, removed it. sinblox ^(talk) 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. Whether or not Wikinews is available in Chinese is irrelevant. When a news organisation reports on its parent company, it should acknowledge that it is owned by that company. The Sydney Morning Herald, when reporting on Fairfax, should acknowledge that it is owned by Fairfax. The same goes for The Times of London (say) and News Corporation. I'm replacing the bit about Wikinews for the moment. --Fipe 02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i think it's good that some people remember that wikinews (or wikipedia) articles can in practice be read on websites where readers have little or no knowledge of wikimedia, except that it's the name of some organisation. Personally i tend to expect that anyone i've met already knows and understands what wikis and wikimedia are (for the obvious reasons :P, ok i'm exaggerating a bit, but not that much), and that everyone else on the internet should know, but i realise that these are rather ambitious expectations. Anyway, it's clear that unless it's sure that the reader is aware of the potential conflict of interest, it should be mentioned. It looks to me like the text has been corrected a bit to satisfy both this criterion and the main intent of my own comment. Boud 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Too self referencing?

I made this one of the lead stories. I'm a little concerned my edits have been too self referencing to Wikimedia, esp the references. Comments? sinblox ^(talk) 00:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(((...(GNU's)... Not Unix) Not Unix) Not Unix. Boud 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Source/Related Info

I don't know the legitimacy of this source or if it should be in the same article, even, but this article talks about China's new internet police: World Tribune - China's new online police warn: 'Internet is not beyond the law' --LoganCale 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a "ban"; it's a "block"

Wikimedia has not been "banned". No agency has passed laws or rules banning Wikipedia, or evoked any existing laws or rules to justify the banning of Wikipedia, or attempted to take any action against anyone who continues to access Wikipedia via other means. What appears to have happened is that government agencies / ISP's have blocked Wikipedia. The page should be renamed. -- 65.95.96.233 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Somebody renamed it. By the way, if you create an account you can move pages. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Last sentence

The current last sentence ("It has recently been criticized by the media for being too easy to edit, with the highest profile cases including John Seigenthaler Sr, when an anonymous user falsely claimed Seigenthaler was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy on his encyclopedia entry.") seems extrempely irrelevant. I'm going to delete it.

My main reason for that was to provide some context and background on what Wikimedia is, even if we are self-referencing ourselves. The Seigenthaler event was fairly big and I think worked to show NPOV towards what Wikimedia is at the end. sinblox ^(talk) 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"upsetting students and researchers who say that it is having a significant impact on their ability to conduct research, and even pass civil service exams"

"upsetting students and researchers who say that it is having a significant impact on their ability to conduct research, and even pass civil service exams". Wikipedia doesn't help pass exams really. It's not good enough yet.

If students and researchers are saying this, then it's an NPOV fact that they claim this. See also Wikipedia and Britannica about as accurate in science entries, reports Nature. Boud 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

As a student and avid reader, I can say that the majority of Wikipedia articles go beyond my needs for studying or just researching for fun. If something does not look right, I get some books and do a Google on the topic so I can give back to the Wikipedia community as it does so generously to me. I thought President Hu was cooling down a bit on the restrictions? I guess not... ~ clearthought 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)