Many of the control techniques described in the document Media control in China above, are not unique to China. In fact many remind me of the types of control which rumours claimed existed where I grew up in Queensland, Australia, during 'the Joh years' of 197x - 1987 — in particular the phrase allegedly used by government forces when paying a visit to a publisher to quieten them down: 'saying hello'.
The example is a good case study — not because the censorship was worse than anywhere else, that sort of thing is difficult to evaluate — but because the system of government did at last fall, and open enquiry could reveal much of its inner workings.
Defamation in Australia. One way censorship can thrive in 'open' democracy. Once the reporters decide not to write the story in the first place, has censorship reached perfection? (known as self-censorship)
Is the following article an example of censorship? Or an example of the type of event which embodies the best argument to support censorship (by those who would argue for censorship over education and dialogue)?
How can the remote reader decide? Is the report of 20 dead a further attempt at inflaming dissent, for motives unspecified? If the alleged letter had never been published, would harmony be undisturbed? Seems to me that education, discussion, and a culture of skepticism and patience are better than a culture of intolerance and stifled expression.
Is it achievable, or do we end up with the worst of both worlds, free expression and reactionary violence? Surely this is because people are educated to believe in the authority of the media, that if something is published it is truthful, since all non-truthful writings are censored ... so censorship encourages the problem that it aims to avoid.
I see Wikinews and citizen journalism as an experiment in which people may explore the process of content creation, and see the diversity of views, and I hope the result is to break down the myth of the authority of the media. - Simeon 15:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think I agree with your main thesis that censorship is generally ill-advised. I don't understand a few of the tings you say though. You mention the "worst of both worlds", and then mention free expression as part of that. Do you feel that free expression is undesirable? - RPDillon
Hmm .. I meant the bad things that may come with free expression, as illustrated in the version of the story of the Iranian protest if we are to believe the Iranian government's version of it, where people have supposedly taken advantage of free expression to incite reactionary violence. It's a question, rhetorical, is that what we get with free expression? Inciting of hatred, and people following when incited. I don't have the answers, I accept the argument that this could be what would happen under free expression, since I have never experienced a culture which has mandated free expression, whether the mandate equates with reality or not. - Simeon 11:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just below that, you again mention that "all non-truthful writings are censored", which is patently false. - RPDillon
I agree (that it is false). It is a supposition I am arguing against. The supposition "that if something is published it is truthful, since all non-truthful writings are censored". It is patently false, when examined, but I believe it is a belief that our culture tries to reinforce to some degree, in our education systems, in 'authoritative' media of all forms. Not always, not in every case, but often enough for it to hurt. - Simeon 11:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the only way we can even begin to approximate truth-in-media is to make everything the media.
Wikimedia is a good example of this concept, and its name is no coincidence. Sure, each page, taken individually, can be editted to contain information that isn't factual. But, like the internet, when taken as a whole, a Wiki tends to provide accurate information exactly because it isn't censored by some central authority, and isn't exclusive in it's membership. So it is with the Internet at large.
I think you'll find that anywhere censorship takes place, there is more inaccurate infromation than you would find otherwise. Truth is distorted as much by lack of information as by too much (inaccurate) information, and China understands this. This phenomenon is also prevalent in media; the lack of regular people being able to speak out allows for distortions. But Wikis, blogging, and the internet in general are allowing truth to be found more often for more people. - RPDillon
I agree with the idea of trying this :) I agree that wikinews should be like this, and I hope that others will examine our policy of protecting pages after some period of time, since I think that prevents this discourse that you mention.
However, I am not yet sure whether this would solve the problem. Can people discuss at a rate that is fast enough? If someone proposes something false, which sweeps a number of people, and some of them react in a genuine way, but a way which would be wrong under correct information, can the correct information be disseminated fast enough to avert tragedy? I assume not always possible.
On the balance, would a system of this type, with today's technology be better than the semi-censored systems we have now? Hmm .. maybe, maybe not. I see a disproportionate ability for some to censor and other not to, in today's world. But would it be better than a rationally designed system of protection for some types of information? I am not sure. My mind is open.
Do you count a doctors protection of his files from scrutiny by unauthorised people as censorship? Or if some unauthorised person scrutinises then publishes, by intrigue, is it correct to censor that publication? It is always an argument of some good weighed against some bad.
The world is not binary, black and white (black and white do not exist as absolutes that we can experience, for example). There is no 'no censorship'. There is only working to make the censorship that exists, better. - Simeon 11:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
