China blocks Wikimedia from entering World Intellectual Property Organization(wikimediafoundation.org)
wikimediafoundation.org
China blocks Wikimedia from entering World Intellectual Property Organization
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/10/05/china-again-blocks-wikimedia-foundations-accreditation-to-world-intellectual-property-organization/
21 comments
> It seems the future of WIPO is to become irrelevant UN body.
I certainly hope so!
I certainly hope so!
I can't agree more.
They will be joining a long list of irrelevant UN bodies...
Such as the United Nations.
I think people expect the U.N. to be an advocate for their visions of the world.
The U.N.'s primary purpose is simply to minimize the occurrence of war, especially nuclear war, not to spread any particular political ideology across the world such as “freedom and democracy”.
In this particular case it allows China a conduit to achieve what it wants to without firing nuclear missiles.
The U.N.'s primary purpose is simply to minimize the occurrence of war, especially nuclear war, not to spread any particular political ideology across the world such as “freedom and democracy”.
In this particular case it allows China a conduit to achieve what it wants to without firing nuclear missiles.
It is in essence the triumph of words over violence, which is never a bad thing. It sucks if your words do not win, but it is better than your family dying and then not winning anyway.
Indeed, the purpose of te U.N. is not that conflicts be resolved in whatever direction some poster on Hacker News wishes it, but that they be resolved, or not resolved at all, without resorting to violence.
[deleted]
(Disclaimer: I'm a franco-Canadian of mixed European descent.)
This article doesn't give China a great image, sure. I can think of a million criticisms to levy against China.
However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of appreciating the things that China gets right, or does right. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong. I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
This isn't merely an academic question, I think it goes to the core of the state of mind that is required to view situations objectively (regardless of whether we might be right or wrong in any specific context).
In this case, I'm totally on Wikimedia's side. But I feel like we in the West are standing right on the slippery slope of nationalism.
This article doesn't give China a great image, sure. I can think of a million criticisms to levy against China.
However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of appreciating the things that China gets right, or does right. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong. I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
This isn't merely an academic question, I think it goes to the core of the state of mind that is required to view situations objectively (regardless of whether we might be right or wrong in any specific context).
In this case, I'm totally on Wikimedia's side. But I feel like we in the West are standing right on the slippery slope of nationalism.
> I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong.
Why would you wonder that? This forum is chock full of criticism of the American government by Americans. I’ve personally levied a huge amount of it myself on this very website. In fact, I genuinely cannot imagine how you could possibly ask such a question in good faith.
Why would you wonder that? This forum is chock full of criticism of the American government by Americans. I’ve personally levied a huge amount of it myself on this very website. In fact, I genuinely cannot imagine how you could possibly ask such a question in good faith.
Yeahbut(TM) the lions share of the criticism of American government that takes place on sites like this one is not people looking at and evaluating the things that happen in America but simply people repeating tropes to indicate membership of one tribe or another. You gotta go like five layers of comments deep before people making comments that are the result of substantive thought outnumber the people firing off tropes for virtue points.
It’s a valid question, given that US perpetrators never meet justice and the society isn’t even trying to do anything about it.
Assuming that every American is incapable of questioning their government because entrenched systems protect the powerful is exactly the kind of thing OP was accusing others here of doing: crossing the line between criticizing the government and being anti the people.
There's a difference between being anti-CCP and anti-China.
Whether we like it or not, the CCP is an integral part of today's China, both the good and the bad.
So? Bolsonaro is an integral part of today's Brazil. Does that mean being anti-Bolsonaro equates to being anti-Brazil?
It's completely disingenuous to suggest that recognizing the horrors of an oppressive nation-state equates to some sort of bigotry against the country itself.
It's completely disingenuous to suggest that recognizing the horrors of an oppressive nation-state equates to some sort of bigotry against the country itself.
You will note that I suggest no such thing!
Chinese culture is older and broader than CCP's China†. E.g. here in San Francisco our Chinatown is older than the state of California‡.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco
Assuredly! I was careful to use the phrasing "is an integral part of", in acknowledgment that "China" is vaster/broader/older/etc.
No difference really. Domestic approval ratings for the CCP are through the roof.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
While I wouldn't rule out that this is true, it's difficult to trust numbers like that in China since people are so afraid to voice their true opinion. When I lived in China I learned that it was a basic rule of society that you do not express opinions about the government with anyone except for your closest friends, and even then it is extremely rare. It's no surprise that this is the case given historical events such as the hundred flowers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
more likely, you were treated as foreigner that no one really wanted to talk about government when you were present.
My experience is that they don't really think about it that hard because they don't have to. They've also seen their lives improve dramatically over the past 1.5 generations.
Conflation? There is a very distinct difference.
1. China, as a nation consists of ALL the citizens of said nation.
2. CPP, only consists of ruling party.
The people's opinions don't matter as to their grouping. I can still be for one group and against another.
1. China, as a nation consists of ALL the citizens of said nation.
2. CPP, only consists of ruling party.
The people's opinions don't matter as to their grouping. I can still be for one group and against another.
Yeah I don't know how we could possibly validate that. It's similar to, but not the same as, measuring this in North Korea.
Fricken(2)
You know what? Replace "Americans/Westerners" with "Hong Kongers", and you get the exact same phrases that were thrown at us, again and again, for over 20 years, until our entire way of life is gone.
Ignore our warnings at your peril.
Ignore our warnings at your peril.
If you’re on Wikimedia’s side there is negative value in throwing chaffe into the conversation about imperial saber rattling.
Focus on the ball please.
Focus on the ball please.
> I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
Which ones? I don't see it myself.
Which ones? I don't see it myself.
Does it really matter if they get anything right when they committing genocide against the Uighurs, ignoring their treaty obligations, and trying to make the whole world follow their lead in censorship and undermining any aspirations to an impartiality before and equality under the law? It's plain "whataboutism" not any different than folks being impressed with Nazi Germany before WWII. Which isn't to say that the "west" is perfect or good, or not stooping in the same direction as China. Obviously nationalism in the west is a problem, too, but I don't see that as a reason to give one of the most bellicose and thin-skinned nations on earth a pass.
Yes, it matters. Goods and wrongs don't cancel out, but they both matter.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
Unfortunately there are things that are beyond permissible in this world - the holocaust was supposed to be never again.
Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy. Not because the west doesn't have problems. Or because the west is somehow angelic. But because it's like comparing a nuke to a house fire. And some things really are evil in a whole different way.
Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy. Not because the west doesn't have problems. Or because the west is somehow angelic. But because it's like comparing a nuke to a house fire. And some things really are evil in a whole different way.
> Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy.
Again, this is not what I was trying to say, and if it came across that way then I was misunderstood or I did not express myself correctly.
I can see how what I wrote could have been interpreted that way, but I would really encourage you to apply the "charitable interpretation" principle.
I would also note that the topic of genocide is different from the original topic of conversation. While my comment was of a more general scope than the wiki drama, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that I'm trying to change the topic or deflect attention by way of whataboutism.
---
Edit: reconsidering this thread, I think I would like to clarify that what my comment was trying to get at was that a lot of the criticism being levied against China suffered from the "genetic fallacy" [1]: regardless of whether the criticism was right or wrong, some of it didn't address the matter at hand (the wiki drama) and instead resorted to criticizing the world actor based on other baggage. It's not that the conclusion of the critiques is wrong per se, it's more that it might be right only by accident. I hope this helps clarify.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Again, this is not what I was trying to say, and if it came across that way then I was misunderstood or I did not express myself correctly.
I can see how what I wrote could have been interpreted that way, but I would really encourage you to apply the "charitable interpretation" principle.
I would also note that the topic of genocide is different from the original topic of conversation. While my comment was of a more general scope than the wiki drama, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that I'm trying to change the topic or deflect attention by way of whataboutism.
---
Edit: reconsidering this thread, I think I would like to clarify that what my comment was trying to get at was that a lot of the criticism being levied against China suffered from the "genetic fallacy" [1]: regardless of whether the criticism was right or wrong, some of it didn't address the matter at hand (the wiki drama) and instead resorted to criticizing the world actor based on other baggage. It's not that the conclusion of the critiques is wrong per se, it's more that it might be right only by accident. I hope this helps clarify.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
> I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong
I feel like this is practically a sport in America. We love to criticize the government and everything it does wrong. That's part of democracy: the fact that Trump was voted out was very much a collective "we fucked up/this is wrong" where we decided to go a different path. In China, on the other hand, that is not allowed. We certainly do have issues in the US, but a lack to self-criticism does not count among them
I feel like this is practically a sport in America. We love to criticize the government and everything it does wrong. That's part of democracy: the fact that Trump was voted out was very much a collective "we fucked up/this is wrong" where we decided to go a different path. In China, on the other hand, that is not allowed. We certainly do have issues in the US, but a lack to self-criticism does not count among them
I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong
You're shifting the goalposts...Has America or any western country blocked the wikimedia foundation from entering WIPO?
You're shifting the goalposts...Has America or any western country blocked the wikimedia foundation from entering WIPO?
> However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
> I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power.
> I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
All of that is unquestionably true. But what does it have to do with criticizing China's actions here? The criticism could be coming from anti-China bigots, yet still be entirely legitimate.
> I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power.
> I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
All of that is unquestionably true. But what does it have to do with criticizing China's actions here? The criticism could be coming from anti-China bigots, yet still be entirely legitimate.
[deleted]
Does the CCP get much right?
Setting aside political beliefs/leanings, it would be very difficult to argue that they don't get a lot of things right.
This type of rhetorical question or quip is a pretty good example of the mentality I was drawing attention to in my comment: it's entirely possible to think that something is generally bad (eg.: you might think the CCP is, on balance, not great or even terrible) while also recognizing that there are positive aspects to it.
Recognizing the pros of a thing doesn't mean you have to forget about the cons. Being able to hold both in one's head at the same time also helps formulate better criticism of the bad things, as such criticism often becomes more precise.
The heuristic of "CCP/China = bad" may very well be correct in a particular situation, but such heuristics are a very dangerous mode of thinking.
This type of rhetorical question or quip is a pretty good example of the mentality I was drawing attention to in my comment: it's entirely possible to think that something is generally bad (eg.: you might think the CCP is, on balance, not great or even terrible) while also recognizing that there are positive aspects to it.
Recognizing the pros of a thing doesn't mean you have to forget about the cons. Being able to hold both in one's head at the same time also helps formulate better criticism of the bad things, as such criticism often becomes more precise.
The heuristic of "CCP/China = bad" may very well be correct in a particular situation, but such heuristics are a very dangerous mode of thinking.
Gosh all your comments are just a roundabout fluff-fest dude. The CCP is committing some of the most tragic modern atrocities. The iron grip of the CCP and their "one china" brain-washing is ruining China for what it could be and the blood will be on your collective paws for generations.
It is a complicated question. If you look at the results, China is now the ascending/aspiring world power. And they got here in how much time? From that perspective, they got a lot right. Worse, US planners got a lot wrong.
China corrupts any global organization it touches.
Yup. Supposedly free american companies are forced to bow down to authoritarian chinese government demands because they can't afford to lose that market. The wonders of globalization.
Imagine what China is gonna do to Apple now that on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
Imagine what China is gonna do to Apple now that on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
> on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
Yes, it's horrifying how the authoritarian Chinese government forced this.
Yes, it's horrifying how the authoritarian Chinese government forced this.
I can think of the WHO, John Cena's Twitter apology, Blizzard, the NBA, and Apple, but what else is there?
You make it sounds like that's not enough? WHO in of itself would be extremely troubling. And its not just Apple, MANY fortune 500 companies have agreed to comply with authoritarian policies to do business in China.
My apologies, I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek (which didn't come through as clearly as I hoped) while also genuinely soliciting more items for my list.
Hollywood - the movie industry more broadly - is also mostly gone now. They're all cowards, terrified of doing or saying anything critical of China (for exactly the same reason the NBA is, fear of losing the China market). They should be at the forefront of being critical of an illiberal superpower, given their supposed ideological leanings as an industry. Instead they're hiding in the back of the room, they'll be the last to say anything.
I don’t think this should surprise anyone. Hollywood has no ideological anything beyond “make more money,” and for some franchises China is not just a market - it’s the market.
The Transformers series especially wound up being money printing machines in China.
Even overlooking the pressure China doubtlessly applies to Hollywood, the execs greenlighting scripts would have to start hating money to approve anything that jeopardizes revenue from Chinese theaters.
The Transformers series especially wound up being money printing machines in China.
Even overlooking the pressure China doubtlessly applies to Hollywood, the execs greenlighting scripts would have to start hating money to approve anything that jeopardizes revenue from Chinese theaters.
Superhero movies, and hollywood in general
Aqueducts?
> China corrupts any global organization it touches.
International inter-governmental organizations have always had members like China. That is the environment they are built for and function in, like the current, waves, and wind for a ship at sea.
The U.S.'s reputation isn't so hot, throwing it's weight around and under Trump and to a lesser degree, GW Bush, actively trying to undermine those organizations. Even the international postal organization was a target.
International inter-governmental organizations have always had members like China. That is the environment they are built for and function in, like the current, waves, and wind for a ship at sea.
The U.S.'s reputation isn't so hot, throwing it's weight around and under Trump and to a lesser degree, GW Bush, actively trying to undermine those organizations. Even the international postal organization was a target.
Global organisations are to nations what words are to individual humans, both in capability and purpose: they get used, not corrupted, by government action.
Actual corruption can still happen by individuals within organisations, but that (continuing the metaphor) is like coughing or stammering while you talk, and isn’t desired even by the user.
Actual corruption can still happen by individuals within organisations, but that (continuing the metaphor) is like coughing or stammering while you talk, and isn’t desired even by the user.
Tibet used to be the pet project of Hollywood and US mainstream media, until they were told to shut up about it.
See Google trends [1]
This is a very real influence and it's pervasive due to the fat one side speaks with one, directed voice, the other there's no coordination at all: leaders of nations, provinces, universities, corporations, NGOs, uncoordinated.
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
See Google trends [1]
This is a very real influence and it's pervasive due to the fat one side speaks with one, directed voice, the other there's no coordination at all: leaders of nations, provinces, universities, corporations, NGOs, uncoordinated.
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
There's a NY Times article about the head of Disney going to China to personally apologize for a Tibet movie.
Full title (before shortening to <= 80 characters): "China again blocks Wikimedia Foundation’s accreditation to World Intellectual Property Organization"
I view political articles on Wikimedia's Wikipedia similar to how i view media sources such as Radio Free Asia. There is really nothing democratic or open about the political content you will find there. There are even seemingly obsessive accounts with thousands of edits a day that may just be government or think-tank managed accounts, reinforcing content favorable to US foreign policy goals. I see Wikipedia as kind of a good jump off point to see what the US State Dept and CIA position is on some issue, and then continue my investigation from there.
If everyone googled about what is going on some part of the world, almost all would read the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia article differed in any major way from what the Pentagon's goals were, well... you can see how that would be a problem for the Pentagon. If you allow yourself to believe that the goals and movements of the Pentagon are not always grand, you can see how the political content there can more or less act as a weapon of war. Not really an exaggeration to say that, i really don't think...
I feel like a lot of people just aren't catching on to how tightly managed US media is when it comes to "hostile" or "aggressive" actions of others, "democracy", "brutal dictators", etc. in other parts of the world. People are really still ingesting these corporate news sources with anything other than the utmost suspicion.
If everyone googled about what is going on some part of the world, almost all would read the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia article differed in any major way from what the Pentagon's goals were, well... you can see how that would be a problem for the Pentagon. If you allow yourself to believe that the goals and movements of the Pentagon are not always grand, you can see how the political content there can more or less act as a weapon of war. Not really an exaggeration to say that, i really don't think...
I feel like a lot of people just aren't catching on to how tightly managed US media is when it comes to "hostile" or "aggressive" actions of others, "democracy", "brutal dictators", etc. in other parts of the world. People are really still ingesting these corporate news sources with anything other than the utmost suspicion.
They don't like the idea of free information and open discussion. I can why they blocked it.
It seems to me the whole concept of UNs with its permanent gatekeepers are hopelessly outdated, it should be threw out entirely. The rest of the world, exclude these gatekeepers should convene an alternative UN where the old imperialists can decide whether they want to join it as an equal member or not.
[deleted]
Anything China touches is automatically discredited.
Just the fact that China has a veto power in an intellectual property organization should be a red flag that this institution is corrupt to the core.
Absolutely! Unfortunately, I can't see the UN getting out of this situation with China's growing influence.
The notion of China posturing to defend / support the idea of intellectual property is patently hilarious.
Obviously, the core of this is not appeasing to Chinese / CCP censors but the headline is funny nonetheless.
Obviously, the core of this is not appeasing to Chinese / CCP censors but the headline is funny nonetheless.
[This post represents my private opinions and is unrelated to my employment.]
It seems like you're trying to be flippantly dismissive, or to just make a joke, but the intent of your 'joke' isn't clear at all. What are you trying to intimate? Chinese companies gain millions of patents each year, in China and elsewhere, so China defending IPR as a concept seems wise. They seem to use a lot of utility patents (I think the USA equivalent is the 'design patent', it covers a product rather than an invention per se).
China as a nominally formerly communist state it makes sense that IPR would be weak in Chinese law [there's a lot to be said on whether the Chinese progress with, for example, 6G phone tech has been accelerated by that approach - which might indicate that the West has things locked down too much and stifles innovation somewhat??]; just like how the full power of IPR goes to the richest companies in USA because of their strong capitalism. China is changing, and whilst they may not enforce IPR in the way many Western Capitalist countries do Chinese organisations still use patents heavily. Indeed the Chinese government have schemes to encourage acquisition of foreign patents.
So, yeah, not sure where you're going with that?
It seems like you're trying to be flippantly dismissive, or to just make a joke, but the intent of your 'joke' isn't clear at all. What are you trying to intimate? Chinese companies gain millions of patents each year, in China and elsewhere, so China defending IPR as a concept seems wise. They seem to use a lot of utility patents (I think the USA equivalent is the 'design patent', it covers a product rather than an invention per se).
China as a nominally formerly communist state it makes sense that IPR would be weak in Chinese law [there's a lot to be said on whether the Chinese progress with, for example, 6G phone tech has been accelerated by that approach - which might indicate that the West has things locked down too much and stifles innovation somewhat??]; just like how the full power of IPR goes to the richest companies in USA because of their strong capitalism. China is changing, and whilst they may not enforce IPR in the way many Western Capitalist countries do Chinese organisations still use patents heavily. Indeed the Chinese government have schemes to encourage acquisition of foreign patents.
So, yeah, not sure where you're going with that?
This is the most HN "diss" response I've gotten in years and I genuinely enjoyed it. You missed the point so far while trying to sound intellectual I'm absolutely floored. Thank you for the happiness this granted me today - I hope you're happy and living life to the fullest :)
[deleted]
Is it because Wikipedia has Tiananmen Square articles?
Lol who accepted China into an IP organization : D
Its okay wikipedia -- I still support you
Yeah the West is screwed, but let’s not pretend we didn’t see this coming.
i don't agree. i believe the west is much more resilient then doomers think.
the whole world is in a crisis right now, but things are rebounding. business is picking up again at super speed, people are optimistic again and close deals, new tech is being developed and deployed, climate change is finally being taken seriously, etc. etc.
its the nature of democracy that people discuss and fight over things and that decision making is therefore a messy process... but we are getting there.
even stuff like Polands confrontation now with the EU is part of a HEALTHY process and it speaks for the EU that all this is possible... no matter the outcome by the way, as long as indepedenent judges come to a conclusion!
so stop with your predictions of doom. I bet in the long-run, China and Russia will be the one who fail.
its the nature of democracy that people discuss and fight over things and that decision making is therefore a messy process... but we are getting there.
even stuff like Polands confrontation now with the EU is part of a HEALTHY process and it speaks for the EU that all this is possible... no matter the outcome by the way, as long as indepedenent judges come to a conclusion!
so stop with your predictions of doom. I bet in the long-run, China and Russia will be the one who fail.
twofornone(3)
cscurmudgeon(2)
[deleted]
China blocks the application, citing irrelevant info. Then other countries dismiss those irrelevant accusations as false. It seems the future of WIPO is to become irrelevant UN body.