A War of Words Over Wikipedia’s Spanish Version

Wikimania 2009

When Wikipedia held its annual Wikimania conferences in Egypt and Taiwan, the locations presented obvious political challenges to its idealistic vision of articles written with a “neutral point of view.”

China-Taiwan relations, for example, are a long-standing source of world tension, surpassed by a rare few disputes, among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Could a bunch of volunteer editors really expect to create articles that please both Chinese and Taiwanese, or Israelis as well as Palestinians? Talk about utopian dreams.

With more than 500 Wikipedians gathering in fun-loving Buenos Aires for this year’s Wikimania, politics was expected to return to the back burner. The annual conference would once again resemble a high-minded electronics show rather than the United Nations General Assembly.

Turns out there was never a chance of that.

In a surprisingly aggressive keynote address Wednesday, the free-software activist Richard Stallman told an audience assembled from the four corners of the globe that he was disturbed to learn that the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia was restricting links to a prominent left-wing Web site. He said it looked a lot like political bias from where he stood — which happened to be the stage in the Alvear Theater on Corrientes Avenue.

The administrators of the site made things worse, Mr. Stallman said at the end of his address, by banning those Wikipedians who had complained about what had happened. For good measure, he read phrases from an article about the political crisis in Honduras that he said were unfair to the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya.

“There’s a problem here, a real problem,” he said about the decision to limit links to the site rebelion.org, a political news aggregator that also runs some original content. Spanish Wikipedia looks like “a closed system that offers no way to deal with this problem,” he said.

His accusation from the stage created the odd spectacle of Spanish-speaking Wikipedians angrily challenging the man invited to open their conference.

Damian Finol, 26, an information technology specialist from Caracas, Venezuela, told Mr. Stallman that Spanish Wikipedia had made it harder to link to rebelion.org because people were routinely substituting its links, like a spam attack. “I don’t think it is fair,” he said to Mr. Stallman, who interrupted to say that rebelion.org is not only an aggregator, “You are repeating a falsehood,” Mr. Stallman said.

In trying to lower the volume, Mr. Stallman added, “My purpose is not to castigate Wikipedia, it is purely constructive.”

But the damage was done. Hours later, Wikimania organizers were shaking their heads at what had happened at the start of their event, which briefly included the mayor of Buenos Aires.

The lead organizer, Patricio Lorente, an administrator at La Plata University, said he was not exactly surprised by Mr. Stallman’s address: “I tried to talk to Richard about this. He doesn’t get the real dynamic of Spanish Wikipedia.There isn’t a leader, decisions are based on consensus. Unfortunately Richard has friends who convinced him that this was a real discrimination case. This is simply not true.”

Rebelion.org is more like an aggregation site like Digg, Mr. Lorente said. That means it generally shouldn’t have links on Wikipedia unless the link is to its own original content.

The irony, Mr. Lorente said, is that he considers himself allied with the left-wing cooperative movement, where workers control their businesses. “In our group, there is a diversity of opinion, but it is more to the left than the right,” he said.

Most visitors to the conference, for example, are staying at the Hotel Bauen, a worker-run operation a few blocks from the San Martin Community Center, Wikimania’s headquarters. Mr. Lorente stressed that Wikipedians were able to get a cheap price and that it was convenient, but he still felt it was worth mentioning the worker connection.

“A lot of the material on rebelion.org originally appeared in La Jornada, a left-wing paper in Mexico, and we have 1,500 links to La Jornada,” he said. “This is not a problem of ideology but a problem of spam.”

Mr. Stallman’s comments did help expose some of the raw issues within Spanish Wikipedia.

Mr. Finol said he had encouraged some Argentine Wikipedians he knew were displeased with the rebelion.org case to “come to Wikimania and see for themselves. They said, ‘If I come, it will be to protest Wikimania.’”

Mr. Finol also said that back in Venezuela, news outlets had said that he was working for the United States government. “I got hate mail,” he said.

He said the claim was silly, but that unlike Wikipedia in other languages, “a lot of political stuff is going on in Spanish Wikipedia. A majority of vandalism is political, I’m guessing.”

Still, all the Spanish Wikipedians interviewed said that through discussions, they were able to reach a consensus on even the most contentious issues, such as how to describe Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, or whether to restrict rebelion.org.

Noam Cohen/The New York Times Pedro Sanchez

“The most heated discussions are about words that are spelled differently in different parts of the world,” said Pedro Sanchez, a 30-year-old mathematician from Michoacan, Mexico, who also confronted Mr. Stallman.

For example, there is that device that moves a computer cursor: “Do you call it a mouse or a raton? In Latin America, we call it a mouse. In Spain they say raton.”

Looking at Spanish Wikipedia, for now, the answer is mouse.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Ugh, I’m pretty liberal (I think the Republicans need to be elminated as a political party), but Stallman is a member of the Looney Left and needs to keep his opinions to himself, lest he do innocence people a disservice.

His insistence that Linux be called “GNU/Linux” shows that he’s transparently self promoting and his restrictive GPL licensing discourages companies developing existing open source.

These back-and-forths are normal with wikis, since you are dealing with people after all, and they are bound to have disagreements. Gardenology.org – a gardening wiki would seem immune, but even there the metric vs. English measuring system has been cause for some back and forth (whether to include both, which to include first).

Raffi
//www.gardenology.org

Sounds all good to me. I’m hopeful Wikipedia can progress with one one world and :metric vs. English measuring system” may be one conflict to be resolved in Wikimania.

For good measure, he read phrases from an article about the political crisis in Honduras that he said that were unfair to the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya.

Sounds like Wikipedia is lining up with the Obama administration and–frankly–the editorial slant of the NY Times.

stallman is right!
wikipedia in spanish is censoring rebelion.org a long time ago.

rebelion.org = commies

Like it or not, Wikipedia is becoming the first choice knowledge source whenever you know little or nothing about a subject. If your point of view is excluded from Wikipedia you have effectively been cut off from the bulk of open-minded people who would like to learn about the subject of interest to you.

So, the issue Richard Stallman raises is a significant one. Unfortunately, Mr. Stallman has never been very politically astute. While a great many people may agree with him in principle, he alienates a large number with his often tactless approach to discussion.

Sorry for my bad english.

The alleged reason for baning rebelion.org at wiki:es has nothing to do with being “like an aggregation site”. The alleged reason was that rebelion.org wasn’t a “neutral” nor “verificable” source. It had obvious political reasons.

> His insistence that Linux be called “GNU/Linux” shows that he’s transparently self promoting

I think you got it wrong, Linux is just a kernel, a part of the operating system. Most of the rest of the system is GNU.
It is only fair to be given credit for your work, don’t you think?

> and his restrictive GPL licensing discourages companies developing existing open source.

You mean that it discourages companies from writing open source software that is privative (i.e. non-free)? how is that bad?

Richard Stallman complaining about a political bias in a webpage? Let me think about it… LOOOOOOOOL… Well, mmm… LOOOOOOL… I’m trying to… LOOOOOOOL (sorry, I can’t avoid it).

superkaos – Nope, I don’t think it fair to be given credit for the work. Why should Stallman be identified with Linux or any other software more than the hundreds or thousands of programmers who did the work? Why should any bit of software be more prominent than any other. It’s not a democracy. It’s just a name. Listing every contributor to software is impractical. Linus got lucky.

Regarding your GPL comment, you miss my point entirely. He aggressively badmouths other less restrictive licences like BSD and promotes his own. Most companies won’t write software using the GPL because they can’t protect their own code base, so it discourages them. And companies are in the best position to use, reuse and create open source software. Due to the GPL they tend to write closed software instead of adapting existing open source.

I think that Mr. Sanchez’s comments about the difficulty with the language across many different countryies is very interesting and valid.

I struggle with this daily as the editor of spanishwordoftheday.com / We are constantly deciding which words to include or exclude and spend a great deal of time on presenting idioms. We have been cataloging them for years and find it is a very difficult job. Let me provide an example – In Ecuador I was speaking to a friend and refered to her as a “pana” which is slang for friend or buddy. She was a little offended and said that “pana” referred to someone you would smoke marijuana with. I have interviewed hundreds of Ecuadorians and not yet found one who agreed with her interpetation. Then I made a comment about someone being “pluto” or drunk and then she stated that was very low class and should not be used with someone of her social standing. Strike two.

I love the challenge of the study of vocabulary. In my daily presentation I present idioms from different countries in Latin America and daily I will receive emails from someone not aggreeing or estatic that a particular idiom or phrase has been included.

Nicholas Crowder
Editor/ //www.spanishwordoftheday.com

Mr. Stallman is absolutely right!

richard stallman is a friend of mine. his work on gnu took years to come to maturity. linus torvald wrote the kernel for that programme.

personal attacks on richard dismay me. spam in a link to wiki dismays me. the use of a keynote speech to enliven a wiki conference may or may not be appropriate. i do not know all the facts.

i prefer to ask richard himself what he was intending to accomplish by his speech.

“Could a bunch of volunteer editors really expect to create articles that please both Chinese and Taiwanese, or Israelis as well as Palestinians? Talk about utopian dreams.”

This is nonsense. The author, Mr. Noam Cohen, has completely misunderstood what Wikipedia’s guidelines and why they exist.

Writing from a neutral point of view doesn’t mean trying to “please both the Chinese and Taiwanese”.

It simply means writing from the perspective of a neutral, independent person, as opposed to the perspective of a partisan or advocate for one side. It has NOTHING to do with “pleasing” anyone.

In fact, a neutral point of view is almost guaranteed NOT to please either the Chinese or the Taiwanese, or the Israelis or the Palestinians, or any partisan or advocate for one side in any given dispute or conflict.

The concept of a neutral point of view — whether you agree or disagree with its benefits — has nothing to do with any utopian vision, and everything to do with describing facts — including those that are disputed — as neutrally as one is able.

Given the simplicity of the idea, it is bizarre that Mr. Cohen could have misunderstood it so badly and set up the straw man argument that he did in this paragraph. Please try again, Mr. Cohen — you’re better than that.

(For the record, I am making no comment about any other paragraph in Mr. Cohen’s blog posting. Just the one I quoted above.)

Anyway, I always have to re-route my IE adress bar by substituting the country (putting “.en” instead of “.es”) in order to go to the english Wikipedia against the default “.es” one, just because the Spanish version is SOOOO bad and incomplete compared with the english as to be almost useless!: most of the scientific, technical, cultural and related pages on Spanish version are a LAME copy of the first paragraphs of the english one, and then stop short. Very little of the Spanish contents are worth the time and effort. Sorry for the spanish-only people that are forced to read the Spanish Wikipedia.

Rebelion.org is a propaganda website funded by the Venezuelan government. Its creator, Pascual Serrano, is a prominent member of the Spanish Communist Party who currently lives in Venezuela. Wikipedia should be about facts, not propaganda.

@amclaussen, maybe in Latin America people have a good understanding of English and can use the English Wikipedia.

But in Spain most people speak no English and they have to relay on the Spanish Wikipedia.

And the reason that they speak no English is that they think that as there are milions of people in Latin America who speak Spanish, Spanish is a global language. Well, check the Wikipedias and you will realize that that is a false assertion.

Globalization is not only based on quantity but also on quality.

jose from Valencia August 28, 2009 · 7:07 am

Stallman is right, spanish wikipedia is controled by right wing and pro-zionist sectarism, ther have been a lot of critics but they ignore them by banning critic collaborators

Mr. Stallman is absolutely right!
Wikipedia in spanish is censoring many articles and sources.
Wikipedia in spanish is really bad.

@amclaussen:

I agree that the Spanish Wikipedia falls short of the English Wikipedia in many regards. However, the fundamental nature of wikis permits readers to participate in correcting errors, either on their own or in collaboration with others. As a result, generic content-related (or, as Stallman suggests we call it, “works-related”) complaints in public fora are usually dismissed as idle whining, and on the English Wikipedia they usually receive my favorite template as a response (it’s called “sofixit”).

Naturally, improving Wikipedia isn’t a one-person job, and it’s never quite as simple as “go do it yourself”. The editing tools are open, though, so it’s trivial to fix things even without an account. Additionally, if you cannot help directly, then you can at least offer specific examples of shortcomings: through the “Wikipedia uncertainty principle”, poor articles that receive lots of public attention improve quickly and dramatically.

Mr. Stallman is right, but he was excessively smooth..
The majority of the sensible entrances of wikipedia in Spanish has a scent to fascism. Especially the referred ones to history, where pro-Franco historiography without mercy is applied. Some users, endorsed by the administrators, act like a sect of the Inquisición, throwing to those who does not think like them, with fictitious reasons. I think must close themselves, or provisionally order to its administration to librarians of others wikis.
Only with a review to expulsion statistics, as sanctions to its own editors, or as entrances blocked already it serves to see that the attitude of the librarians is tyrannical.

Nutjob,

>I don’t think it fair to be given credit for the work. Why should >Stallman be identified with Linux or any other software more >than the hundreds or thousands of programmers who did >the work?.

I don’t think that Stallman is asking for the credit personally
for the Linux kernel. He is asking for the credit to be given to the GNU project which obviously includes to many hundreds or thousands of programmers.

> Why should any bit of software be more prominent than
> any other. It’s not a democracy. It’s just a
> name. Listing every contributor to software is impractical.
> Linus got lucky

Imagine ford makes a car, but the engine is from Toyota,
would you name the car Toyota? Even ignoring the
question of credit, it just makes more sense to call
it GNU system.

> Regarding your GPL comment, you miss my point entirely. > He aggressively badmouths other less restrictive licences
> like BSD and promotes his own. Most companies won’t
> write software using the GPL because they can’t protect
> their own code base, so it discourages them. And
> companies are in the best position to use, reuse and create
> open source software. Due to the GPL they tend to write
> closed software instead of adapting existing open source.

While GPL might not be a good choice for a company that
wants to write private software (they could use something LGPL instead) BSD is definitely not a good choice for contributing to free software as it allows anyone to make it privative, so what is it better? that companies write privative software or that they take advantage of free software and make it privative? I would say the first option is better.

Stallman is fully right. The Spanish Wikipedia is under control of people who are in a right politic wing. Without any doubt. They impose his political and religious lines becaue with the power of their high number of editions. The guy of the photo is one of them. Many people wonder if such “elite” have a life or perhaps are working by a salary. Myself and many other contributors has been expelled while working in sensible articles touching the ideological, religious or political ideas of that people.

Wikimedia Foundation must be aware of this problem because there is a growing discredit. Many valous people with a very good knowledge in different matters were frustrated, leaving the project. An ambush of coordinated editors press the contributor inside discussions until he leaves the edition. A very ugly strategy.

There’s plenty of history of ruling cliques on Wikipedia trying to ban links they don’t like. A few years ago, a proposed policy on English Wikipedia called BADSITES would have banned linking to various sites that criticized Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia Review; this policy never passed, but some administrators still tried to enforce it. Nowadays, the “spam blacklist” is often abused to block links to sites for political reasons, based on claims that they represent “fringe” viewpoints.