If I recall correctly, at the time Wikimedia Taiwan was added as a "chapter", Wikipedia did not have a clear definition of what type of organizations became community-based affiliate organizations, which is why there are Wikimedia District of Columbia and Wikimedia New York City chapters. I'm not sure if they have any specific restrictions on what types of groups can become chapters now (although I know there are some specific reporting requirements). The current chapters are partly an artifact of which groups were made chapters during a certain period of time and which kept up the reporting requirements.

From the look at things there are some potential future chapters which are at the sub-national level: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Chapters_...

In terms of affiliated user groups, they allow people to start them with a variety of justifications, from regional groups, cultural focus groups, etc.

Here's some more information about affiliate groups: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate...

What if Wikimedia Taiwan had a chapter but that chapter wasn't listed if Wikimedia's website was accessed from a mainland China IP address? Much like Google maps shows different country border delineations depending on where you use it from?

Personally the way I see it is that there are multiple simultaneous realities of the situation and if you give each region what they want to see, everyone will be happy.

Because wikimedia doesnt do shit like telling people what they want to hear. If the consequences of that is china blocks our entry to WIPO, so be it. They already block chinese wikipedia which is something the wikimedia movement cares a lot more about than WIPO

That's fair, but that also means that Wikimedia is then asserting a political opinion rather than being neutral on the issue.

When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days.

If Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great, I completely understand, though I feel like its fundamental mission would be better accomplished if it did not take sides on any political matters and strive to be the most neutral source of facts in the world.

For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.

> When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days.

So in wiki-speak, this view is usually refered to as multiple-points of view, and its an idea people sometimes floated in the early days (i think their was a fork called wikiinfo or something at one point)

Its very different from neutral point of view as understood by wikipedia. The goal of neutrality is to come up with a single consistent narrative that all parties agree is fair and accurate (porportionally). Of course that can be very difficult at times, its more a journey than a destination.

In my mind this is actually the killer feature of wikipedia. Without this we may as well just all host apache web servers or write articles on geocities.

>if Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great

Wikimedia does not want to do anything. Wikimedia largely speaking wants to allow some folks in Taiwan to form what is basically a local user group so they can try and talk some museums into uploading photos and maybe have a conference.

The contents of the Taiwan article is a local wikipedia matter, and is not something wikimedia (in whatever sense you mean) should have a say in.

Generally speaking though, wikipedia does not want to support the majority view of anyone, but explain all views proportionally as represented in reliable secondary sources. Of course that can be difficult at times.

> For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.

Well yes, but nobody is really fighting about the bird articles

Dude, Taiwan(or say R.O.C.) is 100% a country in reality, you can't deny that Taiwan isn't ruled by China. And law from China doesn't apply to Taiwan.

I have always wondered what's the play there. Since they haven't controlled it for so long, what's the harm in recognising that it's a separate nation. Taiwan's most important resource seems like the human resource, which they can reap the benefit of by having friendly relations; there is no need to launch an invasion over that.

Two reasons.

1. Many Mainland Chinese people have the view that Taiwan is illegally occupied ever since the KMT fled there at the end of the civil war. It's as if the Confederates fled to Puerto Rico or Hawaii, still exist to this day, and claim to be the legitimate ruler of all of the US.

Although nowadays fewer people care about this, since China has surpassed Taiwan economically. But it's still a significant portion who cares. So many, that if the CCP lets Taiwan go, CCP's legitimacy will be called into question, and many people will revolt. If it's up to these people, China would have launched an invasion a decade ago.

2. Geographically, Taiwan is a military significant piece of land. The US can set up base there and blockade all China's naval traffic. China wants to prevent this.

> China has surpassed Taiwan economically.

Per capita basis Taiwan is much better, but overall PRC is a lot more stronger.

> So many, that if the CCP lets Taiwan go, many people will revolt.

CCP has the gift of being able to control the narrative though, can't they make it seem like a win-win situation for them by doing it as some grand gesture and peace through largesse of their heart.

> Geographically, Taiwan is a military significant piece of land. The US can set up base there and blockade all China's naval traffic.

While I can see the importance of Taiwan as an opening between Japan and Philippines. Can't an enemy power use Japan, SK and Philippines to still blockade from Pacific.

Also, friendly relations with an independent Taiwan might mean it remains in PRC's sphere of influence

I am not a military expert, but the analyses I've seen suggest that Taiwan is a key piece that makes or breaks the US' "first island chain", which is crucial in containing China.

Yes China can control the narrative to some extent, and historically they did. For example all of outer Mongolia was ceded to Russia. If you check Taiwan's official claims, you will see that it's much bigger than the People's Republic of China today.

The CCP has a history of ceding land (that is strategically not too valuable) in order to setup peace. I'm guessing that the military significance is the biggest reason why they're not giving up Taiwan.

I think you do know more about this, so I will trust your comment.

> The CCP has a history of ceding land (that is strategically not too valuable) in order to setup peace.

This doesn't explain their border differences with India though. For all I can understand only a small part of the western border seems of strategic importance.

I don't know too much about the China-India dispute. From what I know, the current border was unilaterally drawn by the British during India's colonial period. China and India later disagreed on this British-setup border. I heard that China did try to propose some solutions, including one in which more than 50% of the territory is ceded to India, but India has rejected all offers so far.

This article by the Asia Research Institute (set up by Kishore Mahbubani) has some background on the diplomatic history of this issue: https://ari.nus.edu.sg/app-essay-kanti-bajpai

I have read that the proposed solution included China giving up claim on Arunachal Pradesh(de facto Indian territory, South Tibet as per PRC) and India giving up claim on Aksai Chin(de facto Chinese territory, part of Ladakh as per India). Not sure why it was not pursued. Maybe India's relations with Pakistan were a factor.

> This doesn't explain their border differences with India though.

Access to the water. The border China would like to control would put the watershed from glaciers on China’s side.

It's much simpler: national pride and hubris.

If 'Mississippi' was somehow broken away from the US, the US would spend quite a lot of effort to get it back, even though Mississippi is and of itself, not important.

If one takes a historical view that Taiwan, Tibet, Manchu, S. China Sea 'belong to China' then they will push hard to grab and maintain them.

> ... even though Mississippi is and of itself, not important.

I agree that pride/hubris (more saving face) is indeed a significant component, but Taiwan has huge strategic military importance. Taiwan declaring itself independent and allowing (say) the US to set up a large military presence there would be unacceptable for China.

The geography of Taiwan is not important. There are plenty of places for the US to set up shop in that area, and the US does not want to set up shop there anyhow, because it is 'too close'. In a full-on war, there might be some advantage to the fact it's an island, but not really.

The political significance of an independant Taiwan (or not) is 100x any tactical advantage of geography.

S. China sea is actually more important because it's international water, and territory that overlaps with other countries.

> Since they haven't controlled it for so long

Worth noting that the PRC has never controlled Taiwan.

Really? Are they in the Olympics? Do they have a seat in the UN? Are they in the WHO? The World Bank? IMF?

Many of these things are short-circuited by China leveraging it’s substantial economic power to force the perspective in their favor.

Which is what exactly China is doing here.

They do participate in Olympics as a separate entity but have to use the name 'Chinese Taipei'

(taking devil's advocate view, not my own): Perhaps that chapter of Wikimedia should be called Wikimedia China Taipei instead of Wikimedia Taiwan

The word "country" has a specific meaning with legal and diplomatic consequences. The layman definition of a "country" is not sufficient.

It is a country. The only reason it wouldn’t be recognized as such is related to the pressure China puts on other countries to not do so.

Much in the same way they pressure other countries to ignore the abuses of Uighurs and Tibetans.

I am confused about what it is that you're trying to achieve with this attitude. My point is that international law and international relations are at play, and that they matter. If you are so convinced about Taiwan, you really should do two things:

1. Convince the DPP to officially declare independence. Not just unofficially flirting with the idea, but officially still claiming all of China.

2. After 1 has happened, convince UN members to recognize Taiwan.

From a legal process point of view, I think 2 cannot happen until 1 is done.

> I am confused about what it is that you're trying to achieve with this attitude. My point is that international law and international relations are at play, and that they matter.

Taiwan is de facto an independent country in every way you could possibly conceive, including having de jure diplomatic relations with a few countries and de facto relations with many more. In international relations, actions matter more than words, and in Taiwan's case, those actions indicate that it's an independent country.

The only reason official declarations stating the obvious haven't been made is due to the threats and coercion conducted by the PRC. The presence of those threats makes the absence of the declarations literally meaningless. It's sort of like being forced to sign a contract under duress.

I do not believe that the UN is the arbiter of who is and is not a country. And Taiwan should avoid doing anything that might provoke the CCP (like declaring independence without consulting with the CCP first).

Perhaps not. But when it comes to UN institutions and their processes, they follow the official UN list of recognized nations.

And legally, how do you recognize a country that does not officially recognize itself? The Taiwanese constitution still says it is the Republic of China. The current legal situation is that, by recognizing Taiwan, you are officially saying that the Taiwanese government is the legit ruler of the mainland.

A sibling comment mentioned that theres wikimedia Catalonia.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24589655

I don't see this on their list of Chapters https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters

Its a thematic org not a chapter: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Amical_Wikimedia

It was a lot easier to get chaoter status when wikimedia taiwan did it than it is currently.

Wikimedia cascadia, wikimedia catalonia, both exist....

I don't see this on their list of Chapters https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters

Technically cascadia is a user group and amical is a thematic org.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate...

Generally speaking it was really easy to become a chapter in the old days, but now you have to be a really big org to get chapter status. So newer things are less likely to be chapters

> this is not my opinion, but what I see as reality..

Er... doesn't "what I see as reality" specifically mean it is an opinion?

If you go outside and look up and tell me that the sky is blue, is that a fact or opinion?

Looking out the window at the moment, I'd say "black".

So, definitely opinion. ;)

Wikipedia doesn't require things be at the country level. For example, it has Esperanto: https://eo.wikipedia.org

Even though I emphasized the two different things Wikipedia and Wikimedia earlier in this discussion, you are conflating them. Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopaedia, divided up into languages. Wikimedia is the name of the Wikimedia Foundation, and (as long as they adhere to various conditions) the names of various Wikimedia chapters, like Wikimedia Taiwan, and Wikimedia thematic organizations.

Wikimedia is the name of the movement, separate from corporate entities that also share that name.

I don't see this on their list of Chapters https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters