Paul Denlinger has a good post today describing the reality of China’s Internet cafes, what I’ve often described as China’s digital opium dens. Some of these “wang ba” are modern, glitzy affairs, but often they are dingy holes that could justifiably be shut down for safety and hygeine reasons. Of course there is a political and social reason for the government to limit the spread of them, but the picture is more complex.
Paul writes:

Let me tell you something about these Internet cafes and their users. For the most part, these Internet cafes are shitholes and firetraps. And the people who go there are young, single, low-income males. They do not bring their dates there. The places are smoky, dingy and poorly lit. They sell some basic food and beverages in the front, and also charge people a fee to sleep overnight on the dirty, bug-infested, stained futons which pass for couches. If you want a truly terrible experience, visit their bathrooms.

These are dirty decrepit places in every way; they are just filthy. If fire safety laws were actually enforced, they would be shut down. And the people who spend their day playing games are, in my opinion, China’s new urban permanent underclass. Why do they go to Internet cafes? Because most of them are from outside Beijing and Shanghai, and the Internet cafe is the cheapest place to go to. They can get by spending 20-30 yuan (US$5-6) a day, including food, drink, games and a place to sleep.

The characters are sad characters; if they were living in England 150 years ago, Charles Dickens would be writing about them. From the Chinese perspective, although games and the Internet are highly addictive, Internet cafes serve a useful purpose. Otherwise these people would be on the street, unemployed. The Internet cafe today in China is what gin and beer was to England’s working class in the mid-19th century when Karl Marx was writing Das Kapital about the evils of class exploitation.

Now, if you were an advertiser, would you want to reach this audience? It all depends.

I can attest to what he has observed, as Beijing has a number of them in hutong areas that are hideous. Read his entire post for more insights into measuring China’s Internet users.

A group of Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers served on the jury to decide on where to hold the Wikimania conference in 2008, and selected Alexandria, Egypt. (Full disclosure: I served nominally as one of the three moderators of the process, but did not take part in the decisionmaking itself.)

I have to say it’s an exciting choice. The New Library will be the host, and will be sponsoring much of the conference for this historic homecoming to the most significant repository of human knowledge in ancient times. The public relations value and the seeding of interest in the Middle East and Africa is a great opportunity.

However, the choice has not been without controversy. David Strauss was one of the more vocal critics, alluding to Egypt’s treatment of women, LGBT and dissidents. His initial post:

I’m offended that the desire to have Wikimania hop around the globe (rotation) trumps the egregious history Egypt has with LGBT and other civil rights (local laws). While visitors to Egypt are certainly not at the same risk, I refuse to spend any money in a country that — as recently as 2004 — sentenced someone to 17 years of prison and two years of hard labor for posting a personal ad on a gay website[1]. A blogger was imprisoned in 2007 for four years for “insulting Islam and defaming the President of Egypt.”[2] Jimmy Wales even attended the Amnesty conference denouncing the censorship. No legal or cultural reforms since give me confidence that the situation has improved.

After a followup thread, there were some folks who agreed with him, but there has been no large outcry. Most folks seem excited and in support of the historic context and chance to engage a new community.

The choice of whether to boycott or engage has been a tough one. It happens with the Olympics, on trade, on technology transfer, and choosing conference venues. Given the international makeup of the Wikipedia community you’re not going to get consensus. When we chose Boston two years ago, there were folks who were upset because of the US’s foray into Iraq and the harsh requirements for visas.

Jimmy Wales has noted this, and has chosen “engagement” as his stance.

In honor of David’s concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 “Free knowledge and human rights” and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.

Phoebe Ayers, who served on the jury, mentioned that the process is not perfect and that the team is willing to re-evaluate the criteria for future cycles. But this particular decision is final, and it seems on balance rather well supported.

She perhaps summed it up best.

Wikimania and Wikimedia are both global in scope, which means that while we can condemn censorship and loss of human rights everywhere we must also take into account a global range of values. Our projects focus specifically on free knowledge, and I expect that will be highlighted at the conference.