Slashdot Mirror
How the Chinese Wikipedia Differs from the English
bulled writes "News.com is running a story on differences found in Wikipedia's Chinese site content, as compared to content on the same subjects from the English site. The article goes into a discussion about how the 'sanitized' information is so prevalent in Chinese education that it is seen as the 'truth'." From the article: "[Some] say the object should be to spread reliable information as widely as possible, and that, in any case, self-censorship is pointless because the government still frequently blocks access to Wikipedia for most Chinese Internet users. 'There is a lot of confusion about whether they should obey the neutral point of view or offer some compromises to the government,' said Isaac Mao, a well-known Chinese blogger and user of the encyclopedia. 'To the local Wikipedians, the first objective is to make it well known among Chinese, to get people to understand the principles of Wikipedia step by step, and not to get the thing blocked by the government.'"
It's in Chinese rather than English.
The USA, a decadent, capitalistic society, that enslaves its people through corporations, and calls itself a Republic, is in North America, between Canada and Mexico. Their Government is run by decadent wealthy politicians who use their political power for more gain. Unlike your illustrious leaders here in China, they do not care about their constituants.
It is recomended that all Chinese citizens ignore these people for they have been corrupted by their capitalist owners. And also beware, they will tell you lies about working in sweatshops! They are lies told by their proletariat in order to keep their position in their society and to convince their workers that they are paid the best in the World. Ignore them! You are paid best in the World!!
Beware of the Americans!!! They are liars!
How the Chinese System of Government is the best in the World - elected by you, the people of China:
All of the memebers of Government are freely elected by the people of China. Being a Democracy of the highest order, China.....
"To publicly suggest that Taiwanese have any historical basis for asserting their independence from China would be a career-ending offense for anyone in academia or in the news media."
A career-ending offense exicts in this country too, but just on different subjects. Try publicly saying that whites are smarter than blacks, or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high, or that ice floes are a good way of relieving the social security crunch, and see what happens to your career. ( The previous three ideas or - similar forms of them - have been considered obvious truisms in other places and times. I'm not expressing these opinions myself, just mentioning them as examples )
Try putting any of these on english Wikipedia, and see how long they last.
HAH! I love all the discussion about Chinese censorship. The argument is that we are free, and see things objectively---but that is not true. We are merely free to choose the censorship we prefer.
I do not mean that we don't have access to "uncensored" information. Nor do I mean that it is forced upon us by anyone. I mean that we prefer censorship; we prefer to see things through filters that support what we want to believe. If you do not think this, just spend a week on Digg, or other "self-policing" sites. People do not want objectivity, they want the prominence of their own subjectivity.
The Chinese government merely provides this as a government service, so the widest possible audience is sated. It's not worse. It's not even different. Consider first whether people are really, truly unhappy.
(Note, I don't actually believe we should have government-sponsored censorship. There is some hyperbole here by design. But really, this is not as far from reality as you may think.)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
After reasding it, your hungry for more information an hour later...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
this is true of everyone who has ever lived. including you. including me. it's simple human nature
however, this self-censorship, whether by individuals or cliques, is a different subject matter than censorship by a government entity. one is organic, from below, for the purposes of protecting the ego. the other is artificial, from above, for the purposes of maintaining power
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They are from Taiwan or Hong Kong, where education is fairly liberal and there is very little censorship compared with the Mainland.
Note, most of the articles on Chinese Wikipedia are in traditional Chinese script (used in those places) as opposed to simplified, used on the mainland.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The way to defeat state censorship of this kind I think involves getting as much information as possible out there. If they want to ban access to it, let them. Web-savvy Chinese will find a way to get to it. The word will spread. The truth is more persistent and resilient than cockroaches. Once it gets out it is difficult to stop.
I sure would hate to think the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or "June 4th Incident" as it is known in China, will go down in history with a Chinese-govt spin on it.
Already the English version of wikipedia calls it the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989. I wonder what they call it on the Chinese version? Tianenmen Square - nothing happened, don't ask perhaps?If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
In my school a student was visited by Secret Service for her art project: a painting of Clinon in a traditional indian female dress (a bathrobie thingie, hairdress, forhead dot, bracelets, the whole deal).
Well, apparently some twat thought the red dot looked like a laser sight, and dropped a dime on her. Imagine what they'd do today.
The Chinese Wikipedia has options to switch between traditional and simplified version of the article, done automatically. ~~~~
What we need is some kind of text based indicator that shows somebody's being sarcastic. That'd ruin China's attempts at any sort of censorship. Say there's an article about China's wonderful human rights record. There could be a little ;-) at the end of it so when you get to the end you go 'Ohhh! They were being sarcastic. Bloody Chinese government and their clearly horrible human rights record, I'm changing my vote!'
;-)
Beating China's oppressive regime is pretty easy when you think about it
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
OK. I went to American schools. Growing up, I was, in so many ways, encouraged, forced or "educated" into think those Soviet bastards were communist scum bent on nuking the good'ol USA.
Cold War ends. I become seriously involved with a Russian model, her mother and father was given a free ride to the US on some kind of genius grant. Speaking to her father, everything Americans were taught about the Soviet Union was mirrored in Soviet schools about America. Down to the common bed-time anxiety of wondering if tonight you'll have to use your bomb-shelter (which lots of Soviets also had in fear of an American preemptive strike.) And so, while neither country ever really had that many nuclear weapons, what the corporations/state did have was massive public opinion inline for support to develop more and more on claims that "they" had ten or twenty more nuclear weapons. Arms race... come time to use the arms, we find we only have two and so do they. The irony of it all.
Point is, American education is no less bias/brainwashing/false/misleading than China's. This might be a big bite to chew for many of us, but it's true. Let's take for instance...
What do you know of World War II? It might come to a surprise to many of us... but unless you have to have a nurse help you defecate, odds are you don't know anymore than what was TOLD TO YOU. Faith of compliance, and from lack of critical, cold and cruel analysis presents no options for the guy next to you. Germans were the bad guys... do I know that for fact? No. I strongly assume so, because as far back as I remember, that's what I was told; and if I differ from public opinion, then I'll be an idiot.
The force of ignorance is so strong and compelling, that it's no wonder that those who veer successfully from the flow stand out so much and always have a aura about them that would permit one to predict they would "change the world". For the better, for the worst... depends on their opposing force and if they win or lose. If you win, patriot, revolutionary, resistance... all beautiful titles to hold to be sure. During your efforts, your a terrorist or criminal... if you lose, those titles stick. Doesn't matter your cause, doesn't matter your agenda. Powerful people, are just that, powerful and they aren't going to give up their crown, right or wrong, just because you're walking down the hall.
The English analysis points out where Chinese wikipedia is "wrong". It's points ONLY assume it's wrong, basing their assumptions on the fact their wording is not as harsh/critical/favorable to the way WE want China to look. Who is right? Americans? Chinese? Most logical tendancy I have... if I want a German opinion, I'll talk to a German. Why would America have any more accurate information on China than China itself? (But this is where people will try to claim they have controlled information sources... as if the information in America isn't equally controlled. At least Chinese leadership have the dignity to admit their concern for the information given to the public. Americans are left to realize that anything printed and sold in Barnes and Nobels is pre-approved and must conform the a social agenda and anything that won't will either be black-listed, banned or edited to hell and back by publish-house editors.) Any fool that thinks Fox News isn't controlled..... bottom line, China knows China better than America does. Don't kid yourself.
Get over your self loathing.
Yes the U.S. has plenty of corrupt leaders. Yes the U.S. has plenty of lazy and apathetic people who do not think for themselves.
BUT:
We found out that we were lied to.
We have people on national television and in national publications expousing as matter of fact that we were and are being lied to and misled.
It is commonly reported public knowledge that more citizens disapprove of the current regime than approve of it.
The competence of the administration is openly ridiculed in national broadcasts and publications.
WE VOTED OUT THE PARTY IN POWER. I hope you appreciate how important this. In some countries past and present this is the thing of revolutionary dreams.
Why do I care that people appreciate how good they have things here? Not because I want them to be nationalists or even to be proud of what we do have. But rather because if people do not see the great freedom and opportunity they have, they may fail to take hold of it and use it to better themselves and our society as they can and should.
You do not think we are in a position to criticize suppression of freedom in other countries? You aren't if you can't see past your own problems. You aren't if you are more concerned about your own national pride than you are about freedom at home and around the world. Start standing up for your fellow human beings, and stop limiting yourself by your national pride or shame. I don't know about you, but my nationality is human being.
Honestly, I've found articles in the English version that are no better. Just look at any article involving Ayn Rand. In those articles, Rand's followers make up the majority of editors, thus allowing them to get away with deleting any facts (even if they are cited) that they don't agree with. The articles about her are constantly censored simply because 1) Wikipedia is unequipped to deal with a biased mob attacking one or more articles, and 2) the sources that make Rand look bad are often deleted, thus making it look like the "truth" is that Rand has very few detractors.
In the Chinese Wikipedia, the government's bias censors the text; in the English Wikipedia, editorial mobs are glad to use their own bias to censor it.
My brothre is in China, currently, and we've talked about this. Our concensus is that the Chinese Wikipedia censors pretty much anything pertaining to freedom, democracy, and the political history of the West - specifically, the US.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
While wikipedia articles that have strong "popularity" (however you describe that term) are more likely to be balanced, there is a tendancy for particularly some of the more obscure articles to have a few strong defenders with a manifestly strong point of view and bias, where any changes to those articles moving away from that bias and point of view is met with out right hostility and anger, invoking every obscure rule of Wikipedia behavior to justify their words and discouraging any compromising edits. Often these "article tzars" have support of Wikipedia administrators and others in supposed position of authority.
/. post about U.S. government censorship of Wikipedia alone would have thousands of replies in a matter of just an hour.
That said, I have been successful in making some rather substantial changes in some articles explicitly by showing the paper tigers for which some of those POV biases can be seen. And given enough time and eyeballs, most of these problems do eventually get ironed out. But it takes time and much of what you see on Wikipedia is a work in progress.
In defense of the Chinese Wikipedia, they are a couple of years behind and a fair bit under-represented in comparison to the Chinese speaking population to what the English Wikipedia has going for it. That and "official actions" by the PRC that tends to discourage participation on Wikipedia. Those that do participate operate under a "Sword of Damocles that could be lowered at any time by the PRC government. As I've pointed out myself on many occasions, it would be an incredibly inept Chinese government that would not know exactly who the major Wikipedia participants are, even those who don't necessarily live in China proper (like being a Chinese speaker in the USA, as an example). I'm talking the full names, addresses, and other identifying information about these people. The use of psuedonyms does not hide this information from the Chinese government.
There is justified concern in term of avoiding prison or even losing their life if they try to push too hard for the NPOV that the English Wikipedia enjoys. As for the U.S. government keeping track of its citizens, I'm sure that happens as well, but there would be a nearly instant and major outcry if there were such a similar crackdown within the USA. I'm sure the
First of all, contributions to many of not-so-controversial entries (and that's usually the majorities of entries anyway) are often written or being written by translation. See for example, this entry for Perturbation Theory. So The differences between the two wikipedia are often small for most of my search/contribution need (I study physics and mathematics, and often contributes to both of these subjects in English and Chinese).
Of course, there are also controversial topics such as Mao, representative government, and democracy. I tend to think that wikipedia (WP) is at its best at those issue precisely because of ability for each sides to edit the article because at the end of the day, it demands compromise from all side in order for a particular edit to stay. WP is at its worst with respect to obscure topics that nobody check and few people are knowledgable enough in a particular narrow direction to check. Then again, if you believe everything with a single source, be it WP or any other encyclopedia, you are not doing serious research anyway.
Finally. Is it really that shocking that different culture/political upbringing can reach a different conclusion on a topic? Grew up in China, I have heard both praising and condemnation of the ruling party (in private of course) as well as Western government/culture. Capitalism is perceived no more an foreign evil in China now a day than communism a savior of the nation. Educated class in China (consider how many were illiterate before the communist took over) has a much more critical eye for the government than many in the West give credit for.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
Likewise an article about homosexuality written in a hypothetical English Wikipedia from the 1930s would likely have a very different angle on it than we have today, even without any active government censorship.
If the Republican party had its own Wikipedia written by its members and the Democratic one its own, no censorship would be needed for them to have very different articles on president Bush. A similar difference would apply for the hypothetical state Wikipedias by Massachusetts and Utah residents on Bush.
Neither do Korean and Japanese Wikipedias always agree on what is accurate information when it comes to history.
The great thing with Wikipedia is that it makes it so much easier to see what is written in other languages about a subject. Just click on the link in the lower left for the language you want. Some differences will probably stay for ever, but the easy access to other languages to some extent diminishes national misunderstandings.
I am from China. As an active contributor (with 16384+ edits) at English Wikipedia for almost three years. I don't see this a serious problem at Chinese Wikipedia. This is in fact a POV on region and nation. I see English Wikipedia does no better than its Chinese neighbor. For example, English Wikipedia claims a British man reached the source of Yangtze river in 19th century, while Genghis Khan's people had done the job 500 years before. People from UK and US always see us as autochthon. So if we do something, they will not count, so in westerners' view, before their arrive of America, no people live there (this is what you actually think, don't you?) English Wikipedia has many lists of these, lists of those, most of the lists never include non-Western stuffs, even it is far more notable in East Asian countries. (For example, almost everything in Category:Lists_of_fictional_things) English Wikipedia claims itself the largest encyclopedia in the world one year ago, but they still have http://en.wikipedia.org/Yongle_Encyclopedia , Chinese paper encyclopedia completed in 1407 almost as large as now Wikipedia as a stub. So my 3 years of experience at English Wikipedia shows me a very very emptiness of East Asia (or say CJK) cultures among average western people. I've corrected many POV things at Wikipedia, but I can't beat other 1,000,000+ contributors who created more at a much higher speed.