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.'"

16 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Also of note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's in Chinese rather than English.

    1. Re:Also of note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thanks, man: thought I was looking at some dodgy Perl there.

  2. Entry for USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    Translation from Chinese

    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.....

    1. Re:Entry for USA by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      Marxism hasn't been the publicly asserted guiding philosophy for China since Tiananmen. The rhetoric of Mao Zedong is almost totally forgotten among the younger generations. See Meisner's Mao's China and After (Free Press, 3rd ed. 1999) for the rather dramatic shift in perspective from the 1980s. Now it's just generic authoritarianism and a good dose of Han nationalism. Get with the times.

    2. Re:Entry for USA by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Funny

      >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.

          Hey, wait a minute, that's not a Chinese Wikipedia entry - it's every third post on Slashdot!

              Brett

  3. We have our own socially effected censorship by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re:We have our own socially effected censorship by troll+-1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I see the point but those are really not good comparisons. An academic in the US could say Mexicans in California have a historical basis for asserting independence from the US and not really much would happen. Take Noam Chomsky, an MIT prof who says if the Nuremberg standards were applied, every US president would have been hanged. Didn't affect his career at all. And even if it did, the government in the US has no standing in dictating what academics say. That's the difference between the US and China and that's the point I think that's being made.

    2. Re:We have our own socially effected censorship by dasunt · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      The wiki article on "Race and Intelligence" has, at the top of an article, a graph of IQs of different races. Whites, on average, are shown as scoring higher than blacks.

      The article discusses the amount (if any) of difference in the average intelligence of the different races and possible reasons why there would be a difference.

  4. Hah. You think you are better? by oGMo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article goes into a discussion about how the 'sanitized' information is so prevalent in Chinese education that it is seen as the 'truth'.

    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

  5. Simple by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    After reasding it, your hungry for more information an hour later...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Sarcasm beats censorship by Micklewhite · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  7. Re:They shouldn't give in by euniana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As of the time of this post, the opening paragraph of the Chinese version reads something like this:

    "June 4th Incident", also called "'89 Minyun" [short for Democratic Movement], , "'89 Xueyun" [short for Students' Movement], "June 4th Massacre", "June 4th Wave", "'89 Democratic Movement", "'89 Students' Movement", "Tiananmen Massacre", "Tiananmen Incident", etc, officially called "The Disturbance", "Counter-revolutionary riot", and in recent years "the Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989" by the PRC government, hereafter abbreviated to "64" [June 4th].

  8. Taboo, but the truth. by CherniyVolk · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

    1. Re:Taboo, but the truth. by PietjeJantje · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It is funny you mention WWII, but not Irak. Do you even know what you've been missing? I've seen so many incidents that were covered widely in Europe, but not at all in the US media. These are usually reports about "collatoral damage" ("Family killed"), death toll among normal civilians (over 50 times the Tower's toll), progress, and everything that would make the war seem less succesful for the USA.

      I call it the "Fox censorship". No it ain't just Fox.

  9. Re:people prefer placid lies to ugly truths by oGMo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    this is true of everyone who has ever lived. including you. including me. it's simple human nature

    This is, in fact, my first point.

    however, this self-censorship, whether by individuals or cliques, is a different subject matter than censorship by a government entity.

    This comes back to our own self-censorship (and, really, our own cultural/governmental censorship). We see through the "authoritarian censorship is bad" filter, which ironically comes from an authority itself.

    My second point is simply that neither one is better. They are both censorship. To criticize for one and accept the other is hypocritical.

    2+2 does not equal 5, even for very high values of 2 and very low values of 5.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  10. English not better by yaohua2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.