Slashdot Log In
How the Chinese Wikipedia Differs from the English
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 01, 2006 08:28 PM
from the truth-with-edits dept.
from the truth-with-edits dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Also of note... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Also of note... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
An easy example: On the english site, we can learn that the population of elephants has tripled in the last six months. On the chinese site, we can learn that the population of elephants has tripled in the last 12 solar terms.
Entry for USA (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.
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.....
Re:Entry for USA (Score:5, Informative)
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 [amazon.com] (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.
Parent
Entry for China (was: Entry for USA) (Score:2)
Re:Entry for USA (Score:5, Funny)
>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
Parent
We have our own socially effected censorship (Score:5, 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.
Re:We have our own socially effected censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high
Well, the question is, hands-on whom? ;)
Parent
Re:We have our own socially effected censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:We have our own socially effected censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:We have our own socially effected censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Here [wikipedia.org] ya [wikipedia.org] go [wikipedia.org].
Yeah, none of these are opinions, they're stated objectively; that's what Wikipedia's about, isn't it? Surely the difference is that the Chinese Wikipedia (or other information sources) are censoring *objective* facts?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Those are not obvious truisms, they are subjective opinions. Those do not belong on wikipedia, and would rightfully be removed.
On the other hand, I am guessing if you went to articles about race, sexual education, or social security, you could find discussion on those vie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was exactly my point. They are mere opinions TO YOU, in this culture and age. They were obvious truths to people in other cultures at other times.
Hah. You think you are better? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
people prefer placid lies to ugly truths (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Parent
Re:people prefer placid lies to ugly truths (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, in fact, my first point.
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Country #1 where people have free access to information and some choose to self censor that access?
Country #2 where the government censors information and unapproved distribution of censored information is a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please choose:
Be an adult and don't change the subject, please answer #1 or #2.
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
it's in chinese? (Score:2, Funny)
Most Chinese wikipedia users are not from mainland (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Most Chinese wikipedia users are not from mainl (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
It's a choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, China can't block/censor everything without ruining their prospects to shift away from a manufacturing-based economy
They shouldn't give in (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. I wonder what they call it on the Chinese version? Tianenmen Square - nothing happened, don't ask perhaps?Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Better to start slowly and end well -- Confucius. Do I need to go on (and on, and on, and on, like Slashdot)? Give it a rest will you.
Re:They shouldn't give in (Score:4, Interesting)
"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].
Parent
This discredits wikipedia (Score:2, Troll)
If the Chinese people want a wikipedia that won't get banned, they should make their own. It's a shame to see the wikipedia name get so discredited.
No information is better than false information.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm beats censorship (Score:4, Funny)
Beating China's oppressive regime is pretty easy when you think about it
What the Chinese government should do (Score:2)
Taboo, but the truth. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are students encouraged to become proficient in the use of primary sources? Yup
Just because a textbook might be censored (a better word for most of them would be "incomplete") doesn't mean you can discredit the entire educational system.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Taboo, but the truth. (Score:5, Interesting)
I call it the "Fox censorship". No it ain't just Fox.
Parent
Tianamen (Score:2, Interesting)
Is the English version any better? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Amen to this sentiment (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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
Parent
my brother in China (Score:4, Informative)
Difference in culture more than censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
English not better (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder what it feels like to be suckered (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
what, you mean nothing like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement#Produ ction [wikipedia.org]
Irrelevant, as I've shown, there are very good reasons that those things are/aren't in Wikipedia (and not all of those things are illegal).
I am sure some Good Chinese is reciting Good reasons why the Tank Square isn't in the Chinese wiki.
The point being, certain things are not acceptable to certain communities (legal, moral, other reaso
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is nothing more than a fallacy. First of all, you assume that all the people writing articles on Chinese Wikipedia were born in or live in Mainland China. If you have walked around town -- anywhere in the world -- recently, you would realize that there are a lot of C