How the Chinese Wikipedia Differs from the English 193
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.'"
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.)
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.
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
Re:How it differs (Score:1, Insightful)
As their economy there is improving it's getting harder and harder to censor. Because of a shortage of workers, companies over there are having to offer better and better benefits to attract workers. It takes a massive workforce to supply the rich with everything they want. Keep thinking the myth with zero some game economics that the Chinese people are doomed to remain broke and backwards. The Chinese people are no longer starving like they were in the sixties, go for a visit there sometime
As for a "culture of censorship"
You can only censor people for so long. After a while the government officials themselves will see no point in censorship and decide to spend money on other crap projects. China is slowly opening up, they used to prevent people from leaving China
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:We have our own socially effected censorship (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.
Re:Hah. You think you are better? (Score:1, Insightful)
Country #3, which is like Country #2, but the punishment of unapproved distribution is dressed up as "copyright infringement" of someone's "valoooable innellecdual properteeeee"?
Country #1 sure isn't the USA or Europe right now!
Re:Before we get on the high horse here... (Score:0, Insightful)
Quite a few by some peoples' definitions, actually.
>How many homosexual rape HOWTO entrees are there?
Probably not many... why, would you consider such an article encyclopedic in nature?
>Just how detailed are the Wikipedia's meth cooking/ricin making manuals?
Probably not very, but then Wikipedia also doesn't have "detailed" manuals for making concrete either.
>When was the last time our Govt declassified a blueprint for a nuclear warhead?
This has nothing to do with Wikipedia
>A detailed travel schedule and the layout of alarm circuits in dubbyas house perhaps? No?
Well, aside from the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have ACCESS to this information (which means you can't blame them for not having it posted), it wouldn't be encyclopedic in nature.
>What, those are all illegal in US, you say?
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).
Wikipedia is not Everything2. It is an encyclopedia, and it does not encompass ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE OF ANY LEVEL OF DETAIL ON EVERY SUBJECT, but attempts to be a compendium of encyclopedic information. Your ire is misdirected. The English Wikipedia is not hostage to government censorship, and it is nowhere NEAR as censored as the Chinese Wikipedia. The "censoring" that does take place is primarily of a community-standards nature, and even that is pretty loose.
Re:They shouldn't give in (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.
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: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.
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.
Re:Taboo, but the truth. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Taboo, but the truth. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here we are allowed to disagree, be critical of, and demonstrate. In China you cannot say anything the government doesn't allow you to say, PERIOD.
Look at the masses of AMERICANS who hate Bush and Cheney. Americans openly criticise them, without any fear of being locked up or shot. You tell your Russian model girlfriend to go back to Russia and say something bad about Putin to see what happens to her and her family.
Go head, visit China and spit on Mao's picture and see what happens.
There's a HUGE difference between having the freedom to THINK FOR YOURSELF, as opposed to having your thinking done FOR you. Do you realize how corrupt China is, from the inside out? Why is this so? Because there is NO freedom of speech.
I've lived in China. Once you get to know the people, almost everyone is disallusioned and utterly disgusted with their government. They know of all the corrupt things that go on via the "guanxi" system. What can they do about it? Zilch, unless they wanna get shot or jailed.
THAT is the difference. In the free world (not just the U.S. btw), we are allowed to steer the path to our own destiny. In countries like China, you are nothing more than a peon, and the goverenment officials who hold all of the power get to do whatever they please and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Note, I love Chinese people. It's the corrupt government that I can't stand.
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.
Re:How it differs (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 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.
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.
Re:How it differs (Score:2, Insightful)
When one of those parties is the government, it isn't compromise anymore, it's a veto. It isn't about interpretation of facts, the issue is the facts themselves. The censors deny that events have happened, when they obviously have.
I think the Chinese version ought to simply delete the articles that are subject to censorship so that it's obvious there was disagreeable information in them.
Re:Also of note... (Score:3, Insightful)