11 ms·
China and Taiwan Clash over Wikipedia Edits
- sandrobfc 7y agoI'm surprised this doesn't happen way more often with many other pages. But we were all warned not to take Wikipedia as a single source of credible information. If bold statements or dubious information is not properly linked to credible sources (and even then...), don't take it as 100% true.
- point78 7y agoBest way I've used Wikipedia is to find the source of whatever sentence I'm on and see how ridiculous that source is...a lot of Huffington post and trash mags stuff for example
- freeflight 7y agoI usually try to go through the effort of looking up the citations for particularly controversial statements. But often that ends up being some book reference I can't find a free online version for.
- swebs 7y agoOften bias on Wikipedia is more easily revealed by what was removed rather than what was added. If you really want to see what's been covered up, check the edit history and the talk page. "Wikilawyers" are good at invoking whatever community guideline they can to get things added or removed.
- ameixaseca 7y agoThis happens way more often with many other pages as well. It just doesn't get the spotlight of media attention all the time.
- uranusjr 7y agoAlso worth noting is the GFW bans Wikipedia, limiting its popularity in China (most prefer Baidu’s equivalent, and those stay are comparably more liberal). So things don’t get that bad unless there’s an outside trigger to make average Chinese users take extra efforts accessing Wikipedia.
- yorwba 7y agoThis is complicated by the fact that many different languages are spoken in both mainland China and Taiwan. So you get an article in Hokkien that prominently displays the flag of the Republic of China [1] and another in Southern Min that looks very different [2]. Also, three different articles on "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" [3], "Taiwan Province" (in the Republic of China) [4] and "Taiwan" (common name of the Republic of China) [5]. [1] https://hak.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%B2i-v%C3%A2n https://hak.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%B2i-v%C3%A2n [2] https://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A2i-o%C3%A2n https://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%A2i-o%C3%A2n [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Re... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThis is further complicated by the fact that Western media usually perpetuate the confusion (whether on purpose or not). For example, the BBC uses the terms 'China' and 'Taiwan' and very rarely, if at all, discusses what is meant by 'China' and what is (or was...) the Republic of China, which are key to understand the dispute. Obviously, writing "China claims that Taiwan is part of its territory" is bound to be interpreted as an expansionist stance of a country trying to invade another by people who know nothing more about the issue when the reality is much fuzzier. I am not saying that this is simple, but it should not be depicted in simplistic and potentially misleading terms.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoI agree there should be more pieces explaining the background and history of the PRC and ROC, and how Chiang Kai-shek ended up in Taiwan, that it was the ROC had the UN seat until the 1970s, or that both claimed to be the rightful government etc. But that should be linked to rather than fleshed out in every story, as it gets pretty involved. "China claims that Taiwan is part of its territory" is correct - as far as it goes, it just doesn't go nearly far enough. Yet I'd be inclined to want this for most media stories in all parts of the world. To talk of companies without mention of their darker history or former name, e.g. "BP" (British Petroleum, formerly British-Persian Oil), "Academi" (Xe, before that Blackwater). At some point no one will remember Emerdata succeeded Cambridge Analytica, etc, etc. There is a lot of nuance (and inconvenient history) lost all over. So where does, or should, it stop?
- Wyndtroy2012 7y ago> Today China does owe the world a China story told by itself and from a Chinese perspective. I think it's not only Chinese privilege, it's really a responsibility How is this not a war of hearts and minds? In truth there is lies.
- IlegCowcat 7y agoXi Jinping more like Xi's a goddamn asshole.
- tomkat0789 7y agoHas this intensified recently? I thought this was already going on to a degree. I remember reading a story on HN awhile ago about a lawyer for hire who could get any change he wanted through Wikipedia's system. It'd be a disaster for Wikipedia if China et al had similar power... though I suppose I already pass Wikipedia over when looking up controversial things like US politicians.
- loceng 7y agoIssues related to China and Blizzard, Apple and China-Hong Kong, etc. intensifying - which is bringing all of this bad, authoritarian behaviour to light - compounding. People seem to have had enough and are speaking up.
- yorwba 7y agoThis story was first submitted 4 days ago, but not many were paying attention at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21164775
- taf2 7y agoTaiwan should just start including pictures of Winnie the Pooh pics on Wikipedia articles to get the whole domain blocked in China.
- tomkat0789 7y agoIsn't the whole Wikipedia domain already blocked in China? I thought Baidu already had a Wikipedia equivalent.
- matz1 7y agowell , they still could use vpn or access it from overseas
- fiblye 7y agoIt is. Twitter is as well. Yet it’s still flooded with people posting in simplified Chinese about how freedom of speech is stupid and foreigners need to shut up and leave matters alone, completely unaware of any irony.
- goatinaboat 7y agoTwitter is as well. We can imagine the following dialogue: Chinese patriot: I’m really angry about what the NBA said on Twitter about China! Chinese secret police: We admire your patriotism Comrade... but how are you using Twitter?
- ohduran 7y agoTien An Men Square: In this site, in 1989, nothing happened. Taken from the Simpsons: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Q_Kixfvq1lY/SiU_RKPsCdI/AAAAAAAAArM/Nh2-9FGQ3Gk/s400/Tiananmen+simpsonschina.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Q_Kixfvq1lY/SiU_RKPsCdI/AAAAAAAAA...
- gnode 7y agoMaybe this is because the Great Firewall doesn't apply in China's special administrative regions (Hong Kong; Macau), yet there are many Chinese speakers there. I'd expect this is the main audience for Chinese-language Wikipedia articles, and the PRC would want to control the narrative seen by them.
- zaphod420 7y agoFuck Chinese government. Support freedom for Hong Kong, and Taiwain.
- joelx 7y agoI agree, China is now a nightmare dictatorship. We should do everything we possibly can to support the free peoples remaining in Hong Kong and Taiwan and perhaps start pushing freedom into China.
- eznoonze 7y ago>China is now a nightmare dictatorship They call it "China Dream".
- Diederich 7y ago> China is now a nightmare dictatorship Tibet, the great leap forward, among others. And I'd clarify 'China' to 'the Chinese government'.
- mcny 7y ago> And I'd clarify 'China' to 'the Chinese government'. A friend of Chinese origin explained to me: when there are two people of Chinese origin in a room who don't intimately know each other, both of them will openly support the People's Republic because neither one can be completely sure that the other is not a mole. So given a group of people of Chinese origin, they all support the People's Republic (CCP). Now imagine if you grew up where all adults behaved like this. Would you need any specific brainwashing to support the People's Republic?
- segfaultbuserr 7y agoHow can this even be news? The editing war has been around since the very beginning, back in 2004 or so, and since then, in the endless wars, a very sophisticated tradition of "Code of Conflict" has already been established as a robust basis of solving conflicts. It's not actually a Code, but a consensus of how the official policies of Wikipedia, such as Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Citing Sources, should be enforced regarding to the articles about China, the guidelines are clear, and there is no question. For example, on whether Taiwan should be seen as an independent country - The resolution is simple: Neutral Point of View. If a government claims it's a legitimate government, its official title should be used by default, whether the claim is justified or not is another matter of fact to be described within the articles. Thus, all references to the government of Taiwan is by default, Republic of China, and all references to the government of PRC is by default, People's Republic of China. If there are political questions involved, all the major opinions and important minority opinions should be presented, backed by citations. The same rule applies to all other governments, Wikipedia has no problem of calling the terrorist group the "Islamic State", and then described it as a illegitimate terrorist group within the article. This system has been kicking around for more than a decade, and any cooperative Wikipedia editors have no problems accepting it, nobody will be offended by "Republic of China", even if the editor is a member of the CPC. It's not to say that conflicts don't exist. Of course, strong conflicts occur daily, but the conflicts are about the matter of facts and their interpretation (whether the inclusion of this opinion fits the policies of Wikipedia, whether or not the overtone of the article is biased towards the United States, etc). For example, you should expect to see heavy conflicts on articles related to the protests in Hong Kong, on what opinions should be included in the article and how to interpret the sources. But what the policies should be is clear to all editors, the argument is mainly about their treatment and interpretation. On the other hand, there are people that doesn't know what the community is about, refuse to read the policies, or don't want to follow the rules, these people will start editing wars, indeed, but their edits will be reverted, with their accounts banned when enough people have been annoyed. The constant influx of these people are a daily phenomenon, and warning and banned them is the most underappreciated job. We have seen these people coming from all geographical area and political camps, including PRC, Hong Kong, ROC, Singapore, or the U.S. However, these are mostly trolls, not Wikipedia editors, and these conflicts should not be confused with the actual conflicts within Wikipedia. Some of the most infamous trolls are from Taiwan, it's not related to the geopolitics, they always exist regardless of political camps. On the other hand, I've even seen literal followers of fascism from PRC that has no problem of following the Wikipedia policies and writing unobjectionable articles... The trolls from PRC contribute the greatest number of unhelpful edits, though. It's not to say that articles actually follows the official policies as well. Of course many articles are biased. They exist, because there aren't enough people willing to improve them. It's similar to contributing a controversial feature to a FOSS project, the argument can go for months, with a lot of revisions, so it's not a job that many people want to hold. Nevertheless, it's doable, at least for the most notable topic that there are a lot of potential contributors. Power struggles are common, because everyone has (1) a personal opinion over the subjects, (2) an opinion over how the subject should be described in Wikipedia, (3) an opinion over the existing articles, (4) an opinion over the personal opinion of another Wikipedia editor's opinion, etc, so it's unavoidable. Yet, life still goes on. Personally, I see the greatest success story is 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests [0]. It's always the most controversial article of all on the entire Chinese Wikipedia, the conflicts have been ongoing forever. The "this article is biased" template was here for 13 years or so. Yet, a few years ago, all conflicts have been settled, all perceived issues have been fixed in the article, and now the content of the article has been accepted by most to be an objective and comprehensive description of the events. Finally, I must point out that the Chinese Wikipedia don't have the culture of deletion, unlike the English version. Some experienced Chinese editors went to edit the English version, only to find many edits have been reverted and canceled. [0] https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4...
- beerandt 7y agoWhy is Wikipedia even allowing edits from China at this point?
- SteveSmith16384 7y agoI'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't be too hard for China to get round any blocks, so why bother.
- sidibe 7y agoThe edits might not even be from China. Somehow CCP has managed to even get many Chinese abroad to attach part of their identity to the Chinese government so negative things about the government are personally insulting.
- beerandt 7y agoThis makes sense. Especially in light of Chinese student unions on college campuses.
- TheEndin 7y agoIt is interesting to see the kind of messed up stuff that China does just by being a potential world power, imagine the indiscriminate killing and concentration camps that they will build on foreign soil when they reach a point where there is no one that can fight back.
- liumaoyi 7y agoThe anti-government protestors in Hong Kong are terrorists, as defined by Hong Kong and International laws. Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3031895/we-cannot-tell-world-hong-kong-grooms-local-terrorists https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30... Ordinary Hong Kong people have lost freedom to work, travel in Hong Kong or even voice a different opinion because of their lawless actions. If you support freedom in Hong Kong, you should condemn the protesters.
- OldFatCactus 7y agowow CCP shills even on hackernews
- liumaoyi 7y agoThe protestors commit violence to others based on their opinion, birth place or language. Like this https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3031708/attack-jpmorgan-banker-hong-kong-sparks-outrage-mainland-china https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3031708/atta...
- eznoonze 7y agoAnd they are not even hiding it anymore.
- avocado4 7y agoSCMP is a Chinese government propaganda arm abroad, owned by Jack Ma, a top figure in the Communist Party.
- throwaway5752 7y ago--
- avocado4 7y agoOpium wars happened over a century ago. It was a crime against humanity, but it gives no moral right to anybody to repeat the same thing in the modern time. It's like saying Israeli should have a right to demand that Germans be gassed today because of Hitler. Chinese public puts up with their government because the standard of living rose in the past years thanks to WTO and liberalization during Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao presidency. Now that Xi Jinping decided to undo the progress and double down on building authoritarian ethnostate it's a matter of time before public opinion shifts again due to economic hit.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 7y agoJust throwing this link out there for anyone that's interested as I'm a mod over at the /r/taiwanindependence subreddit.[1] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwanindependence https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwanindependence
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]