6 ms·

Analysis and explanation (from 2020, but the issues are unchanged): https://qz.com/1908836/china-blocks-wikimedia-from-un-agency-wipo-over-taiwan-dispute/ https

Analysis and explanation (from 2020, but the issues are unchanged): https://qz.com/1908836/china-blocks-wikimedia-from-un-agency-wipo-over-taiwan-dispute/ https://qz.com/1908836/china-blocks-wikimedia-from-un-agency... Creative Commons comment on the most recent blocking: "As in 2020, China’s statement falsely suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation was spreading disinformation via the independent, volunteer-led Wikimedia Taiwan chapter"[0] [0] https://creativecommons.org/2021/10/06/creative-commons-response-to-wikimedia-foundations-wipo-observer-application-being-blocked/ https://creativecommons.org/2021/10/06/creative-commons-resp...

andyxor 5y ago
not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.
- michaelsbradley 5y ago
  downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.
  - andyxor 5y ago
    well pick any American politician right of center and check their wikipedia page.
    - michaelsbradley 5y ago
      please give an example with quote/s, link/s, and your summary analysis.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - krageon 5y ago
      Every US politician that anyone would actually know is extreme right, so this is a very big group. Not a very useful classification, you may as well have said "any US politician". Then we get to the point where it is unclear what your actual problem is with their wikipedia pages. The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
      - andyxor 5y ago
        I mean, most of Republicans on wikipedia are vilified as "far-right conspiracy theorists" and all shades of evil, with links to fake news as source of information (Washington Post for example) one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
        Omnitaus 5y ago
        Wikipedia absolutely has a conservative bent, I wouldn't call the editing body "liberal" for using a newspaper owned by a union-busting multibillionaire as a source You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. "Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true". It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do? And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole? Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
  - x0x0 5y ago
    Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na... Then there's this: > Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki... Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link. This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
      - x0x0 5y ago
        Using wikipedia. Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
      - lelandfe 5y ago
        And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis. Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      The first is not an example of misinformation at all. The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
      - x0x0 5y ago
- KerrickStaley 5y ago
  That's not what's happening here though. China has for years put enormous effort into promoting its worldview on the China/Taiwan issue in every way it can, even though that worldview contradicts the facts on the ground. Taiwan is de-facto an independent country with its own government and military sovereignty, and the majority of citizens of Taiwan are happy with that arrangement. China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
  - plantain00 5y ago
    Taiwan's official name is Republic of China(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan), it's not China/Taiwan issue, it's China Civil War. Just like Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea), the two China and the two Korea will unify finally.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    Taiwan (i.e. the ROC) is not a "de-facto" country, it _is_ a country. I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
    - anakaine 5y ago
      I'm reasonably certain the "de-facto" wording is used as Taiwan isn't actually recognised formally and fully as an independent country internationally. Thats not to say it shouldn't be, but it acknowledges the current truth.
      - thefringthing 5y ago
        They don't even officially acknowledge themselves to be an independent country; they claim all of China as their territory, not just Taiwan.
        5y ago
ilyich 5y ago
Wikipedia is full of disinformation on topics regarding politics and history. It is a good source of knowledge about mathematics, astronomy, biology, physics etc, but if you want an unbiased opinion on any political/historical issue you have to avoid Wikipedia. It is packed with disinformation not only about China/Taiwan, but about any country whose government and/or population is not a faithful believer in the dogma that the western orwellian police states are democracies and the USA is the most democratic democracy that ever existed in the galaxy.
- Cosmin_C 5y ago
  Yes, I am sure that the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre article [1] is full of misinformation according to China, seeing that they actively pursue people who speak up about it where they have jurisdiction and those people are "disappeared" or worse. I'm not saying that there is no bias in the wikipedia articles, it's bound to exist seeing it's being written on by humans and bias is inherent to humans. However, the bias on peer-reviewed articles is much diminished compared to a unique party bias regarding issues they want swept under the rug. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...

andyxor 5y ago

not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.

michaelsbradley 5y ago
downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.
- andyxor 5y ago
  well pick any American politician right of center and check their wikipedia page.
  - michaelsbradley 5y ago
    please give an example with quote/s, link/s, and your summary analysis.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - krageon 5y ago
    Every US politician that anyone would actually know is extreme right, so this is a very big group. Not a very useful classification, you may as well have said "any US politician". Then we get to the point where it is unclear what your actual problem is with their wikipedia pages. The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
    - andyxor 5y ago
      I mean, most of Republicans on wikipedia are vilified as "far-right conspiracy theorists" and all shades of evil, with links to fake news as source of information (Washington Post for example) one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
      - Omnitaus 5y ago
        Wikipedia absolutely has a conservative bent, I wouldn't call the editing body "liberal" for using a newspaper owned by a union-busting multibillionaire as a source You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. "Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true". It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do? And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole? Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
- x0x0 5y ago
  Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na... Then there's this: > Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki... Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705 And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link. This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
    - x0x0 5y ago
      Using wikipedia. Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis. Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    The first is not an example of misinformation at all. The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
    - x0x0 5y ago
KerrickStaley 5y ago
That's not what's happening here though. China has for years put enormous effort into promoting its worldview on the China/Taiwan issue in every way it can, even though that worldview contradicts the facts on the ground. Taiwan is de-facto an independent country with its own government and military sovereignty, and the majority of citizens of Taiwan are happy with that arrangement. China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
- plantain00 5y ago
  Taiwan's official name is Republic of China(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan), it's not China/Taiwan issue, it's China Civil War. Just like Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea), the two China and the two Korea will unify finally.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  Taiwan (i.e. the ROC) is not a "de-facto" country, it _is_ a country. I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
  - anakaine 5y ago
    I'm reasonably certain the "de-facto" wording is used as Taiwan isn't actually recognised formally and fully as an independent country internationally. Thats not to say it shouldn't be, but it acknowledges the current truth.
    - thefringthing 5y ago
      They don't even officially acknowledge themselves to be an independent country; they claim all of China as their territory, not just Taiwan.
      - 5y ago

ilyich 5y ago

Wikipedia is full of disinformation on topics regarding politics and history. It is a good source of knowledge about mathematics, astronomy, biology, physics etc, but if you want an unbiased opinion on any political/historical issue you have to avoid Wikipedia. It is packed with disinformation not only about China/Taiwan, but about any country whose government and/or population is not a faithful believer in the dogma that the western orwellian police states are democracies and the USA is the most democratic democracy that ever existed in the galaxy.

Cosmin_C 5y ago
Yes, I am sure that the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre article [1] is full of misinformation according to China, seeing that they actively pursue people who speak up about it where they have jurisdiction and those people are "disappeared" or worse. I'm not saying that there is no bias in the wikipedia articles, it's bound to exist seeing it's being written on by humans and bias is inherent to humans. However, the bias on peer-reviewed articles is much diminished compared to a unique party bias regarding issues they want swept under the rug. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...