China Takes on Wikipedia with Its Own Online Encyclopedia

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, May 2, 2017.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    On a scale of 1 to 10, how biased and censored do you think China’s version of Wikipedia will be? This will actually be an online version of the country’s official encyclopedia, cleverly named “Chinese Encyclopedia,” and unlike everyone’s favorite stateside online compendium, China’s version will be curated by 20,000 authors from universities and research institutes contributing to articles in more than 100 disciplines. Scholars boast that having a team of high-quality authors is superior to the freedom of allowing anyone to edit.

    “The Chinese Encyclopedia is not a book, but a Great Wall of culture,” Yang Muzhi, the editor-in-chief of the project and the chairman of the Book and Periodicals Distribution Association of China, told senior scientists at a meeting at the headquarters of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing on April 12, according to a report on the academy’s website the next day. Access to Wikipedia is partially banned on the Chinese mainland. Most entries on science and technology can be read, but a search for sensitive keywords such as “Dalai Lama” and “Xi Jinping” will result in the connection to the server being lost. Yang told the meeting China was under international pressure and felt an urgent need to produce its own encyclopedia to “guide and lead the public and society.”
     
  2. Bandalo

    Bandalo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2010
    They better have blackjack and hookers.
     
    Madoc likes this.
  3. Chuklr

    Chuklr Gawd

    Messages:
    723
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Just a guess, but I would say that the chances of bias and censorship is 100%. This competes with the newly created arena of "alternative facts". :D
     
    DuronBurgerMan likes this.
  4. captainyarr

    captainyarr [H]Lite

    Messages:
    72
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Wikipedia is already biased & run by SJW propagandists. So this couldn't be much worse.
     
  5. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,230
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    this.

    so if china's isn't then it's already light years ahead.
     
  6. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    927
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    I'm sure China's version of Wikipedia will have notable bias. But the original Wikipedia already does have massive bias, and the moderation of it is a partisan clique, so China's version won't be any different in that regard, and will likely be more suitable for Chinese and Eastern audiences. Wikipedia itself is a propaganda outlet that uses tag-teaming groups to collectively remove representation of all sorts of information, and has admins on speed-dial to ban people who try to add certain information to many political subjects. It's a farce website as an encyclopedia and a source for truth in important subjects, though it is good for looking up general information quickly on non-sensitive topics.

    There is actually a large chance that China's version of Wikipedia will be less biased than the original Wikipedia.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
    Master_shake_ likes this.
  7. shansoft

    shansoft [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,071
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    uh what?
     
  8. lilbabycat

    lilbabycat 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,810
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    I'm sure it could be worse on certain topics, and better on others.

    Look up a highly political topic, or even just a person/place/event that has been in the news in the past few years. You'll likely find a very revisionist and slanted viewpoint of the subject. Then dig a little deeper into the edit history and discussion sections of the topic (which a normal user never sees) and you'll find an entire web of power hungry wiki contributors that oust people that aren't like minded; not to mention grammar/writing-style/paragraph-length nazis. Which of course pushes out more casual contributors who may extremely knowledgeable of the given topic. Then you have many extremely niche subjects where it is just a corporate/government/tourism mouthpiece painting the picture as gleefully as possible for themselves.
     
    Zuul and Methos like this.
  9. otherweeb

    otherweeb Gawd

    Messages:
    860
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Social Justice Warriors
     
    Zuul likes this.
  10. Snowdensjacket

    Snowdensjacket Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    316
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    That's why we use infogalactic now
     
  11. blackacidevil

    blackacidevil Gawd

    Messages:
    654
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    It'll be interesting to see how what we won't find on it.

    "Chinese Annex of Tibet" - topic not found.
    "Dalai Lama" - topic not found.
    "Democracy" - topic not found.
    and so on and so on....
     
  12. Simplyfun

    Simplyfun Gawd

    Messages:
    1,012
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    This will be about as truthful as a Presidential news release. (not picking on T, I mean any President or politician in general)
     
  13. Tweak42

    Tweak42 Gawd

    Messages:
    603
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Pros: funded by Chinese government, emphasis on attracting scholars for writing articles

    Cons: overseen by the Chinese government,
     
  14. Krab

    Krab Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    231
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Does someone have a specific example of bias on wikipedia? I'm interested.
     
  15. lilbabycat

    lilbabycat 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,810
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    This is the most infamous one, where a lot of these people ended up exposing themselves. After "pro" GG people started digging, they discovered many other similar circumstances that didn't get nearly as much press. Their editing of this particular article was just so heavy handed it became laughable:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy


    They fail to even mention the mass coordination of "gamers are dead" articles that all hit within 48hours of each other, or really anything remotely against the media and their slander campaign; just admission that their collusion mailing list existed, while spending a paragraph passing it off as nothing.

    Someone who isn't familiar with the details of the series of events would have an extremely skewed opinion of what happened. When I read other articles I'm not familiar with now wonder how much of the story I'm actually getting.

    The edit history of the page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamergate_controversy&dir=prev&limit=250&action=history



    You get to see the back and forth between editors, Over a 1,000 edits back and forth in a one week span, just posting a tiny bit of it, its the most passive aggressive set of text messages ever:

    >There's nothing in the source about "left-wing ideology." Include Kotaku's refutation of this claim.)

    >(of course there is, also you deleted whole other amount of information that was unrelated to the part you claimed isn't in the article, and which made more NPOV article, Anyway I added quote from the The Guardian you want.)

    >Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person. Doesn't matter that Al Jazeera put his tweet in a list.)

    >(Um, no, First of all, we cannot describe someone as a "social justice warrior" - that is a pejorative, non-self-applied term. Second of all, the accusations have been laid by many others than just feminists.)

    >(add more from the Guardian to present both sides of the story. Currently most of it here are allegations of harassment)

    >(Reverted 1 edit by NorthBySouthBaranof: Cite a source for that, and add a sentence saying it is. I can't find any sources that do such. You're cutting out the other half and this is not appreciated. (TW))

    >(Reverted 1 edit by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk): Doesn't matter, that's what the source calls it. We go by what the sources state. (TW))

    >>(Well, no. We don't use POV terms unchallenged. Find a way to write it so it's not in Wikipedia's voice.)

    >(Changed protection level of GamerGate: Edit warring / content dispute: Edit warring with possible WP:BLP implications. ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrator)



    For reference, from another site which has the list of "gamers are dead" articles that are never mentioned in the wikipedia article:

    http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead (16 articles)

    Here's an article where wikipedia / media then tried to make it out like the pro-GG people were trying to take over wikipedia:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/techn..._a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.html

    with this interesting snippet:

     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
    Maxx likes this.
  16. oROEchimaru

    oROEchimaru [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,658
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    I got kicked out of the Chinese Student Association at UW-Milwaukee where I mentored doctorate/master students in english (while getting teaching degree in social studies) for our debate on "did China invade Tibet" which my capstone paper was on Tibet. Needless to say, I don't trust that this will be credible/accurate except in the eyes of glorifying communism where needed or bending facts to manipulate history to control people... then there will be 90% credible info (science etc) but there will be tons of re-writing of facts/history.
     
  17. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,420
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    How much propaganda happens in this country. It's all propaganda then add in a publicly editable service managed by volunteers. All those edits and those volunteers are functioning altruistically? The question is how bad is it.