Talk:Chinese Wikipedia

Cantonese / Other Dialects

This article should probably mention the existence of separate Wikipedias for other Chinese dialects, which are also written in Chinese characters, ex. Cantonese. [1] How large are the written differences? AlexLibman 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional and Simplified Chinese

Can someone add some information to this article about how the Chinese Wikipedia handles Simplified/Traditional characters? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:25, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lots of thanks to User:Captmjc for adding information about this! —Lowellian (talk) 16:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

wikicn

I read recently on the mailing list about an impersonating site wikicn.com. Relevant? -- user:zanimum

Norwegian

How come the Norwegian Wikipedias can't do what the Chinese Wikipedia does with its different characters. Would it be too hard to convert the two spellings? BirdValiant 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because Nynorsk and Bokmål differ in spelling, vocabulary, and grammar, while Traditional and Simplified Chinese can be converted using mostly a one-to-one character correspondence with a small set of many-to-many correspondences and a small set of differences in specialized vocabulary. -- ran (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems that I had with the chinese site

more at: Wikipedia:Village pump

Chinese-language Wikipedia presents different view of history "But on sensitive questions of China's modern history or on hot-button issues, the Chinese version diverges so dramatically from its English counterpart that it sometimes reads as if it were approved by the censors themselves."

There are many users who felt exactly the same way. And most of the time, their comments, votes got deleted. For example, I wrote some comments, the moderators not only deleted them, they also made them disappeared as if nothing was ever deleted!

1. I wrote a subtitle "house arrest until death" for Zhao ziyang in the chinese version, it was immediately deleted. however, the same thing that I wrote in the English page is still kept even today.

2. I added the Chinese Tibetan history after 1949. It was also immediatly deleted, and I was banned. And the links that I added which are from the current exile dalai lama, those links were also deleted. Isn't that ridiculous, how can they add my contribution without listing the references?! And strangely enough, somehow what I wrote now appeared all those Tibetan articles on the Chinese page so the moderators can say that they are not pro communists, even though the author - me is still banned because of what i wrote!

3. I added human rights and falun gong in the "people's republic of china" article, it was also immediately deleted, then it was put under protection. it has been over a month now. Even today, there is not single word about human rights or falun gong in that article.

4. the article about "two Chinas" which has been deleted twice in the month of November. Then one of the moderator claimed that it has never been deleted.

5. The chinese-russian border treaty, the entire article was also deleted not so long ago. now one of the moderator "ran" claimed that it was deleted due to "copyright" violation which is a total lie. it has several early versions, which has nothing to do with any sort of copyright violation at all. After my complain which was deleted, somehow now the same article reappeared with the same content.

6. the tiananmen square protest article, I added similar contents in both the Chinese and English version. The chinese moderator Louer immediatly deleted my contribution, and put that article under protection. AT the same time, whatever I wrote on the same subject in the English article did not got deleted at all.

I have tried to added my comments about those things on the Chiense version of village pump, however, they deleted everything that I wrote, and called those as "vandalism." One time, another user who wrote a comment supporting me, it was also immediately deleted by those moderators. So clearly, people can not openly, freely discuss topics they want to. Another user reverted those comments that I wrote, it was also changed back instantly by one of the moderators.

There are 30 moderators from mainland China, 6 of them are from the capital city - beijing. At the same time, the government is still blocking the entire 13 billion Chinese' asscess to this web site. taiwan and hongkong should have more users than the users from mainland China, however, they only have 17 and 13 moderators. It is a well known fact that there are plenty Chinese spies who are living in taiwan right now. I am writing this, so hopefully the wikipedia people can look into this matter seriously.SummerThunder 01:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue is already being discussed here [2]. -- ran (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this part by user Ran

He wrote his personal comment as :"2) There is no such thing called "self-censorship" at Chinese Wikipedia; indeed any intention for such practice at Chinese Wikipedia will be denounced by most Chinese Wikipedians."

1. it is a personal comment which is not allowed on here.
2. it is not true. for one thing, I was a "Chinese wikipedian", I certainly did not agree with their censorship. they have censored many of my articles. and I have publically denounced it many times. they deleted my articles, deleted my comments, deleted my votes, then banned me. So it is NOT the truth at all.
3. I was not alone. many people felt the same way. user Uponsnow has already commented the same thing in the village pump misc area.
4. who gave you the rights to represent "most Chinese Wikipedia" people?

Therefore, it is deleted swiftly. --SummerThunder 05:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh... what? It's not my personal comment. It's a quotation, which is sourced. -- ran (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for the fifth time.... you were banned for spamming the Chinese Wikipedia, making personal attacks, and refusing to engage in civil discussion. Uponsnow was banned for making racist and sexually lurid personal attacks. The Chinese Wikipedia has neutral articles on many topics that are taboo in Mainland China, including Taiwanese independence, Falun Gong, etc., written by contributors from Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and elsewhere. That's why we're banned in Mainland China. And this has already been explained to death in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- ran (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So what's the deal? I see that you continue to push your POV into this article, but are you going to discuss my concerns over your deletion of my edits? -- ran (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

why don't you just say that i am "leaking state secret"? i am listing facts based on truth. --SummerThunder 08:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What? When did I say anything about state secrets? I'm asking you why you deleted the part I added. -- ran (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

exactly, I'm asking you why you deleted all the parts I added on the Chinese site? and how come I am able to add those exact things freely on here, when you and the rest of the Chinese moderators deleted all on the Chinese site?--SummerThunder 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct on the Chinese Wikipedia has already been discussed to death in WP:VPM. If you wish to continue to discuss your conduct on the Chinese Wikipedia or the block placed on you on the Chinese Wikipedia, please do so in more relevant places. This is the talk page for this article. I'm asking you about your edits on this article, more specifically your removal of my edits. -- ran (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay... it's been several hours now, and I see that you're still reverting. Please tell me why you're removing my NPOVization of the Self-Censorship section? -- ran (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SummerThunder, for the third time, please tell me why you're removing my NPOVization of the Self-Censorship section and replacing it with your own original research? -- ran (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

server location(s)?

It would be interesting for the article to list the server locations. It mentions they're outside of the PRC but that's about all I see. — coelacan talk — 20:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia shares server resources with other projects. see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers for more details.--Skyfiler 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators

Someone needs to verify and improve the 10 year olds grammar (not meant to be offensive there, 10 year old Chinese kid, I'm over 20 and I still can't speak french and my english is rough at best). That would be someone with enough optimism to maintain an account obviously because of the protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban removed? (May 2008)

I'm not sure how the internet ban is monitored by Wikipedia, but I am currently residing in China and I have access to this site, so doesn't that mean that at least part of the ban has rescinded? I don't know when the change occurred, but all through Spring of this year I haven't been able to get access to even the English site. Now I have complete access. Anyone else have a similar experience?

I just had another thought that might contribute to this. I have also recently installed a program on my computer called Peer Guardian 2, which will block access from different IP sources, including government censors. Regardless, I still think I've accessed Wikipedia recently on other computers as well. More on this when I look into it. Tweil (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"On June 15, 2007 China lifted block for several articles. Only to block a increasing number of articles." is not NPOV --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

available language

zh.wikipedia is only availible in Mandarin chinese, someone pleaes correct the template, Chinese languages is about the language family, not mandarin.Forkuna Bibhead (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Which system is better to use?

I was just wondering,which system is better to be used-simplified or traditional? Traditional is able to 'represent' the Chinese culture better,but as the PRC is growing and the simplified system is used there,the simplified would be better to used.But I am not sure which system is better to be used for representing wikipedia. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias

It says that terms such as ​我​国​/​我​國​ ("our co​un​t​ry"; referring to the ​Pe​ople's Repu​blic of Ch​ina or​the Re​pub​lic of Ch​ina​, depending on viewpoint) are considered "​sinoc​entrism​", but in English Wikipedia there's Anglo-American bias, which is generally accepted. Why it's never mentioned in the article English Wikipedia? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, even when articles (unfortunately) display such implicit bias at times, they don't refer to the United States or another English-speaking state as "my country"? ("My country," in addition to being biased, is also problematic in that who is "I"?) --Nlu (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The section in this article is actually about a guideline for avoiding bias. That such a bias exists in all Wikipedias is a different subject.

The Controversies section in the English Wikipedia article links to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but the paragraph there about the Anglo-American bias a very short and it is almost completely about one example, so it is ripe for expansion. Bever (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kanas Junior

Trener drugiej klasy tenisa stołowego, charakteryzuje go perfekcjonizm i zamiłowanie do tego sportu. Struga deski z szafy. Nienawidzi sęków! Jest siwy i wszyscy się z niego śmieją. Ma 52 lat i nic jeszcze nie zaruchał, posiada natomiast za to 28 desek, które trzyma w gablocie. Na równi z sękami i żywicą nie cierpi M.W ,który mu ubliża. Mama robi mu kanapki do pracy. Pije picie z butelki po płynie do mycia szyb. Nosi mokasyny, dres i muchy. Mieszka z rodzicami, którzy przyjeżdzają po niego z pracy. Zna wszystkie informacje na temat sprzętu do tenisa stołowego(przy grubościach blatu myli się jeszcze niekiedy o 0,001mm), no ale cóż jest jeszcze juniorem. Trzyma sztamę z trenerem sekcji brydża "Ambrożym Kleksem Aka Jordan". Nosi przy sobie zestaw do mini golfa i mate "master pong". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.118.83 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Language?

Which Chinese language is the Chinese Wikipedia actually written in? I assume Standard Mandarin, but the article doesn't actually say that, it just says "Chinese" which is ambiguous. Should this be fixed? CodeCat (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's written in Written Chinese, in the Vernacular Chinese style. Spoken Chinese and written Chinese are quite different, and you don't really write in a "spoken" Chinese language unless you're using a romanized script. Vernacular Chinese shares the grammar structure of Standard Mandarin and other dialects, however it isn't exclusively used to write Standard Mandarin, and some might argue that written Vernacular Chinese may have some slight variations in vocabulary to Standard Mandarin that's actually spoken, because it's used to accommodate other Chinese varieties as well. The Chinese Wikipedia is written in Vernacular Chinese, as opposed to Classical Chinese used by the Classical Chinese Wikipedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And in case it wasn't well known, speakers of Cantonese and other varieties are generally diglossic, writing in Vernacular Chinese (even though its vocabulary and grammar are different) and speaking in Cantonese, because Vernacular Chinese is the accepted written standard, regardless of dialect spoken. Written vernaculars of regional dialects are typically "unofficial" or "improper", hence the written variety used by the Chinese Wikipedia is simply termed "Chinese", because it's considered the official Chinese writing style. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Still, the name "Chinese" is ambiguous, because it could refer to, say, Cantonese. If something is marked as being in "Chinese language" that just begs the question "which Chinese" because there are many. I understand that Standard Mandarin is a lingua franca in China, but the name is ambiguous no matter how you put it, because from a linguistic point of view they are all Chinese. So if this is really a Mandarin language Wikipedia (which the text seems to imply) then the article should use that and not "Chinese". CodeCat (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But using "Mandarin" to describe a written language is a misnomer, as written Chinese can represent more than just Standard Mandarin and regional Mandarin dialects. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But is it written the same way in all cases? This article itself says it's not, and mentions that automated translation was considered not feasible. That tells me that written Chinese does represent a particular language. Of course, individual words are often written the same (if they are cognates) in all languages. But different languages may use words with different etymologies (and therefore different characters that represent them), and some languages use characters unknown in standard written Mandarin because they represent words that are not used in Mandarin. And of course that doesn't even consider the differences in syntax, compounding and such. I don't think it's really my place to explain the dialectal differences, nor is this the place to do it, our Chinese language article already does a very good job at this. CodeCat (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Shame on Chinese Wikipedia self-censorship

Dear all citizens from the world of freedom,

I am here to told you a horrible story about Chinese wikipedia registered users removing "unwanted" contents systematically such as "the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" and "Tank Man" from the related articles, for example "Type 59 tank". In these articles they remove everything about Tiananmen or tank man, including links, pictures, or even just text, they won't let any wordings (such as "1989" or 64 which represnts "June 4") survive in these articles. Any content about June 4 had been removed recent years, and it seems no one would dare to change the condition.

In some cases, they even request for deleting the whole articles. For example, in the talk page of "Tank man" Chinese version, you can even see how they attempted to delete the whole article.

Here are just some of the notable examples. Recently they even tried to remove an article about Masanjia Labor Camp by laying "there is no report by western media." Then a guy added some links such as Huffington Post, Daily Mail and CNN. A user from China then questioned if The Huffington Post and Daily Mail of British "reliable sources of news". That Chinese user kept on saying "you should not write such article just after reading those bias reports" and "those are not reliable sources of News". That guy keep on blaming and another user from China also joined.

They also talk of removing wiki links about june four protest. They consider those adding or talking about june 4 as bad guys "damaging" the Chinese wikipedia.

Sorry for the inconvenient I caused, as all links I post are all Chinese only. I just hope to raised the attentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.51.245 (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone it is me again, I have just founded that once again the Chinese users try to delete everything they don't like. This time is article about "Lens Magazine", a new article. The magazine exposed the Masanjia Labor Camp to the public. A registered user from China try to delete it by questioning the notability of the magazine, and if the magazine actually exist. I wonder why so many guys from China suddenly appear on Chinese wikipedia recently, they are as active as Taiwan members now.

What a joke!The one who he complain "tried to remove an article about Masanjia Labor Camp" and create "zh:Lens視覺" is ONE person,ME!Any one who don't know Chinese and want to ask why,welcome to here to set up a discussion.--BlackLotux (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits would probably be deleted too if you make similar edits here. WP:SUMMARY is a guideline here. Stay on topic and only include content that reliable sources think (not just you think) is important enough to mention in the context of a detailed introduction of the subject.--Skyfiler (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How Chinese wiki users remove unwanted contents from an article

For example, "Type 59 tank @ Chinese wiki".

Since 2007, they started by removing the iconic tank man picture, not just once, but again and again and again. They then removed descriptions about Tiananmen and the protest students, also again and again, repeated several times. At 2011, they finally made others giving up to edit, since then no more Tiananmen wordings can be found in the article.

Shame on some Chinese wiki users from China, their behaviour is totally unacceptable, and shame to those who turned a blind eye. I also shocked by the fact that there are some users, either from Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and very few living in USA, they get involved too.

Shame to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.202.157 (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a list of noticable Chinese wiki users who involved in deleteting articles about political issues as well as religions in China. Some users involved in deleting articles with or without reasons.

• 范 from PRC has recently deleted an article about Christian activities in Taiyuan, and refused to undo. He also monitor lots of "controversial" issues, and remove "unwanted" contents intermediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.187.73 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Cwek also from China, he have been adding template of notability madly to articles disliked by him, with or without reasons. He targets at articles about organisations for professionals, such as Orchestra and bar association.112.118.26.141 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May I remind users that Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. If you have concerns regarding censorship on the Chinese Wikipedia, you can try to take it to a Wikipedia noticeboard to gain the attention of other users. Posting things here is useless, as nobody reads this talk page. Very few people have this article on their watchlist. However, since English Wikipedia admins have no jurisdiction over the Chinese Wikipedia (each language Wikipedia project has different policies and guidelines, and an admin here has essentially zero power on the Chinese Wikipedia, probably with the exception of Jimbo Wales), you'd probably be better off taking this to meta.wikimedia.org instead of the English Wikipedia. Complaining about it here on this page is useless, and "naming and shaming" other users is looked down upon outside of places such as WP:ANI (it's bad-faith behaviour). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The tank pic was removed from that article because it violated WP:NFC#UUI.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm cwek as a new page patroler.I have a duty to mark template of notability on some new articles which i don't think it have enough notability.It 's a duty of the page creator to show that it has notability to build a article to record it.Of course,you can remove it if you don't think some.And We have a user called zh:user:Nivekin to do final check of notability and I believe he can make a justifiable request to keep or request to delete the article.AT LAST,Please the IP user dress your waistcoat,let's talk about what happened about me,but maybe you're it,I think.——Cwek (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

PS.if you aren't he,I make a deepest apologies to you.——Cwek (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

有的人啊，就是想弄个大新闻，把我们中文维基批判一番，毕竟还是too young too simple。但是呢，你问我们资瓷不资瓷黑雪姬，这个也不好讲。闷声发大财才是坠好的。SzMithrandir (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

暴力膜不可取→_→ --Dqwyy (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Taipei Times article

Today, Taipei Times released this editorial:

• 2013-10-30, Grace Tsoi, Wikipedia China: frontline for regional tolerance, Taipei Times

It discusses a few recent issues regarding the Chinese Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI, the article in the Taipei Times version reveals Tango Chan of Wikimedia Hong Kong has the Chinese name 陳子恩 - Mandarin: Chén Zǐēn... and assuming he/she is of Cantonese origins: Can4 zi2 jan1. If Tango Chan is mentioned in an article, the Chinese name(s) should be given with the English. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Automatic conversion between traditional and simplified Chinese characters

There are problems with this method. Some simplified characters equals different traditional characters and vice versa because characters (de)merged. And some new characters like the ones for chemical elements stay unconverted since either the traditional or the simplified one isn't supported yet. --2.245.175.139 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For the first problem, users on zhwiki address it by putting in the disambiguated character within special markup. This however requires proofreading users to actively look for instances where the automatic conversion causes a problem, and then manually fix it. For example, I would theoretically write 这是李博-{杰}-，然-{後}-这是张三 if I wanted the automatic converter to turn it into "這是李博杰，然後這是張三" instead of "這是李博傑，然后這是張三". Note that this example is merely demonstrating how the markup is used, and in a real-world practical situation, I don't think an automatic converter would turn "然后这是" into "然后這是". The second problem is a different issue though, and I'm not sure how it's addressed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

editing to and reading from the PRC overtook reading and editing from Taiwan

en:Chinese_Wikipedia#Origin_of_edits Ceased to block the Chinese wikipedia mean? What about copy articles from en:Baidu Baike and en:Baike.com?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

New China Wikipedia .... KNOCK-OFF?

China is making a knock-off of Wikipedia!It is going to take away certain thing that may hurt the communist government. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/20000-chinese-writers-will-create-their-own-wikipedia-competitor/ https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/02/china-makes-its-own-wikipedia/65.255.88.233 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Slogan

Can anybody perhaps add some more info about the slogan - 海納百川，有容乃大?

If I try to translate it in Google Translate, a very different translation comes up: "Be tolerant to diversity, tolerance is a virtue". I guess that Google Translate somehow stores a very idiomatic interpretation of this couplet. It would be great to know more about this:

• How and when did it become the slogan of the Chinese Wikipedia? Who proposed it?
• Why was this particular saying chosen?
• How does it reflect the culture of the Chinese Wikipedia community?

If anybody thinks that it's hard to answer the above questions in a referenced, verifiable encyclopedic manner in the article, I'd at least like an unofficial answer on the talk page :)

Also, it would be nice to have consistency in terminology. The infobox calls it a "slogan", and the article text calls it a "subtitle". I'd use identical terms, to make it easier to find and to interpret.

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia use trad. Chinese as default Chinese language?

@Fiona Fan Wang: I moved your question down to here, see New topics and headings on talk pages. --Pipetricker (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a question, "Why does Wikipedia use traditional Chinese as the default Chinese language?" Traditional Chinese is mainly used only by Hongkongese and Taiwanese, while over 1.6 billion people in the world are using simple Chinese. Who made the policy decision to use traditional Chinese as the default choice? Why don't you use Shakespeare's English instead of standard modern English? 10-21-2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiona Fan Wang (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a traditional Chinese version of wiki. Where is it now? I can't stand simplified Chinese, but worse is Cantonese with traditional characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.218.240 (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Outdated info - proposal to delete

The self-censorship section etc. quotes non-RS and very outdated sources, e.g.

On December 1, 2006, ... 

-> Let us delete them. Comments? Zezen (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Interwiki links

The use of interwiki links on this article is problematic, as the links are still shown in print versions, but cannot be followed. I would like to replace them, but I don't know how it should be done. Is there any template for this? Geolodus (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"維基大典" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 維基大典. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia in PRC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia in PRC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 11#Wikipedia in PRC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2021 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Chinese Wikipedia into Chinese Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge given notable, well-covered event that would unbalance the target if merged. Klbrain (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

This topic meets GNG because it was a news event, but a few months out, I'm not seeing the kind of enduring significance that would justify a separate article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. We can cover the 2021 actions at a reasonable level of summary style detail at the article on Chinese Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The event has received sustained significant coverage in this "long read" article published three months after the 13 September 2021 Wikimedia actions:
  • Pasternack, Alex (2021-12-18). "The war over Chinese Wikipedia is a warning for the open internet. An investigation finds Wikipedia volunteers are battling not only censorship, but threats, arrest, and violence—and exposing growing threats to the movement's free-knowledge mission". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18.

    The article notes:

    According to a September statement by Maggie Dennis, the Foundation’s VP of trust and safety, Techyan and six other high-level users were in fact involved in “an infiltration” of the Chinese Wikipedia. In an interview, Dennis said a monthslong investigation found that the veteran editors were “coordinating to bias the encyclopedia and bias positions of authority” around a pro-Beijing viewpoint, in part by meddling in administrator elections and threatening, doxxing, and even physically assaulting, other volunteers. In all, the Foundation banned seven editors and temporarily demoted a dozen others over the abuses, which Dennis called “unprecedented in scope and nature.”

    ...

    In some cases, the Foundation found, the fights had spread beyond online abuse and harassment into real-life threats, and worse. But because it released few details about the editors’ abuses, citing privacy concerns, the Foundation left many editors to speculate. On talk pages, in community chat rooms, and in media coverage, “pro-China infiltration” suggested an organized propaganda campaign, part of Beijing’s ongoing efforts to shape its image online. But such attributions are notoriously hard to make, and despite widespread evidence of China’s efforts to burnish its image online, Dennis says there is no evidence the banned editors were backed by the government.

  A summary style merge would lead to the loss of sourced content that is due weight when covered in 2021 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Chinese Wikipedia but would be undue weight when fully covered in Chinese Wikipedia. There is enough information to justify a standalone article.

  The Chinese Wikipedia version of the article at zh:2021年維基媒體基金會針對中文維基百科的行動 has more sources and content that can be used to expand 2021 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Chinese Wikipedia.

  Cunard (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - @Cunard has raised some valid points and the article being merged mean the events mentioned on the current page are going to be heavily summarized. DownTownRich (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merge – Widely reported event. I think that it may be tooo early to pronounce that the topic isn't notable. The significance of the event is that he Chinese government has started to deploy trolls to target and change the narrative in its favour, like it has been doing elsewhere in the world, and the problem is likely to get worse in time. The event has a global significant, and the WMF action has received world-wide attention, so I think we must not be myopic to merge and watch the marginalisation of the story take place. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose merge – Seconding to everything mentioned above. FourPaws (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And also can User Amigao explain to me why Ta Kung Pao is a UR? Not even the Chinese wiki banned it

Seem like User Amigao have a problem with things that is from chinese arent you? You know, it's kind of suspicious when you basically use the excuse of "non-WP:RS" to eliminate the opinions from different sides. And seeing your talk page, I guess this is also not your first time --Someone97816 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ta Kung Pao is part of the official state media apparatus. Appropriate usage of it depends what you want to cite. Being a mouthpiece of the Communist Party, it's only really suitable or reliable if the viewpoint of the Communist party, the PRC government of other pro-government figures is sought. Consensus is that tt cannot be relied upon for much else. -- 8964 ^{revolution of our times} 12:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)