Talk:Baidu Baike

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
{| style="width:100%;background:none" ! bgcolor="#abcdef" colspan="2" bgcolor="#abcdef" | Cleanup Co-ordination The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that: For a full list of possible problems see Manual of Style.
 * width=60 bgcolor="#ffdead" |[[Image:Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg|100px]]
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * bgcolor="#ffdead" | This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
 * the article has multiple overlapping problems.
 * the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |
 * colspan="2" bgcolor="white" |

Discussion

 * }

Copyedit tag
I have added a copyedit template to the article, as I have seen several grammatical mistakes (e.g. the erroneous "supporting information are" rather than the correct "pieces of supporting information are" or "supporting information is",) and generally awkward wording (e.g. the awkward "encouraging plagiarism generally" as opposed to the less awkward "generally encouraging plagiarism".) I have addressed the problems above, but there may be more problems to find, so I have added the template.--Imawikipediauser (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is REALLY biased
Baidu Baike is an utter rubbish--definitely, we all understand that. However, if you would take a look at this very Wikipedia article, written by Wikipedians, is also VERY biased, VERY POV and VERY anti-Baidu-ish. This article is relatively short but look at the amount of information (almost half the article content) that is criticizing Baidu. That is, in particular, virtually everything under the following headings: Conception, Content restrictions and Copyright. Wishva de Silva (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Wishva de Silva. I agree, certain degree of bias might exist. What do you suggest? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to delete much, since its the content not the tone that is biased. The information here should be mostly accurate but as a start-class article there are too much 'negative' contents, so to speak, on the article. We should balance this with some, if any, positivity of Baidu Baike. More importantly we should update and expand the article, when sufficient neutral information is added the bias becomes less visible, and the entire thing will become more encyclopedic. Last but not least, I suggest to summarize all the negative information under the common heading 'Criticisms'. Wishva de Silva (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The bad side of the censorship mechanism
While the censorship is initially good, HOWEVER, when there are too much useless peoples in the judges (The team is called "蝌蚪团"), It is VERY LIKELY to keep articles from up to date, while increasing the chance for vandalism that props Baidu, or keep people from fixing any problems made by themselves (Like http://baike.baidu.com/history/Alexa%E6%8E%92%E5%90%8D/106005039, a change made by myself before joining here, which gives currently outdated info, and differs from the current Alexa rank).

It should be mentioned just before the content index.

 NasssaNser  Talk  13:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Difference
What the difference between Baidu Baike to Baike.com websites?

69.230.106.213 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's hosted by two different companies. Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn Discussion! 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The object itself is not encyclopaedic.
Baidu Baike itself isn't properly written, and many of its pages contain extremely subjective opinion, and by searching "most handsome" (in order to show its subjectivity), like this, you can see, it's poorly disambiguated, rarely sourced and heavily misleading. Even neutrality is not frequently mentioned in their tutorial. So, instead of translate from the Chinese Wikipedia, which might be unencyclopaedic as well, maybe it's much better to rewrite one. Also, it's misuse of the main article link when there is nothing in the Critism section. I'll put up a sign so somebody can fix it. Ný(rönn)-Holtredéþch-Deskrúð / Nyholtredehn Discussion! 10:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Mathematics in Baidu
梅森素数公式

3*5/3.8*7/5.8*11/9.8*13/11.8*17/15.8*......*P/(p-1.2)-1=M

P梅森数的指数，M梅森数指数P以下的所有梅森素数的个数.

But I don't know what this mean,and I afraid misunderstand it,who can help me?--

And I don't know what this math symbol meaning 孪生质数无穷多的证明

and Baidu also copyed English page in Math ,for example Basel problemV巴塞尔问题，Apéry's constant阿培里常数 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rii'jeg'fkep'c (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Classical Chinese page,文言頁

Rii&#39;jeg&#39;fkep&#39;c (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Some references that could be used
Tokenzero (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cultural Politics of User-Generated Encyclopaedias: Comparing Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu Baike, thesis, Han-Teng Liao, 2014 (if someone could get the full version; Chapters 1 2 3 7 and references are here)
 * A Comparison of the Historical Entries in Wikipedia and Baidu Baike, Wenyi Shang, 2018
 * Comparative Analysis of Wikipedia and Baidu Baike, Luo Zhicheng et al., 2009
 * What do Chinese-language microblog users do with Baidu Baike and Chinese Wikipedia? A case study of information engagement, Han-Teng Liao, 2014

What does "Relevant Year" mean?
In the "List of notable missing topics", it's ambiguous what does "relevant year" mean. For some of the listed missing topics, it seems clear that the year refers to the time when those incidents took place, but for many others, this does not match up. Some of the listed missing topics are not even events, which means they intrinsically do not have a date. Should we just delete the "relevant year" column? Or, is there a clearer definition of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanblocker (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the section altogether. It was original research. --MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I have applied a major rewrite to the article. It is now sourced, exclusively, to secondary sources. I removed all material that was unreferenced or that contained references to Baidu Baike (WP:PRIMARY), as well as any original research. Sections on censorship and copyright infringement are, hopefully, more clear and respecting due weight. --MarioGom (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)