User:不爱思考得猪/Signpost

=Perspectives of a long-time Wikipedia user and editor=

Hi, my zhwiki username is 不爱思考得猪 (a pig that does not like to think) and I have been a long-time Wikipedia user and later, editor. I first discovered Wikipedia back in 2003 and have never gone without it since. I still remember all the nights I spent clicking on link after link in the enwiki and wound up with 30 Internet Explorer windows (that was back when browsers had no tabs), reading enwiki for an entire night without getting any sleep. I can now no longer imagine a world in which we did not have free access to the total sum of human knowledge at our fingertips. I started my zhwiki account back in 2008 in order to create and edit zhwiki articles. I mainly function as a translator from enwiki to zhwiki, given the cornucopia of articles on enwiki and the dearth of articles on zhwiki, and my native proficiency in both languages.

In this Signpost opinion piece I would like to share my perspectives on the actions WMF had taken against zhwiki in 2021. Again, the perspectives that I am about to share here represent only my own opinions. It is my hope that my vantage point, coming from an ordinary long-time user and editor, may add some fresh perspectives to the ongoing debate, and that my very long, ongoing tenure on zhwiki, especially the changes to zhwiki that I’ve witnessed recently, may lend some further credence to the necessity and urgency of WMF’s recent actions taken against certain individuals on zhwiki. Finally, as I am also a Wikimedian from China myself, most of what I write here will also act as a critique against some of my fellow Wikimedians from China.

My first perspective, and one that, in my opinion, is the most germane to the events that have transpired recently, would be that of common etiquette. No, I am not just talking about common Wikipedia editing etiquettes, but rather fundamental etiquettes of holding a civil discussion in a modern liberal free-speech society. Respect for these fundamental etiquettes seems to be missing as of late from zhwiki, and I have felt this most acutely upon my coming back to zhwiki from my long 7-year Wiki sabbatical. In the short duration of one month (July 2021), I have been reported to 3RR (zhwiki’s Edit_warring board) twice, ANM (zhwiki’s Incidents board) 4 times, and AIAV (zhwiki’s Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism) 4 times. (I have never been reported once in my life on zhwiki prior to July 2021). Editing zhwiki has felt nowhere near this difficult before my sabbatical. It was like struggling against a pit of molasses, making me too bogged down to complete any useful edits, discussions, or discourses at all. If so much happened to a single person over the course of a single month, I can only imagine the collective grievances felt by the wider zhwiki community at having to constantly expend needless energy, time and effort to deal with these people and their behaviours, day in and day out, over the course of these past two to three years. It’s like for every step taken forward, three steps are taken backwards. Why has zhwiki deteriorated to its current state? In my opinion it is because of the big influx of Wikimedians from China, some of whom having never been taught basic etiquettes of communicating in a civil and polite manner, which is fundamental to the proper functioning and conduction of free speech. As free speech does not exist in China, for some Wikimedians from China, free speech is an entirely unfamiliar, alien, and foreign concept and environment. And as China is not a diverse society, some Wikimedians from China have no tolerance for views and opinions that are fundamentally at odds with their own. In my opinion, this is at the very root of the problems plaguing zhwiki right now: some Wikimedians from China, having no idea how to conduct proper civil discussions in a free-speech environment (having come from a free-speech-barren country where these etiquettes were never taught or educated to them in the first place), employing and weaponizing things such as edit wars and the various reporting boards (and, in more extreme cases, threatening to report some Hong Kong Wikimedians to the National Security apparatus in Hong Kong, which directly precipitated in some of the actions taken by the WMF against zhwiki recently) in order to intimidate the zhwiki community at large into cowering and catering to the pro-Beijing narratives they are advancing. When viewed in this light, the steps taken by WMF are but merely the first important, urgent, and necessary steps toward trying to restore a healthy ecosystem to zhwiki.

My second perspective would be that of some Wikimedians from China’s misunderstanding of the terms “democracy” and “freedom of speech”. This is not surprising considering that the true meanings of these terms are taboo in China and China’s government has always deliberately distorted these terms into: “freedom of speech” = “you can say whatever the hell you want” and “democracy” = “a person who is elected with many votes represents the will of the people (or heaven’s mandate), and hence cannot be impeached, even though the votes maybe rigged and the person an asshole”, in order to set up strawman attacks on Western democracies as being “essentially anarchic” (when it comes to free speech) or “run by the shadow hands of big capitalists” (when it comes to ousting unsuitable leaders voted in on rigged votes), and in order to tout China’s system as being the best. More importantly, what some Wikimedians from China have never learned, a concept that maybe entirely foreign to them, is that there are circumstances under which the notions of “democracy” and “freedom of speech” just do not apply. Especially germane to this discussion would be the notion that democracy and freedom of speech only apply to public spaces that are under the jurisdiction of a state’s government. That they do not apply to private spaces. A very simple example would be: if you are employed by the Acme company, and you say “Acme is shit”, then you are fired through and through, and that has gotten nothing to do with freedom of speech. Same can be said of Twitter and Facebook banning Trump, YouTube censoring inappropriate videos, and WMF taking actions to globally ban some people on zhwiki as WMF sees fit. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia are all private spaces that are owned by Twitter, Facebook, Google, and WMF respectively, and so the concepts of “democracy” and “freedom of speech” just do not apply under these circumstances.

My third perspective would be that of the well-known psychological phenomenon of “Stockholm Syndrome”. This is most exemplified by WMCUG’s first open letter to the WMF, and I quote here:

"In addition, if Wikipedia in mainland China is really as dangerous as what Maggie suggested in her statement, then I suppose that isn’t it is going to push mainland Chinese Wikimedians into a more dangerous situation (original Chinese wording reads “firepit”) if the Foundation publicly “condemns” the Chinese government and potentially angers them?"

"I don’t know whether Maggie was suggesting that the reason for “it is dangerous to contribute in China” was the Chinese government’s blockade on Wikipedia, or because of the existence of the WMC being a “gang” that scares people off. For the former, I hope that the Foundation will immediately withdraw the statement that “condemns” the Chinese government"

WMCUG points out that WMF is “abandoning China”, even if this accusation was true, when faced with a regime that actively blocks all Wikimedia projects, what is the WMF supposed to do? Appease to China’s government and self-censor all relevant articles in the hope that China might unblock Wikimedia projects, when in fact the rationales for China’s blocking of Wikimedia projects (along with many other websites) are totally opaque, arbitrary, and unpredictable to begin with? The last time we tried such an appeasement approach was on the eve of the Second World War, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler ceding the entire Sudeten territory of Czekoslovakia to Nazi Germany, and we all know how that approach went down the annals of history. Instead of criticizing China’s government for its unacceptable behaviours in blocking all Wikimedia projects, WMCUG instead lays their blames squarely on the WMF, who in this case is also a victim of China’s Great Firewall. Such behaviours from the WMCUG constitute archetypal “Stockholm Syndrome” behaviours.

My fourth perspective would be that some Wikimedians from China have a lack of basic understanding of the international consensus, reality and norms regarding some proper nouns. A most germane case in point would be the proper noun “Taiwan”. The international consensus regarding Taiwan is that it is its own sovereign state, having its own defined territory, government, citizenry and sovereignty. That Taiwan is a state independent from China (albeit a non-UN state with limited official international recognition and limited official diplomatic ties with other countries). However, some Wikimedians from China have been indoctrinated from a very young age that “Taiwan is a province of China”, and so they bring these views with them when they first visit zhwiki. It is easy, then, to imagine the shock they get when they see the Taiwan and Republic of China articles on zhwiki for the first time — those articles being very, very different from their counterparts on Baidu Baike (Baidu Encyclopedia) and essentially anathema to these Wikimedians from China. It is then easy to imagine fuses being lit in the heads of these Wikimedians, which will lead to them directly engaging in massive edit wars with the entire zhwiki community at large, as they attempt to “correct” and “sanitize” these articles that are so anathema to them. To the rest of the zhwiki community, such behaviours are tantamount to vandalism. At this point we essentially go back to perspective #1.

My fifth perspective concerns Maggie Dennis’ use of the word “infiltration”. I don’t think that the word “infiltration” is being used inappropriately here. And judging by the vehement reactions of some Wikimedians from China against the use of this word, I guess this word must have rubbed squarely on their sore spot, which, given the China context, usually means that we must have at least hit on some semblance of the underlying truth (i.e. having caught some Wikimedians from China with their hands in the cookie jar, their embarrassment leading to their visceral reactions to this word). Let me put it this way: maybe not all 7 people banned are under the orders of China’s government to infiltrate zhwiki and to attempt to spin things in a more positive light for China’s government, but if you were to tell me that all 7 people are innocent and are acting of their own accords, having nothing to do with China’s government, then you would definitely be lying straight through your teeth. China under the leadership of President Xi Jinping has set “cyber-sovereignty” as the overarching prime directive of China’s Internet control strategy, and Wikipedia would be an obvious “first battleground” for China’s government to attempt to take over in order to advance its “cyber-sovereignty” agenda. I know this flies in the face of one of the most fundamental tenets of Wikipedia — “not a battleground” — but then again China’s government has never been quite good at following any rules, laws, regulations, or guidelines, even those of its own. The title of WMCUG’s first open letter to the WMF, “Cast Away Illusions, Prepare For Struggle”, which came from Mao Zedong, who was a mastermind at waging civil wars and creating internal domestic conflicts (the Great Cultural Revolution) that ended up claiming millions upon millions of innocent Chinese lives, is further testament to the idea of China’s government treating Wikipedia as one of its primary “battlegrounds without smoke or gunfire”, upon which to wage its ideological warfares against the wider international community, and the free world at large.

My sixth perspective concerns “China’s government had never harassed any Wikimedians” which is an argument some Wikimedians from China like to repeatedly tout and employ, especially in comparison to what they perceive to be the “drastic actions” taken by the WMF against the 7 people. For this I would like to point out that just because China’s government has never harassed any Wikimedians so far does not necessarily mean that China’s government won’t harass any Wikimedians in the future. For the past twenty years, China’s government had left people such as Vicky Zhao, Bingbing Fan, and Jack Ma alone, and look at the things China’s government had done to these people recently. One can never predict which individuals or organizations a totalitarian government is going to go after next. So the fact that a totalitarian government hasn’t gone after Wikimedians in China is really nothing for some Wikimedians from China to write home about, and actively bragging about it and flaunting it in the WMF’s face is, in my opinion, merely another facet of the manifestation of “Stockholm Syndrome” in these Wikimedians from China.

To end things on a lighter note: My final perspective concerns some Wikimedians from China quitting Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects en masse in the form of a “rage quit” after their latest row with WMF. Now, most people would’ve just tossed their hands in the air and said, “good riddance” to these Wikimedians from China rage quitting. But I’m going to be employing a bit of humor here: having read far and wide on the English Wikipedia, I happen to know of this gem-collection of “cabal approved” humor essays on the English Wikipedia, the most representative of which is the essay “Wikipedia doesn’t need you”. (There is also another, longer, humor essay on the topic of “rage quit” itself.) I have translated this essay onto zhwiki as a parting gift to all the Wikimedians from China rage quitting Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects in the fallout of WMF’s latest actions — Wikipedia and Wikimedia don’t need you, really.