User:Achoi54321

Wikipedia Prep Assignment
This is Annie Choi's Wikipedia Prep Assignment

Critique of "Kuomintang"
It is immediately clear that the article on the political party Kuomintang is vast in its scope. There are over 10 sections that encompass the history, ideology, organization, and other extraneous information about Kuomintang. However, this is what tends to distinguish a Wikipedia article from an actual encyclopedia article. By amassing such a large article about the party, it becomes difficult to discern which parts of the article are the most important for understanding the core qualities of the Kuomintang. Moreover with an article of this scale, it becomes difficult to keep track of the accuracy of the references. Although there are 138 references included in the article, they seem at times to be arbitrary. There are numerous instances in which there seems there should be a footnote to validate a statement; however, these are often absent. Other times, simple statements receive footnotes. For example: "On August 25, 1912, the Kuomintang was established at the Huguang Guild Hall in Beijing, where the Revolutionary Alliance and five smaller pro-revolution parties merged to contest the first national elections." receives a footnote, but the sentence following suggests a qualifier that would do well have a reference ("The most influential member of the party was the third ranking Song Jiaoren...") Of course it does not hurt to provide ample evidence for a proposition, but this level of commitment to accuracy should be more consistent throughout the article. Such are the downfalls of a community edited encyclopedia.

Critique of "Communist Party of China"
The article about the Communist Part of China is not nearly as long as the Kuomintang article. The five sections in the are the Organization, History, Political ideology and stances, Current leadership, and Funding. However, these sections are not fully fleshed out. Under Political ideology, the two subsections deal mainly with corruption and comparisons to competing ideologies; they avoid providing an actual overview of the party's main beliefs which would be helpful in understanding the group. There are other glaring omissions. There is no discussion of the history of human rights abuse conducted under the CCP; however, this just leads to the examination of "human rights" which our class is now in the midst of. Still, there have objectively been extreme events directed by the party that are not included. Could there possibly be slight censorship? Moreover, there is no talk of the People's Liberation Army. As this military corresponds and acts directly under the CCP, it seems that there should be a mention. Decisions over the inclusion and exclusion of certain actions and characteristics of the CCP do imply a bias over the article that contends with the "neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia. Yet as with most articles about controversial topics like politics, this is often unavoidable.

Critique of "New Culture Movement"
The article on the New Culture Movement covers its basic principles, history, development, and breakup. It is not a very thorough article, but it gives it a quick overview of the topic which is an encyclopedia's basic offering. Nevertheless, the downfall of such a superficial overview is that flippant categorizations can provide misleading ideas. For instance, the article mentions that the followers of the New Culture Movement advocated science and democracy as a substitute for traditional Chinese values. However, the writers of this article failed to mention that it was a particular interpretation of the Western scientific method that propelled these intellectuals. In order to fully understand the New Culture Movement, particular nuances must be noted. The article seems to be balanced, but there is no sense of the controversy due to the fact that it was known as a bourgeois movement; it is not immediately evident that bourgeois involvement could be seen as either positive or negative affiliation.

The Pros and Cons of Wikipedia
When writing in Wikipedia, there are many opportunities and challenges that arise when the topic is as complex as modern Chinese philosophy. An obvious advantage of Wikipedia is that it is on the internet; it is free and available information to whoever wants to access it. The communal aspect of this information also comes from the shared editing/authorship of the articles. However, it is this particular aspect that causes Wikipedia to suffer as well. Because anyone is allowed to write these articles, there is no knowledge of whether these ghostwriters have a full understanding of the subject or even (to a lesser extent) of footnotes. The main issue that becomes apparent in Wikipedia, especially in a topic like philosophy, is that an encyclopedia article, by its very definition, cannot provide a comprehensive view of its subject. The fast and dirty facts given are usually only a hasty sketch of the topic. There is a reason why there is a full semester course (including a professor and textbook readings) on Modern Chinese Philosophy, not just a list of articles to read. Encyclopedia articles basically tell the reader what happened, but do not go further in asking why, and it is the "why" that leads to comprehension. Without investigating the ideologies that lead to a certain event or conclusion, one does not receive the full picture.