User:Mfeldsteinni

Liberalism in China
Wikipedia’s page on Liberalism in China, while accurate, is limited in scope and largely unbalanced. The page focuses on Liberalism’s history in China, and specifically the eras of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China. This is a mistake. The page fails to detail how Chinese thinkers grappled with the ideas associated with liberalism during the 19th century and the lead up to the Republic of China’s founding. The entry mentions key western philosophers who held influence in China–including Kant, Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill–as well as important Chinese intellectuals and events associated with liberalism like Liang Qichao and the New Culture Movement. While named, individual contributions are generally skimmed over. Furthermore, the page frames liberalism as something brought to and done onto the Chinese, as opposed to an interactive exchange between multiple agents. Wikipedia’s page on Liberalism in China is an okay jumping off point for research, but on its own, it is of limited of use.

On Practice
The Wikipedia entry on Mao Zedong’s famous 1937 work On Practice is accurate, balanced, and appropriately in depth. The page provides context for the creation of the work, noting that Mao wrote On Practice following the Long March, in part to solidify his grasp on power in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It then provides a detailed synopsis of the document itself, illustrating Mao’s philosophical argument regarding the process of learning and the acquisition of knowledge. The page notes and explains key terms and phrases such as dialectical-materialism, logical knowledge, and true knowledge. Additionally, it outlines the examples and arguments Mao uses, like that of a tree bearing fruit, or the ability of the Chinese to defeat their Japanese invaders. The article also provides a brief exposition on Mao’s arguments against other philosophical outlooks including rationalism and empiricism. Wikipedia’s page on Mao’s philosophical piece, On Practice, is highly useful and educational. It provides key contextual details, a cogent synthesis of the text, and accessible explanations of Mao’s thinking and work.

Liang Shuming
Wikipedia’s entry on the Chinese intellectual Liang Shuming is broad in scope, largely accurate, and fairly balanced. However, due to the nuance of Liang’s thought, the writing can be reductive at times. The entry is broken up into five overarching pieces: a biographic section, his book on eastern and western cultures and philosophies, the essence of Chinese culture, his work on rural reconstruction, and his views on religion. Each portion provides an overview of his thought or work in the area of concern and goes into little detail. The entry does not editorialize, presenting synthesized versions of the arguments on the East, West, Chinese culture, and modernization that earned Liang his title as “The Last Confucian. ” However, the Wikipedia synopsis frequently minimize and take away from the complicated and tension-filled arguments Liang was making.

Reflection
Wikipedia is an extraordinarily powerful educational tool that contains significant drawbacks users must remain mindful of at all times. The online encyclopedia provides users with unparalleled access to information on millions of topics. Its editorial process, one in which any individual can contribute, acts as both a democratizer and synthesizer of information. However, this process, as noted earlier, can be reductive. In fact, the information should be somewhat reductive. By definition, encyclopedic entries should be presented in a manner that appears impartial; they should act as the sum of accepted knowledge on a subject. In contrast, a standard philosophy or intellectual history essay is commonly written by someone considered an “expert” or learnt in the field, and can (read: should) take a point of view and make an argument. Wikipedia provides an ideal place to start research on a topic and get a sense of what is considered accepted knowledge, however, its utility beyond acting as a starting point for research is negligible for an academic. Expert opinion cannot be replaced.