Help to correct Tibet articles on Wikipedia.
I was looking at some wikipedia articles, the main tibet article is here[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Human_Rights]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Human_Rights[/url]
At first there were no mention that Tibet was a serfdom society with slavery at all. I had to fight really hard to put some information in. Many sections of this article is very biased, specially the human right section, which only shows Tibet side of story. Other people, I suspect Tibetans has tried to remove the information I inserted about slavery and serfdom in Tibet. Some even called my resources "coumminist". The article does not mention China's affirmative action/minority policy at all, it only say how bad Tibetans were treated.
A friend and I also created another article called "Serfdom in Tibet" [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet[/url]
to document some of the serfdom and slavery in old Tibet. I have met with great resistance. People have threatened me to delete the article. But I believe truth needs to be told. On wikipedia, you can create an account easily even without email. But only 1 account per IP address.
Let your voice be heard.
Thanks
[[i] Last edited by foxhunt99 at 23-5-2008 06:25 [/i]] [quote]
The [b]Tibetan exile government[/b] claims that China does not allow independent human rights organisations into Tibet, and foreign delegations invited to Tibet are denied independent access to meet with Tibetans. [81] [82] The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy claims that more than 11,000 monks and nuns have been expelled from Tibet since 1996 for opposing "patriotic re-education" sessions conducted at monasteries and nunneries under the "Strike Hard" campaign.
[/quote]
[quote]The [b]Free Tibet website[/b] claims that unemployment in schools, discussion of Tibetan cultural, religious and social issues is discouraged, and Chinese culture is promoted.[/quote]
The neutrality of that section definitely needs to be checked. All of the points are made on biased sources.
[[i] Last edited by Davo at 23-5-2008 08:08 [/i]] The dark force against you guys relies heavily on a source called Thomas Laird, a journalist promoted to be “Tibetologist".
You can add back reliably sourced materials, for example, quotes from REAL Tibetologists (actual researchers, not the vain journalists) such as Melvyn Goldstein. The people in academia is more impartial and less political.
[quote]Original posted by [i]foxhunt99[/i] at 23-5-2008 06:24 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=15356&ptid=1946][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
I was looking at some wikipedia articles, the main tibet article is here
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Human_Rights]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Human_Rights[/url]
At first there were no mention that Tibet was a serfdom society with slavery ... [/quote] Even in Thomas Laird's book, he mentioned the existence of serfdom, I also used sources from Melvyn Goldsstein, and many others. But they were immediately labeled as communist sympathizer by a few editors on wikipedia. You actually have to fight for the truth there. I hope some of you guys can join as wikipedia editors so more people can hear the truth.
Thanks Personally I gave up trying to edit wikipedia long ago, except to occasionally correct some mistakes everyone can agree on(i.e. bad grammar). There's way too many people using double standards. Truth is, I have had experiences in which there ARE people out there who go so far as to edit wikipedia using sources that is a twist of the truth or pure out lies. To clarify, they would claim a source states Fact A, when in fact the source states either the opposite of Fact A, doesn't mention Fact A, or mentions Fact A but in a completely different connatation. And they still wouldn't stand up to the fact when it's been pointed out. It's as if they think they're the only people who read the source they gave! People become really shameless on the internet since their identity is hidden. For wikipedia, the power of truth belongs to the guy with the strongest opinion+ the most amount of free time. Of course, I used to focus on the history section, but ever since I encountered too many of the incidents as mentioned beforehand I just gave up. I don't even want to go into politics if even the history section became so political.
[[i] Last edited by Anthrophobia at 24-5-2008 05:47 [/i]] I avoid wikipedia for the same reason.
Too many editing wars and every controversial article is hopelessly off the shape. Every time the mainstream bias wins.
In particular, because CCP blocks wikipedia from the mainland China (not Hong Kong and Macaw), mainland Chinese become almost extinct from wikipedia. So by this bad decision, there is no hope to rectify wikipedia because of the dominating mainstream bias.
[quote]Original posted by [i]Anthrophobia[/i] at 23-5-2008 13:05 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=15427&ptid=1946][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Personally I gave up trying to edit wikipedia long ago, except to occasionally correct some mistakes everyone can agree on(i.e. bad grammar). There's way too many people using double standards. Truth ... [/quote]
Reply 6# AgentSmith's post
Why do they block Wikipedia? Why do they block Wikipedia?well because its so biased against china, but many people will trust wikipedia thus put china into a bad side?
they dont block wikipedia now, but they still block some articles which demonise china (to their standard)
most chinese dont speak english, even they want to edit the tibet page, they cant, because they cant comprehend The article Serfdom in Tibet is set to be delete by some Anti-Chinese people, if you want to keep it and know how to edit wikipedia, you can try at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet[/url] All this will become history,and 10 years later or 20 years later or 50 years later or even 100 years later,you will know who is right and who is wrong and who made the mistake. My Prof told my to avoid Wikipedia for sources, since it is not always correct. What do you expect when enthusiasts decide to design a dictionary:L I would find Wikipedia more credible if experts in their knowledgeable fields were only writing in it.
-Samtom
reply #8
"Why do they block Wikipedia?well because its so biased against china, but many people will trust wikipedia thus put china into a bad side?
they dont block wikipedia now, but they still block some articles which demonise china (to their standard)
most chinese dont speak english, even they want to edit the tibet page, they cant, because they cant comprehend"
Just curious, why would the government block sites that demonize China? Shouldn't the individual decide if they want to believe it or not?
Page:
[1]