WP's mission, ethic, and power structures were created in the innocent days of the internet at the start of the century. This article reveals how vulnerable the wiki communities are to the wrecking influence of state actors. Tony(talk)03:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came from the Village Pump of Chinese Wikipedia. After reading this article, I only saw one point: the leader of the Wikipedia User Group Hong Kong headed by 1233 and some of the leaders of the Wikimedia Taiwan, is not only using Chinese Wikipedia as a tool for political propaganda and ideology on Chinese Wikipedia, but also implementing ruthless suppression and libeling on editors come from Mainland China. That the appearance of this article on Wikipedia Signpost is an extremely serious insult to the free and open Wikimedia spirit. --To my distress14:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this commentary is written at my personal capacity and does not represent the official views of the Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong. (Representing the User Group) However, according to all statements and the resolution from the User Group, the User Group only expresses its wishes for a proper consultation of the bill within Hong Kong, as it adversely affects contributors (who may be targeted by the CPC) who wish to travel through the Hong Kong Airport. The User Group did not use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda, has never done so, and does not plan to do so at the same time. The misinterpretation of the notice contents contributes to complete misunderstanding and accusations from other members of the Chinese Community.
(In own capacity) As one of the authors of this commentary, I can reassure that all contents are supported by facts, and can be fact-checked. Furthermore, what insults most is not this article but all attempts to block anyone expressing their own opinion. I personally, before becoming the liaison of the User Group, has brought the tug of war within the Chinese Wikipedia to Meta's RFC. Furthermore, the User above also disregards the fact that they are assuming all editors who are of PRC origin are connected with the Wikimedians of Mainland China working group and that Wikimedia User Group China (which is offline as stated within the article) is still recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation as a User Group. What members and supporters of Wikimedians of Mainland China should do is to not to continue their stance of all accusation of wrongdoings are attacking the Mainland Chinese community and blocks mainland editors from contributing positively to Wikipedia but try to look into any possibility of wrongdoings first before replying in a tone highly resembles the Communist Party of China. Expressing in a similar manner makes your working group another Communist Party of China, where all accusations, recommendations and error-pointing from non-Mainland contributors who seem not to be pro-China become something that attacks all mainland editors, disregarding their active contribution, and hurts the feelings of Mainland editors. And even here I still haven't counted the ruthless attacks from their mouthpiece, QiuWen (zh:WP:QW)(also the only running source of news related to the movement within the Chinese Wikipedia) against members who seemed not supporting the working group (including, but not limited to me, and also the WUGC).--1233 ( T / C） 16:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, things in this style (attacking other members of the community) is somewhat common at the Chinese Wikipedia, particularly for community members connected to the aforementioned working group. I don't see the reason for them to stay within the community if they only speak newspeak.--1233 ( T / C） 05:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this has been what you guys are doing, not us. Also, I only edited the article grammar and added some missed information, so we all had a say on this. All of what we said is true and is basically a summary of the protests and what has been going on. The information given was the point of view from us and not from the User Group. Furthermore, I assume that nobody wants cross-wiki arguements, so please take your complaints to your own places. My talk page doesn't get many vistors, so feel free to try and screw me over. I'd like to see that! Thanks, Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!00:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the accusations. The first thing I'd encourage is for the parties to try to find common ground at zh.WP. But perhaps the ideological differences are too great for them to consider communicating. Tony(talk)07:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is vivid that the things described in this article are actually happened here. I would also like to point out that Mr. To my distress (User:痛心疾首) might be a sockpuppet of the global banned account User:Galaxyharrylion (appeared in this article). First of all they shared similar behaviors. To my distress seems very familiar with Wikipedia since day one he registered. In addition, To my distress was registered exactly three months and three days late after Galaxyharrylion's last edit - the CU logs expired in exactly three months - just as this article stated: "Socks are especially hard to detect due to the high proportion of editors who use VPNs to edit Wikipedia, and their knowledge of bypassing the CheckUser system." --PhiLiP (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Community view