This is a “user essay” I wrote on my user page on Wikipedia.
I have long wanted to write this user essay, but I have always been unsure of how to write it properly because it would easily turn into a collection of some unrelated cases. Nevertheless, I have decided to go ahead and write it as it is.
Ukraine and China
I just finished my birding trip to Tibet, and discussed this topic with some friends on the way, so I’ll start with this.
As everyone knows, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked a great deal of controversy on the internet of Chinese mainland, with supporters of both Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian supporters like to make comparisons between the Second Sino-Japanese War and this war. Although this comparisons may be reasonable from most situations, there is one significant difference: Japan did not legally annex Chinese territory during the Second Sino-Japanese War (the Treaty of Shimonoseki is another matter, not part of the Sino-Japanese War). According to Japanese law, Manchukuo and the Wang Jingwei regime were always independent regimes outside of Japan.
Regarding the issue of 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine, a more similar comparison might be the Simla Convention. Let’s attempt a comparison:
- After the Xinhai Revolution, Tibet was de facto out of the control of the Beiyang government - After 2014, Donbas was de facto out of the control of Kiev.
- The Beiyang government and the international community did not recognize Tibet as an independent country - Kiev and the international community did not recognize the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics as independent countries.
- The Tibetan Kashag government ceded territory to British India - The Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics ceded territory to Russia.
- British India annexed South Tibet without Beiyang government recognition - Russia annexed Donbas without Ukrainian government recognition.
There are indeed some specific differences, such as Donbas being wholly annexed by Russia, while the Tibetan Kashag only ceded part of its controlled territory to British India. However, the core issue is similar: a de facto independent regime, while legally part of a certain country, has reached a territorial change agreement with a foreign country without the recognition of the central government of that country. Is this agreement valid?
But Wikipedia seems to have a double standard on this issue: why is Donbas referred to as “Russian-occupied” while South Tibet is referred to as “Arunachal Pradesh”?
The article on Donbas repeatedly emphasize “occupied”, “limited recognition”, “disputed” and “historical, cultural, and economic region in eastern Ukraine” in the introductions, as if afraid that people might not know. Why doesn’t the “Arunachal Pradesh” article state “is de facto a state of India”, “is a disputed state of India”, or “historical, cultural, and economic region in Tibet Autonomous Region of China”, but only states “is a state of India”?
Indeed, the “Arunachal Pradesh” article does mention “Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China as part of the Tibet Autonomous Region”, but I think the difference is clear: in the articles on the Donbas, the disputed state of the territory is stated as a “fact”, while in the “Arunachal Pradesh” article, the disputed state of the territory is stated as a “viewpoint” of China. The difference is very obvious.
What’s even worse is in the Arunachal Pradesh article, it even says, “Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China as part of the Tibet Autonomous Region; China occupied some regions of Arunachal Pradesh in 1962 but later withdrew its forces.” That’s totally incredible. Who on earth occupied whom?
U.S. Military and Hamas
After the 2023 Israel–Hamas war broke out, a large group of so-called moral guardians suddenly emerged on Wikipedia, angry about actions harming civilians, and did not hesitate to use their worst words on Hamas. Just because Hamas caused civilian casualties in the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, they even labeled it as “terrorist attacks” or “massacres”, and naming some article as “X Massacre.”
However, in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the word “massacre” only appears once, and that’s in a quote from someone else.
If after 70 years of invasion and occupation, Hamas’s killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians is called terrorism, then after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and 4 years of the Pacific War, the U.S. military’s killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with incendiary bombs and atomic bombs must also be terrorism (“70 years -> hundreds of people” vs “4 years -> hundreds of thousands of people”), and it should be even worse terrorism—state terrorism, because the orders to massacre civilians came directly from the highest military command of the United States. This is a very basic principle called “argumentum a minori ad maius“—if a minor offenses is a crime, how could a more severe one not be?
Of course, theoretically, I don’t fully support everything Hamas did. In fact, on October 7th, I also criticized Hamas on Zhihu for taking Israeli civilians hostage in violation of international humanitarian law, but the premise is that I have been criticizing the United States for nearly ten years. I previously even said that “we should dig up Truman’s corpse, parade it in the street, and hang his evil head on the Tenshu of Hiroshima Castle as a warning to all.”
So what about Wikipedia? Refusing to call the U.S. military’s killing of Japanese civilians a “massacre”, but it is so fair to call Hamas’s killing of Israeli civilians a “massacre”, isn’t it? This ridiculous double standard shows that Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for the U.S. imperial authorities and Jewish capitalists.
I quote the powerful words of Adnan Abu Amer, head of the political science department at Ummah University in Gaza, from his article Where do Palestinians stand on the war in Ukraine?: “The West must understand that biased, selective application of international law and anti-war action only further encourage aggressors to commit violations.”
The Double Standard on Double Standards
I can certainly guess how Wikipedia’s pro-Western moral guardians will defend themselves, nothing more than the so-called “reliable sources” and “no original research“—”Wikipedia does not support any particular side, but Wikipedia has policies on reliable sources and no original research, Wikipedia must write articles based on reliable, authoritative external sources, rather than conducting research by editors themselves. Therefore, whichever political force actually controls most of the media, their views will naturally have correspondingly greater weight on Wikipedia, and thus Wikipedia can only faithfully reflect the existing injustice in the real world.” Right?
I believe that the biggest reason for Gender bias on Wikipedia is the real gender inequality that exists in the real world, which makes it more difficult for women to achieve the notability standards. Wikipedia only faithfully reflects the real phenomena in the real world as a tertiary source. Claims about the community being unfriendly to women are missing the point.
Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, faithfully reflects social realities, including the real privileges, discrimination, oppression, and inequalities that exist in the real world.
Actually, I still think so now, and I sincerely hope Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, continues to faithfully reflect social realities. But Wikipedia does not seem to want to do so. Otherwise, why does Wikipedia seek to “correct” gender bias and racial bias on Wikipedia?
Under the discipline and suppression of patriarchy, females participate less in public affairs, and therefore have lower visibility compared to males (obviously, reliable sources are more likely to report on individuals active in the public domain rather than housewives active in her house). This is also a important social reality. And this social reality profoundly influences most reliable sources, so the gender bias on Wikipedia proves that Wikipedia has faithfully implemented its reliable source policy, doesn’t it? The same logic applies to the racial bias on minorities. Why did you hold special edit-a-thons to improve the “visibility” of these disadvantaged groups? Isn’t this distorting social reality?
I call it “the double standard on double standards” (which is also the title of this section), as Wikipedia also has a clear double standard on the issue of “how to deal with double standards.”
Patriarchy has double standards between male and female, and U.S. imperial media has double standards between Ukraine and China or between the U.S. military and Hamas. Why does Wikipedia consider the former wrong and take actions to correct it, while the latter is the “reality” and we must adhere to the policies of reliable sources and no original research? Both are double standards in the real world, what is the difference? What is the reasoning behind Wikipedia treating them differently?
It is not wrong for Wikipedia to seek ideal equality and justice. Although absolute “equality” and “justice” are almost impossible to achieve, this is still admirable and worth everyone’s participation and effort to correct any privileges, discrimination, oppression, and inequalities in the real world, including those between nations, ethnic groups, social groups, and individuals. Inequality is everywhere in this world. Wikipedia certainly can be a hero for the disadvantaged, awakening their (perhaps “our” should be used here) self-awareness, and fighting under Wikipedia’s banner for a new world where everyone is equal.
Wikipedia could also “faithfully reflect social reality”. As a tertiary source, it should faithfully conveying the real privileges, discrimination, oppression, and inequalities that exist in society, becoming an important memory and archive, and constantly iterating with the progress of society and reliable sources. I believe that as long as Wikipedia continues to exist, when all privileges, discrimination, oppression, and inequalities are eliminated, overthrow any oligarchs that obscure the truth in the media industry, and when every group has reliable sources to speak for them, Wikipedia will one day meet “ideal equality and justice” in a place without darkness.
But Wikipedia cannot have it both ways; this is impossible. Even more, it cannot selectively apply different strategies, seeking “ideal equality and justice” in some areas while “faithfully reflecting social reality” in others.
Wikipedia must understand that biased, selective application of “equality” and “justice” only further encourages exploiters and oppressors.
