this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
188 points (98.5% liked)

chapotraphouse

13686 readers
768 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Dessa@hexbear.net 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Your teachers were right. Wikipedia can be shady sometimes too

[โ€“] queermunist@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Here, from the Social Credit System article:

There has been a widespread misconception that China operates a nationwide and unitary social credit "score" based on individuals' behavior, leading to punishments if the score is too low. Media reports in the West have sometimes exaggerated or inaccurately described this concept.[7][8][9] In 2019, the central government voiced dissatisfaction with pilot cities experimenting with social credit scores. It issued guidelines clarifying that citizens could not be punished for having low scores, and that punishments should only be limited to legally defined crimes and civil infractions. As a result, pilot cities either discontinued their point-based systems or restricted them to voluntary participation with no major consequences for having low scores.[7][10] According to a February 2022 report by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), a social credit "score" is a myth as there is "no score that dictates citizen's place in society".[7]

Our teachers told us not to trust Wikipedia because "anyone can edit it" but that's not the problem. Wikipedia has the same problems as any Western encyclopedia, but it's not uniquely bad or anything. The only time I've ever noticed problems is with history, because history is political and Wikipedia tends to stick to the orthodox Western canon like any other Western encyclopedia.