User:Njosephs/Preparatory Assignment
Preparatory Assignment
[edit]Instructions
[edit]- For each of the three entries you have chosen, write one paragraph assessing the scope, accuracy, usefulness, and balance of the entry. What sorts of things could or should be added? Each paragraph should begin with a suitable heading; the use of other Wikipedia formatting (bullet lists, etc.) is encouraged. Be sure to include a link to the entry.
- In each of the paragraphs, include at least one in-text citation (i.e., footnote) and have at least one item in your reference list. You do not have to do substantial research for this assignment: my reason for asking for the reference is to make sure you understand how to create references!
- Finally, write one paragraph that discusses both opportunities and challenges that come from writing in Wikipedia about a complex subject like modern Chinese philosophy. What are the differences you’ll need to keep in mind between the “encyclopedia entry” genre and a standard philosophy or intellectual history essay? If you use any sources to generate ideas for this paragraph, please cite them!
Current Entry[1]
* Brief biography * Implicit influences * Brief explanation of Liang's metaphysics
Useful Additions
* Explicit influences * Influenced / Impact * Summary of philosophy including in depth analysis of Liang's metaphysics * Criticisms
Liang's article is mostly a biography. Although the entry references Eastern and Western Cultures and their Philosophies, there is no subsequent subpage. The article briefly reviews Liang's metaphysics, only referencing that Liang did not believe in "wholesale Westernization," but did advocate for Chinese reform. I think this section could be expanded, or even made its own subpage. The analysis appears accurate, and the lack of further inquiry prevents the balance of the article from polarizing. The article mentions at the end that Liang was persecuted and notes that Liang denies all accusations. I think this indicates the article's attempt at neutrality. Interestingly, one of the only references is Guy Alitto's The Last Confucian. Wikipedia labels the article a stub and the talk page has no activity.
Current Entry[2]
* Brief biography * Work banned due to criticism of Chinese government * Li "emancipated a whole generation of young Chinese intellectuals from Communist ideology"
Useful Additions
* List of works * Synopsis of works * Influences * Influenced / Impact * Criticisms
The article on Li Zehou is very limited. Wikipedia offers a very brief biography, acknowledging Li as a philosopher and noting his role in "emancipating a whole generation." However, Wikipedia does not explain how Li emancipated the young from communism. In fact, Wikipedia does not explicitly reference any of Li's philosophies. I think the absence of criticism also skews the balance of the article. The bias seems to suggest that the Chinese government was wrong to ban Li and that Li is a hero for escaping to the United States and pursuing a career teaching. Wikipedia actually describes Li as, "one of the important modern scholars of Chinese history and culture," but lacks any substance to concur with this epithet. Wikipedia acknowledges the weakness of this article because it is listed as a stub and expansion is requested. Finally, the bareness of the talk page indicates that this article is seldom frequented.
Current Entry[3]
* Brief biography * Anecdote involving Liang Shuming * Influences * Influenced * Outline of his life?
Useful Additions
* Summary of philosophy * Criticisms * Historical impact * Analysis of A New Treatise on Consciousness-only (mentioned, but no subpage)
The article on Xiong Shili has more depth than the articles on Li Zehou and Liang Shuming. However, the article is poorly written and contains several errors--references Liang Shumin. Although we have not covered Xiong Shili yet, it is apparent that A New Treatise on Consciousness-only is significant. In spite of the essay's need for its subpage, the article heralds it as a "Confucian critique of the Buddhist "consciousness-only" theory popularized in China by the Tang Dynasty pilgrim Xuanzang." The article includes Xiong's influences and influenced, but does not go into his philosophy in detail. The article contains many Chinese characters which enhance the understanding of the topic by highlighting the complexity of translations. However, the outline listed is confusing because it is not immediately apparent (and I am still unclear) as to what the outline demonstrates. The outline could use serious expansion, if only to better highlight Xiong's biography. There does not seem to be a bias because everything listed is straightforward and biographical. Finally, like Li's entry, the talk page contains no discussion.
Conclusion
[edit]The greatest opportunity with Wikipedia is exposure. Wikipedia offers free and easily accessible knowledge to anyone with internet access. This truly is the future. In regards to a complex subject like modern Chinese philosophy, Wikipedia presents the possibility of imparting an otherwise unknown subject to a world audience. Wikipedia is translated into many languages, which potentially spreads Chinese philosophy to several countries. Further, if a major focus of modern Chinese philosophy involves action, then Wikipedia may facilitate change by unifying the Chinese or appealing to humanitarians in the case of human rights. The collaborative aspect of Wikipedia also allows extensive checks to assure a subject is presented without bias in order to create an "encyclopedia-worthy entry." This challenge to remain neutral seems daunting with respect to a philosophical essay, because typically philosophy imparts a stance and ultimately persuasive techniques[4]. Scholars debate the legitimacy of the discipline of Chinese philosophy, and this may be reflected within the talk page, potentially creating an obstacle. Another challenge may arise due to the nature of the the text of Chinese philosophy: often specific translations will be contested between different translators. Wikipedia follows an explicit manual for spelling, which may complicate an entry when offering Chinese words and their English translations [5]. In the end, Wikipedia offers enough helpful resources that a thoroughly reviewed entry should remain in the Wikipedia archives for all of the internet to utilize for ages to come.
Edit: After researching the three articles, I am surprised that Wikipedia essentially only has biographies on famous Chinese philosophers. None of the three aforementioned articles had talk activity, and none of the scholars' works enjoys its own subpage. I think this is definitely an area that could be expanded. Wikipedia crosslists these articles as WikiProject Philosophy and I think that developing extensive articles on specific essays would greatly contribute to this project of Wikipedia's.