The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Social Credit System is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
The previous editor completely misrepresented what MERICS wrote, either through negligence or deliberate disregard for the source. MERICS made it absolutely clear that the concept of a "social credit score" is a myth, unsupported by evidence, and warned against perpetuating it. They even highlighted how narratives like these gain traction despite having zero factual basis.
However, the prior version flipped this on its head, pushing the opposite narrative. It framed the "social credit score" as not only real and inevitable, by implying that while it doesn't exist today, it's just a matter of technological development before it becomes a reality. This interpretation is not only unsupported but directly contradicts MERICS’s core findings. The editor went so far as to strip out sentences calling it a myth and instead crafted a new introduction that speculated on a hypothetical future [1] That's both original research and propaganda that has zero evidence to support it.
Hence I removed that rubbish and added in what MERICS actually said. That in 2019, the gov criticised the concept of social credit score and made guidelines that nobody would ever be punished for having low scores. And that such a score is "highly unlikely to ever happen". Unless you have a new source that disproves it, quit adding in unsubstantiated propaganda that social credit score is real and going to happen by removing all the relevant sentences debunking it. It seems someone had to delete that sentence every few months but it's a fact that social credit "score" is a MYTH. Read the abundant sources that informs that. - [2]49.186.216.207 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, the issue is that different people keeps pushing their desired pov that social credit score is real. Despite it's a myth. And removing all info in the lede that makes it very clear it's a widespread wrongful myth. It only wastes others' time and efforts to fix that who added edits in good faith and faithful to the facts. Also another criticism was that only a week ago, it used to be very easy to understand. It is just a key fact that there's a "common misconception that China operates a nationwide "social credit score" system that assigns individuals a score based on their behavior, leading to punishments if the score is too low." That is the best and easy to understand summary and few can dispute that now. I see such an edit only stayed for approx maybe 5 months, then some editor made sure the readers would not know that it's a myth and instead deleted and replaced that phrase with claims it's real and how it's going to happen in time. Denialist editors aren't permitted to remove key facts because they don't like it and add original research that goes counter to the source's entire argument. So I am considering it's time and necessary to do a RFC to cement a consensus on whether social credit score is a myth or is happening nationwide in China today because apparently this article constantly has denialist editors removing all sentences that says social credit score is a myth perpetrated by misconceptions in lede, and instead speculating it's real and or gonna happen when Tech improves, despite that's the opposite of what MERICS and experts actually said.[3][4][5] If more people want to hide that social credit score is a myth and portray it as real or happening in the article's lede in the Next 5 months, I believe it becomes very necessary to consider doing a RFC to settle this to avoid wasting people's time. (Media has a lot of fault for misleading people on this but editors and Wikipedia should be better)[6]49.186.216.207 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
