User:Achirathivat

Critique on the "Liang Shuming" entry

The general information presented on the articles are accurate, and it broadly covers what one needs to know about Liang Shuming at the very basic level. In a sense, it very well serves the purpose of Wikipedia. It is a good article to start reading when one is first learning about the scholar. However, there is definitely room for improvement. Despite offering an appropriate amount of general information about Liang Shuming, for example his date of birth, where he received his education, his occupation, and etc., there should definitely be more descriptions of his ideas and contributions to modern Chinese philosophy that have made him known for. For instance, Liang's nickname, "the last confusion," and how he came about acquiring such title should be mentioned in the entry. More specifically, the entry should point out that Liang believes that one is driven by his or her “Will,” and that there are three ideal cultural ways existing in a hierarchy: the Western model, the Chinese model, and the Indian model. Culture is the way of life, or essentially how “people resolve the contradiction between the Will’s demands and the obstacles presented by the environment.” Hence, cultural differences are due to “the way the Will attempts to deal with the environment."

link to the entry: [[1]]

Critique on the "Chinese Law" entry

This page no doubt has a lot of information compared to the Liang Shuming entry. The scope of information is extensive in that it covers a wide range of relevant topics pertaining to Chinese law, from its roots to its process of modernization. Again, this article is mainly useful for an individual who seeks a basic knowledge of the Chinese law for it explores multiple areas of the subject and provides accurate information. Similarly, for a researcher, it serves as a good place to start familiarizing himself with the subject. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. There are some sections that lack information. The legal rights section serves as a good example for it only briefly states that originally there is no word, or a concept for "rights" in the Chinese language, and that the idea was imported from the West. Also, I feel that Pan Wei should be included in the "Modernization" section in this article for he suitably argues for what he calls a "consultative rule of law regime" for China. More specifically, he suggests that as China develops it will not become democratic like the West. Rather, it will take on the path of a ‘mixed’ regime out of the Chinese tradition of civil service via examination and the Western tradition of legalism and liberalism via the separation of power to form checks and balances”. Such addition would enhance the legitimacy of the entry.

link to the entry: [[2]]

Critique on the "Xiong Shili" entry

Similar to the "Liang Shuming" entry, the page outlines the life of Xiong Shili and his main accomplishments without going into great details. The information presented is accurate, and again the article offers a brief synopsis of the philosophier, suitable to those who wants quick access to surface information. Another strength of this entry is that it has laid out the main points of the article (in the form of bullet points), and clearly lists out his major works. However, the references section is disappointing for there is only a limited number of sources suggested for further reading. Also, a larger portion of the article is devoted to explaining Xiong's life; not much of his famous works and thoughts were discussed. Hence, one way of improving this entry would be to expand more about the philosophy he avocates. For example, when mentioning the New Treatise, the writer could offer more details about it. As such, the paradoxical theme of expansion and contraction, which is constantly transforming an individual, could have been touched upon and explained. Also, the article failed to explicitly state that Xiong came from a strong background of Buddhism, but not that of Western philosophy. This piece of information could be crucial for a learner for it would give him or her a better idea of how to interpret, or understand Xiong's works. All in all, given the apparent length of the article, the more relevant information is needed for enhancement.

link to the entry: [[3]]

Writing in Wikipedia, a Reflection

Wikipedia is no doubt one of best websites to visit when in-need for quick information, or a basic understanding of a subject. While in most of the broad-based topics it offers the public a useful amount of information through providing accurate information in a complete scope and balance, there are understandably those topics which remain less explored in the English domain. Modern Chinese philosophy is one of those unfamiliar topics, as evident from the three articles presented above. It is clear that Wikipedia currently still is not an excellent information source for seekers who want to learn about Chinese philosophy--most of entries lack information and have shallow explanations. Hence, there is immense opportunities for those who possess knowledge about the subject to contribute more to the data base. However, there are challenges in the writing of these entries in Wikipedia as it is an "encyclopedia entry" genre and not a standard philosophy or intellectual history essay. For this crucial reason, contributors, apart from understanding the fundamental role of Wikipedia, also need to comprehend the differences between the aforementioned types of writings. Normally, when studying philosophy one reads primary sources, or essays of scholars who critiques the primary sources, and critically analyze and formulate one's own arguments which may support or rebut (or a combination of both) the thesis of the respective former works. When writing for Wikipedia, however, one needs to keep in mind that like writing a regular encyclopedia entry, one needs to develop a neutral point of view. In other words, one must objectively present an issue from all points of view. The point is not to be persuasive, but informative. However, this does not that stating opinions in the entries is prohibited. In fact, it is encouraged for writers to state opinions from different sides, but they must be clearly presented as options, not facts.