Talk:Social Credit System

E 139.47.124.76 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research/propaganda insisting social credit score is gonna happen

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)

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)

The MERICS report is fine, but it is from early 2022. Things have changed since then, especially following the November 2022 draft law. See here. This article is in need of much updating following the November 2022 draft law. - Amigao (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in regards to the myth. It's still a myth. And there's still a very common misconception about social credit score and you simply can't trim it because it's inconvenient and informs people not to be mislead in believing the myth. In 2016, I was one of those people and it's because of wikipedia version 2016 - that used to write that social credit score was real. I assumed it was confirmed until 2020 where I learned what should had been obvious. But there's barely any sources online that informs people easily that social credit score is a myth and so Wikipedia should be helpful to readers in that necessity. Also 2022 is not that far away and nothing has changed. It's not like it's likely that things will change in a few years and social credit score will emerge. Already too many people are believing in that myth and lede should be a summary of what's relevant and a very common misconception (which is still relevant today) and already has a dedicated chapter, deserves to have a bare minimum mention in lede. 49.186.40.22 (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao Given that Jarthur84 plus one restored it 2 days ago and another refined it, they don't see that info as wrong, but valid. Also in 2022, an article from MIT technology review pointed out that after those 2022 draft laws were released, the social credit score is still remaining a myth and still not a reality. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-announced-a-new-social-credit-law-what-does-it-mean/ But your rational is that it's no longer a myth because of 2022 draft laws but that's not valid. Unless you have a recent reliable source saying social credit score is real, then this info is still correct and necessary. I still don't understand and see the basic rationale to omit a very important and necessary factoid from lede but I Suggest you get consensus via RFC if you believe it's very important that nobody will know easily that social credit score is a myth despite we all know too many people believe in that wrongful misconception. I honestly doubt there can ever be impartial consensus to support hiding that fact and why I put it in lede as it's not incorrect as you implied.49.186.40.22 (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2022 draft law did not really change anything. It brought together material which already existed in other policy documents. For this reason, it was a disappointment to those who hoped for more concrete or clearer policy guidance. We already have the 2022 draft law in the article. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion section below for more up-to-date sourcing. More sweeping statements in the lede ought to be based on the most updated sourcing possible. - Amigao (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want the most updated source, then this one is written barely 3 months ago. https://www.thechinastory.org/is-chinas-social-credit-system-as-we-know-it-dead/ It's written by renowned MERICS SCS expert Vincent Brusses, and he still has not claimed social credit score is real. If it was happening now as you speculate, he would have mentioned it. Instead he still writes back as recently in October 2024 and in the first paragraph, that the system focuses on economic rather than political or social activities. Additionally it seems he is also suggesting that social credit system may be facing extinction as the gov just isn't as interested in it to keep funding this. He is definitely not saying the myth is suddenly changing to becoming real, but rather hinting even further to the opposite notion. 49.186.111.145 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Update needed to outdated language throughout

This article, especially the lede, had very little in the context of laws and regulations since the November 2022 draft law was released, such as the contents of this August 2024 legal overview, for example. This November 2024 academic article is also a good place to start: 10.1080/03085147.2024.2422187. Also, WP:LIBRARY is a good resource for other up-to-date academic articles on the social credit system. - Amigao (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I read that document. I don't see how it contradicts anything that you removed concerning western media misconceptions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

We really need the most up-to-date sourcing for more sweeping and general statements in the lede. Here are a few below:

• Zhao, Hailing; Liu, Tingting (2024-11-28). "China's social credit system and the family: Punishment and collective resistance". Economy and Society: 1–21. doi:10.1080/03085147.2024.2422187. ISSN 0308-5147.
• Hou, Rui; Fu, Diana (January 2024). "Sorting citizens: Governing via China's social credit system". Governance. 37 (1): 59–78. doi:10.1111/gove.12751. ISSN 0952-1895.
• Loefflad, Carmen; Chen, Mo; Grossklags, Jens (2024-12-31). "Reputational Discrimination and Fairness in China's Social Credit System". Digital Government: Research and Practice. 5 (4): 1–27. doi:10.1145/3703160. ISSN 2691-199X. By the end of 2021, the blacklisting scheme had impacted the life of about 5.93 million citizens.

Amigao (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

OK before I add three more journal articles to my reading list for the day can you please start by summarizing how you believe these sources contradict what you want to remove? I have expressed absolutely no objection to the inclusion of new sources - just to whole-cloth deletions of well-sourced statements regarding western media disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is clearly WP:SYNTH based on a jumble of sources that are all several years old. I have no issues with chronologically situating said misconceptions in the body. However, for more sweeping statements in the lede, we need to leverage the most accurate and up-to-date WP:RSes available (preferably based upon WP:BESTSOURCES.) - Amigao (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see WP:SYNTH here. I see an extensive list of articles that all support the statement that the system is deeply misunderstood and misrepresented in western media. And this is evading the question I asked: how do the three sources you just shared contradict that claim? Do you have any sources that contradict that very well sourced claim? Because this source, honestly, supports that claim, which was the first source you asked us to read here. I'm afraid the Zhao and Liu paper is not available through the Wikipedia library so I only have the abstract. Do you have access to the full text? Simonm223 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The text in question focuses too narrowly on the idea of a "score" yet this article is about the Social Credit System more broadly and the lede should accurately reflect that. Right now, it cherry-picks quotes from the MERICS article, which should be in a lede summary. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao You can't simply remove anything you want and not give a single valid reason. I see you yet again removed the paragraph and now claim it's outdated despite the sources are from 2022 and nothing major has changed since. As written in MIT technology review, the 2022 draft laws barely changed anything let alone disproven the myth. So saying that 2022 laws have significantly altered things, is simply untrue. The onus is on you to prove it's now either incorrect and truly outdated, or give an extraordinary reason to erase such correct significant information. But the info is undoubtedly correct and not disproven and you have not proven any real proof that things have drastically changed after 2022. Provide at least one reliable source that actually says the information in the current lede is wrong, before labelling it as such. But doubt such a source even exists. 49.186.91.26 (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am reviewing the second source you provided, the Hou article, and I've already come across this The SCS is not a singular, state‐run scheme since it comprises both official government‐designed schemes and commercial ones designed and implemented by private companies such as Ant Financial - so there are definitional problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You know since we actually differentiate between the state social credit scheme and Ant Financial's Zhima Credit program. And I think this paper does not which is going to cause problems. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The paper also says Even though various local government pilots and commercial schemes have yet to be integrated into a single unified national system, the general framework with its guiding principles and criteria have been established at the central level, and the Chinese government is committed to further developing the system into the next phase - notwithstanding how we handle sources that make WP:CRYSTAL claims (they must be attributed and with caution) this still does not contradict the text you want to remove. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As of 2022, the plan to construct a single and unified national system has not yet been achieved, but multiple social credit projects, including local pilots, have been launched across the country (Kostka & Antoine, [35]; Liu, [42]). Technically, the SCS targets both individual citizens, social organizations, and corporations, with the latter being a major set of actors regulated under the System (Engelmann et al., [19]; Lin & Milhaupt, [41]). However, because the theoretical interest of this study is on citizenship, the scope is limited to that of individual citizens' behaviors. Yeah, I'm ready to call it now. Source 2 does not contradict the text you wanted to remove. It supports it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223, this text above is a far more accurate and up-to-date overall summary of the caliber that one would expect in a lede than the paragraph in question. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao the text above supports

1. that the social credit system principally targets corporations rather than individuals
2. that there is no state-level cohesive score
3. that its conceptual and functional backbone is financial credit scoring
4. that what is thought of as social credit is a collection of multiple disparate projects and thus
5. that western sources that failed to respect points 1 through 4 were inaccurate.

Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 and IP address are correct. This is a very strange approach today. The recent edits are not good. The grounds for them do not make sense. The sources shown here do not compel some major update or suggest we have anything wrong. We have no need to template needs update here. There is still no unitary "system". There is still no personal "score" which penalizes people. The idea of social credit is still fragmented, still based primarily on corporate conduct, judgment debtor blacklists, and red lists. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao The third source appears to be advocacy for the adoption of specific principles in social credit scoring. While admirable this also does not contradict the current article. It's always good to add up-to-date sources but these three don't warrant the changes you want to make. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

JArthur1984, your statement (There is still no unitary "system". There is still no personal "score" which penalizes people. The idea of social credit is still fragmented, still based primarily on corporate conduct, judgment debtor blacklists, and red lists.) is a far better lede-worthy summary that should be here rather than cherry-picked quotes. Amigao (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing discussed in this thread contradicts Western media reports have sometimes exaggerated or inaccurately described this concept. - which is critical context for an appropriately neutral article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao And now you've removed "western" which is a partial revert and thus a violation of WP:3RR please self-revert you are now edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The term "Western" does not appear in the MERICS report, but I added "the West" since that is apparent from the more recent MIT Technology Review piece. - Amigao (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit problematic to do a source purge, claiming the other sources were over-referencing then to remove wording on the basis it is not in the few sources you personally retained. I'm a bit concerned that your edits still amount to changes to the POV in a way that is non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I also share Simonm223's concern above because you already proven too determined to remove that paragraph already. Am also thinking that you deleted almost all sources today to only later claim it rely on too few sources and delete it all later down the road. The one and only important point to mention western mainstream media is because it's the important context for why there's such widespread misconceptions today. Where else can it really come from? It's because of such flawed media sensationally jumping ahead of reality and the facts, that is what made so many people to start to believe and spread this myth. And that is also why a good number of different western expert groups acknowledge this fact and so there should be no dispute of the main cause of misconceptions when there are many different experts stating it. I restored back around half the sources but now capped total at maximum of 6 which should be an acceptable compromise. I won't be adding more than 6 so don't be deleting them again and claim it's excessive citing as 6 is arguably fine. It's not like it's 13 to 20. 49.186.111.145 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and those are already cited in the body in a section titled Misconceptions so there is not really a need to re-cite them all again. - Amigao (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, the sources I compromised to allow being removed were:

1. The Diplomat – which explicitly states that much of the media coverage on China's social credit system has been "sensationalist and full of inaccuracies." (https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/chinas-social-credit-system-fact-vs-fiction/)

2. The Washington Post – which criticizes Western media for misrepresenting the system. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/11/29/social-credit/)

3. The World – which highlights how much of Western reporting on this topic has been outright false. (https://theworld.org/stories/2019/07/29/truth-about-chinas-social-credit-system)

I only compromised on their removal, despite their strong credibility, to address concerns about "excessive citations." However, given their direct relevance in correcting misinformation, retaining them would be more appropriate. 49.186.111.145 (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Dubious

The claim about more than 5 million people affected in some way by blacklists is incredibly vague to the point it is very likely misleading. The claim is sourced to a single line in the linked paper and that line has a citation... to content hosted on QQ which is no longer there and thus cannot be validated or contextualized. This isn't a good use of this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, the second paragraph of No-fly and no-ride lists has "26.82 million air tickets as well as 5.96 million high-speed rail tickets had been denied to people who were deemed "untrustworthy" (失信) (on a blacklist)." In any case, it would be good to find more up-to-date stats in general. - Amigao (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Which source is the No-fly and no-ride lists source? Because a lot of the sources you've been introducing are paywalled and unavailable through Wikipedia library. And with the sheer rate of changes you're making without prior discussion I've been half-tempted to revert to last stable out of complete frustration. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And if it's the Business Insider source I've reliability concerns. See also: Business Insider#Bias, reliability, and editorial policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also concerns about WP:BI and, thus, have never used it here. I'm actively looking for more reliable sources to back up prior claims made using BI. - Amigao (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The 2019 no-fly stat was actually sourced from Xinhua here. - Amigao (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I personally do consider Xinhua reliable for that sort of information but one thing that isn't entirely clear in the article. It seems like these penalties were for financial credit related issues due to the reference to credit agencies set up to help blacklisted entities clear their entries. If these penalties are specific to the financial credit components of China's integrated credit approach we should probably note that. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)