Talk:Social Credit System

Update needed to outdated language throughout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)

That's a nice compliment, thank you. What is the part you want to replace that with? JArthur1984 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

JArthur1984 - The lede is coming along, though it (like the body) is still a bit overweighted toward events from several years ago. I would like to bring more recent developments to the fore so that we have a more updated picture of the SCS. For example, there are some good points from your edits based on Vincent Brussee's 2023 book. The Wire China also had a decent summary of the SCS and where it currently stands from December 2023. More sources from 2024 would be ideal. - Amigao (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

See I look at a statement like The idea was deliberately flexible: Beijing established a framework, but different authorities could decide how it would be implemented on the ground, including how or what data to collect.
“This was a conscious policy of experimentation on the government’s behalf. It essentially set out the broad parameters of what social credit should and shouldn’t do. But it didn’t lay out any of the details as to how this is actually going to work, and that's, like, how socialist states generally work. Which is why the belief in a highly centralized socialist state often leads to misconceptions such as those about the social credit system. I think there is real pedagogical value in using this article as a demonstration of that conceptual mismatch. But In order to be an effective piece of knowledge we do need to commit to not sugar-coating the failure of western media and the misinterpretations (deliberate or otherwise) of especially American politicians regarding these issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Rachel Cheung's Wire China piece does some decent conceptual framing and it is worth mentioning the classic unitary "score" misconception in a tighter summary than what there is at present. JArthur1984's edit on the PBOC's actions in shutting down private SCS initiatives/local pilots is also a good point that could lead into more about how the SCS currently functions. - Amigao (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If there are academic sources that say it is a "Myth" we should write it more clearly in the lede. It is a much discussed topic in the debate on personal freedoms in China and we should not give rise to what would appear to be misinformation. Mhorg (talk) 14:16, 23 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)

I would think of the 5 million description as more vague than dubious. "Impacted" has a huge range of meaning and could conceivably count people other than the wrongdoer or judgment debtor (i.e., is a child whose parent is on the no-fly list "impacted by", because they are not going to be flying if their parent isn't flying?).

In the context the authors of this journal article use it, it follows a bit about commercial social credit. So are these authors counting company owners who are "impacted" because their company has been punished? And with the QQ link broken (not exactly academically rigorous either) I believe this is an example of an academic tacking on a statistic that will seem interesting to the reader who does not already know much about the topic, but failing to engage with it in an analytically rigorous manner.

While my focus is vagueness rather than dubious (because I can easily speculate ways to get to 5 million "impacted" by 2021 although I can't guess which the statistic is meant to be based on), I would prefer to not use this sentence. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misconception claim

State media and state sponsored influencers are pushing hard on the narrative that there is no factual basis and this is a myth. That's why you'll see many well intentioned people try to dispel this as a myth. But all the things it's accused of being seem to be true in some places at some points in time.

Instead of letting this be a Western media v.s Chinese state thing, we can clearly write that these things are true but the implementation is inconsistent and varies do to the evolving nature of the program. I don't think the media has actually done any misreporting here, it's just that things change over time and you have no way of anticipating the pivot, while later developments don't really get coverage because things getting less severe isn't news for people outside of China. Dplre (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources and not unsourced soapboxing/allegations. And reliable sources say the idea of a score going to rank everyone’s place in sociey, is a myth and unlikely to ever materialize.[1] They also criticize past tabloids and media[2] who some like a Belgian newspaper say by 2020, all citizens will be part of a social points system and such score dip even for merely jaywalking or play additive video games and then lose their social status if these scores drop down enough. Multiple others chimed in similar extremes talking points. But that’s all simply not correct and insanely exaggerated.[3]

Also you alleged state sponsored actors are pushing hard it’s a myth and tricked even the most professional western scholars to think that as apparently according to you, they are unable to research well to be deemed reliable? Or that they are even sponsored by the chinese gov? Unless you got proof and a reliasble source for any of those wild allegations then don’t make that claim. FYI, MERICS is sanctioned by China’s gov because they were deemed too anti-china by them, and yet they stand by the statement that it’s a myth because it’s the facts. There's no proof that their report isn't independent from China.

MERICS explained IN 2019. the Chinese gov introduced clear guidelines that nobody can be punished for having a low score anywhere and the chinese gov never even once said they were going to plan to do this nationwide in 2020[4][5] so these debunked journalists were just playing a bad game of Chinese whispers where after one sensational China scare paper was claiming it without sufficient evidence, a wave of articles all started to copy it and incorrectly assume it’s been seriously planned and approved by the top levels of gov for national rollout which BTW never happened in the first place and as of 2025.

You also SAY social credit score is still true and it's merely a matter of "inconsistent" implementation. But social credit score, as imagined by western scare articles, isn't going to happen in the future and the reason why there's no progress or massive tech calculating points today is because the gov was never interested in that idea and even criticized it publicly. And that fact is supported by reliable sources like MERICS. As i don't want to forever repeat myself like i done at top chapters, so am goin got put this here - unless you have a reliable source to contradict MERICS's conclusions, don't waste other's time as it means I and others will be wasting time on reverting any future unsourced additions and the removal of well sourced facts.49.179.62.69 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The simple response is that we should cleave to reliable sources. We should also avoid WP:CRYSTAL predictions. Will a social credit schema exist in the future that is something like the scare articles? Maybe! Maybe not! Who knows? Not Wikipedia. What we should be including is what has happened. Not what might happen one way or the other. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)