Not weighing in on either side of the discussion, but that’s a video that’s almost completely unrelated to the topic above.
It speaks to how overleveraged/poorly managed a lot of Chinese development was, leading to a borderline colapse of the construction industry, and largely leaves the subject of ghost cities unaddressed.
Ok, now I get the link you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fully adress my question.
The one thing that’s still leaving me prickly is simply saying Wikipedia is wrong because it’s editable by anyone. That’s like saying FOSS is insecure because it’s editable by anyone. Neither the conclusion nor the premise is correct in either case. There are hierarchies & access controls in both that often yield better results than the traditional alternative.
Wikipedia is a treasure, and while it is still vulnerable to brigading (far more so than FOSS), this is far from the norm (especially nowadays) and should be backed up with specific sources and rectified.
While I do agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited directly due to this vulnerability, it acts as an excellent contextual citation aggregator, and quite frankly I’ve often found it more up-to-date and less biased than some of the crap that made it past the peer review process in my college days.
For instance, if what you’re saying is true (shortsightedness), people may over the years still populate those areas (the claim of the Wikipedia article is that a lot/most of the ghost cities did). If you have sources stating otherwise, please report the article for manipulation and include them there. If you don’t feel like it, post them here and I will do so, despite knowing absolutely nothing about Chinese ghost cities, because I believe this is important.
Please don’t dismiss such a shining example of human collective action so lightly. It’s one of the few things that makes me believe there’s still some good left in the world.
I’m starting to believe this is a bad faith argument. Do you have anything addressing the specific point of ghost cities actually (not) being populated now?
For those that are too lazy to read:
link 1: 39 buildings demolished for illegal construction
link 2: 50 second clip of 7 buildings that were never finished being demolished (no context, other than the buildings being there for some years)
link 3: luxury mansion development stalls due to missmangement/lack of funding, leaving people that paid for those homes without a property
Wikipedia isn’t great place for sources because everyone can post and edit.
Then you can check the sources listed in the article. You’re not just supposed to take Wikipedia’s word for it, but you are allowed to click on the links in the references section. So either you’re not aware of this, or you’re not making this argument in good faith. In either event, because looking at the several sources in the wiki article I provided seems like it’s still not good enough for you, I get the feeling this conversation is going nowhere.
deleted by creator
Not weighing in on either side of the discussion, but that’s a video that’s almost completely unrelated to the topic above.
It speaks to how overleveraged/poorly managed a lot of Chinese development was, leading to a borderline colapse of the construction industry, and largely leaves the subject of ghost cities unaddressed.
deleted by creator
Ok, now I get the link you’re trying to make, but it doesn’t fully adress my question.
The one thing that’s still leaving me prickly is simply saying Wikipedia is wrong because it’s editable by anyone. That’s like saying FOSS is insecure because it’s editable by anyone. Neither the conclusion nor the premise is correct in either case. There are hierarchies & access controls in both that often yield better results than the traditional alternative.
Wikipedia is a treasure, and while it is still vulnerable to brigading (far more so than FOSS), this is far from the norm (especially nowadays) and should be backed up with specific sources and rectified.
While I do agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited directly due to this vulnerability, it acts as an excellent contextual citation aggregator, and quite frankly I’ve often found it more up-to-date and less biased than some of the crap that made it past the peer review process in my college days.
For instance, if what you’re saying is true (shortsightedness), people may over the years still populate those areas (the claim of the Wikipedia article is that a lot/most of the ghost cities did). If you have sources stating otherwise, please report the article for manipulation and include them there. If you don’t feel like it, post them here and I will do so, despite knowing absolutely nothing about Chinese ghost cities, because I believe this is important.
Please don’t dismiss such a shining example of human collective action so lightly. It’s one of the few things that makes me believe there’s still some good left in the world.
deleted by creator
I’m starting to believe this is a bad faith argument. Do you have anything addressing the specific point of ghost cities actually (not) being populated now?
For those that are too lazy to read:
deleted by creator
No one is arguing any of the points above. But to quote the Wikipedia article:
Citation 16 is a Bloomberg article from 2 years ago in case you’re wondering.
Put yourself in my shoes, I can’t exactly propose edits to that statement based on a single youtube video of a ghost town existing.
Your conclusion ("How could they? ") does not follow from your premises, much as I agree with them.
deleted by creator
A few of the sources are literally from 2023. But do go on, it certainly seems like you’re here in good faith, right?
deleted by creator
Then you can check the sources listed in the article. You’re not just supposed to take Wikipedia’s word for it, but you are allowed to click on the links in the references section. So either you’re not aware of this, or you’re not making this argument in good faith. In either event, because looking at the several sources in the wiki article I provided seems like it’s still not good enough for you, I get the feeling this conversation is going nowhere.
deleted by creator