Our Wikipedia article is horrible

Marnetmar

Black Belt
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
163
It may seem petty to make a thread about this, but hear me out.

I'm bringing this up because I feel like I very likely may have had some involvement in a little blunder involving the promo posters for Ip Man 3.

When Ip Man 3 was announced, there was some excitement about who the mysterious rival Wing Chun master was that Yip Man would end up fighting. A young, enthusiastic and short-sighted me speculated that it might be Sum Nung. And I, without any information to back up my hunch, edited the article for the movie to say that Max Zhang's then-unnamed character was Sum Nung. It's just a little harmless fun, right?

Hey, wait a minute, what the hell is this? Holy crap, I was right!

I wasn't right at all. I have a very strong feeling that because of my irresponsibility, some artist who wasn't communicating with the studio got his information from the Wikipedia article I had edited.

The moral of the story? We need to be responsible about what information we put on the internet.

As it stands, the wikipedia article for Wing Chun is a disorganized mess of platitudes and unverifiable claims, and is a victim of people making edits willy nilly without any oversight because Wing Chun is such a niche subject.

Since people's first source of information on just about any subject in this day and age comes from Wikipedia, a Wikipedia article acts as a sort of equivalent to a social media profile that a potential employer might look at when deciding whether or not to hire someone. In this case, the potential employer is anyone looking for more information about Wing Chun, who might end up unintentionally spreading false information in a way that has consequences.

I propose that we collaborate to rewrite the entire article from scratch, according to the following standards:

1. No unverifiable claims about the style's effectiveness or history are made. That being said, legends are a big part of Wing Chun and thus ought to be given their own section.

2. Retain neutrality and objectivity when describing the style.

3. The ideas discused in the meat of the article must be universal* to all styles of Wing Chun.

4. Take time to represent the most notable lineages fairly and objectively.

*Within reason. Not all styles have the three hand forms, but there would be no sense in not discussing them

The article should discuss the following:

- Etymology
- Verifiable history
- Creation legends
- Basic triangle and centerline theory and absorption/redirection of force, sticking
- Striking techniques
- Weapons
- Training aids (Dummy, wall bags, etc.)
- Forms (perhaps single section with brief descriptions of the three basic empty hand forms with a table of different forms and various lineages with checkmarks on whether or not they have that form)
- Modern era (Yip Man's role in the style's spread, Bruce Lee, the VTAA, recent controversies including Xu Xiao Dong, etc.)

Anyone interested in the idea?
 

Poppity

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
185
Reaction score
98
The Chinese Wikipedia page is much better.... it's a great plan, but I wonder if there is just too much disagreement on so many aspects that you will end up with a skeleton description of each of wing chun's most basic techniques, being only the LCD concepts which can be agreed on... and... it'll take some resolve, drafting by committee is always difficult and tedious, even when your getting paid to do it.

don't get me wrong, it is a good idea... but I think it might be a bit like belling the cat.

Sorry for being so negative.
 

SOD-WC

Orange Belt
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Location
Australia
The Chinese Wikipedia page is much better.... it's a great plan, but I wonder if there is just too much disagreement on so many aspects that you will end up with a skeleton description of each of wing chun's most basic techniques, being only the LCD concepts which can be agreed on... and... it'll take some resolve, drafting by committee is always difficult and tedious, even when your getting paid to do it.

don't get me wrong, it is a good idea... but I think it might be a bit like belling the cat.

Sorry for being so negative.

How do i find the chineses wiki page on WC? It would be interesting to have a read
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,212
Reaction score
6,308
Location
New York
I’d go further and state be aware of all info sources. Use multiple sources and verify.
And beyond that, pay attention to their sources of information. I have seen many times where:
A cites B
B cites C
C cites A
D cites A and C
I have no idea how this can come about, but somehow it does.
 

Poppity

Green Belt
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
185
Reaction score
98
The “phantom reference:” How a made-up article got almost 400 citations

I thought I would add the reference to the scientific paper that has been cited 400 times but is made up.

...I think in a similar way, in the wing chun world there is so much inter-validation by self-appointed sifus (who don't pressure test the techniques they teach) that there often appears a lowest common denominator consensus on what is the correct and proper way to perform a particular technique... which imposes limitations on the wing chun system ... and imho putting limitations on a fighting system is what sports do.

...but what you get because of the inter-validation is a general and popular opinion of what the "truth" is.

I also think there is a general view that "traditional" wing chun is forms and drilling with no sparring. I do not understand this to be traditional wing chun... my understanding of traditional wing chun is when aspects of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism are included in the curriculum to convey ideas... but this is the just my view and everyone is entitled to their own.

...Not that Ip Man was very traditional in his teaching generally, but in some sources he is recorded as encouraging and/or wilfully turning a blind eye to the street beimos his more experienced students were involved in and I wonder to what degree the beimos were considered a part of the actual training.... I think Chi Sau is a very useful tool but I think at some point it replaced actual sparring and people specialised in it, and it was considered to be the only "true" wing chun form of interaction.... other than the "sudden death hit kill" which could of course never be practiced... but again this is just my view, but I think that the acceptance of this as a "truth" did a great deal of harm to wing chun's effectiveness.

Edited for spelling.
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Top