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.
Chinese projects / developments are short-sighted.
It’s a Ponzi scheme, Get money from new investors, pay existing clients. So just keep building.
They become ghost cities because building are not fully done for living, so people can’t even move in. The Infrastructure is incomplete like no proper transportation links, no jobs, no shops etc. there is literally nothing there.
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.
Never said Wikipedia was wrong
I’m just saying be careful because people can edit to fit their narrative, which has happened with like Russian and Chinese topics.
Sadly a lot properties are unfinished and left to rot away and will get demolish.
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
China is all about face.
Anything putting them in a bad light gets censored or spin to something else.
Xi Jinping eradicated poverty in China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
There is no way, I could show video and pictures poor Chinese people. But can I find the numbers to prove it? Nah
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.
Because you believe China’s propaganda
I don’t blame you, Wikipedia sources are fairly old and everyone can add/remove stuff.
Recommend more sources after 2020
If you are bored https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qhwk3O6JHZk https://youtube.com/watch?v=dnp_MxXY9qs
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.
Chinese projects / developments are short-sighted. It’s a Ponzi scheme, Get money from new investors, pay existing clients. So just keep building.
They become ghost cities because building are not fully done for living, so people can’t even move in. The Infrastructure is incomplete like no proper transportation links, no jobs, no shops etc. there is literally nothing there.
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.
Never said Wikipedia was wrong I’m just saying be careful because people can edit to fit their narrative, which has happened with like Russian and Chinese topics.
Sadly a lot properties are unfinished and left to rot away and will get demolish.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/04/investing/evergrande-stock-gain-resume-trading-intl-hnk/index.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Om6b0_ffyFQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=tj0-6am9cMY
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:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UPwtUTrwKRI wasted time and resources because everything is shortsighted and mostly affect the buyers.
How could they?
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.
https://youtu.be/BkReVej9xqA
China is all about face. Anything putting them in a bad light gets censored or spin to something else.
Xi Jinping eradicated poverty in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China There is no way, I could show video and pictures poor Chinese people. But can I find the numbers to prove it? Nah
Here is an example of data being censored https://youtube.com/watch?v=uA7VK5CbS8k
I’m sorry I can’t directly link you something 😭
A few of the sources are literally from 2023. But do go on, it certainly seems like you’re here in good faith, right?
Yeah, I’m not saying there isn’t anything newer “A few” vs what’s up to date
Wikipedia isn’t great place for sources because everyone can post and edit. We taught in school never to source Wikipedia for that reason.
Wikipedia banned seven users after reported ‘infiltration’ by a Chinese group https://www.engadget.com/wikipedia-banned-seven-users-after-reported-infiltration-by-a-chinese-group-104143971.html?
China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49921173
I’m here in good faith 🙏
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.
Yeah, we should stop because you are not getting what I’m saying and probably can’t see why you being downvoted.
Cheers