Japanese Wikipedia

[Smiley]

"How Japanese Wikipedia is Spreading Historical Revisionism"
Yumiko Sato

A very interesting blogpost which reveals serious problems within Japanese Wikipedia and how the Foundation remains blissfully ignorant about the situation.


The Japanese version has a number of insightful comments from readers, for example:

I am also one of those who are keenly aware that the Japanese version of Wikipedia can be extremely biased, with arbitrary citations based on personal tastes. Quoting from English literature, few people can tell if there is any intentional distortion.

In addition, the guidelines that the parties involved in the item should not be written and should not be cited unless they are scholarly documents are overemphasized and can be conveniently used by malicious authors.

Wikipedia seems to be a system in which only those who are familiar with the guidelines, such as the rules of the game, can secure a territory as an author with bias.

Perhaps some authors make Wikipedia a playground like an online game for self-satisfaction.

There is a tendency to use the guidelines as a shield and try to keep the biased description that is convenient for you. Newcomers are wrapped in smoke.

Wikipedia, especially the Japanese version, has many problems. I don't think it can be overlooked. Eliminating anonymity could be a slight improvement. Enlightenment is absolutely necessary so that the general public can recognize the problems that Wikipedia has.

[el84]

A (soon to be ex-) Japanese Steward, Rxy, hasn't passed confirmation at the recent Steward confirmations. Mentioned there are things like Rxy being dethroned on his home wiki due to threatening them and such.

[Smiley]

Yumi has tweeted about ja.wiki users being blocked for adding material to Unit 731.

The talk page shows a user being accused of copyright violations. They reply that they're simply quoting from sources but they end up blocked. The article's edit history shows a lot of back and forth. I can't say for certain, but it looks like well-sourced additions are being rejected on spurious grounds.

Comparing en.wiki and rough translation of ja.wiki may help shed some light.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to ascertain which is which.

Unit 731 (Shichisan Ichibutai) is one of the research institutes that existed in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. The official name is the Kwantung Army Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department headquarters.

In recent years, US official documents have been declassified and studied, but no records of inhumane experiments conducted by Unit 731 have been found.

There is a theory that Unit 731 was also conducting unjustified human experimentation without the consent for the purpose of developing biological weapons and researching treatment methods. According to this theory, human experimentation was conducted upon Korean, Chinese, Mongol, American, and Russian subjects, who were detained as prisoners of war and suspected spies. According to the testimony of Kiyoshi Kawashima surgeon Major General more than 3,000 people were experimented upon. Some say that the number of victims is even smaller, and the number of technicians said to have been involved in the dissection team is 700-800 at most, and it is estimated that there were about 100 people a year and less than 1000 people in total.

There is also a theory that biological weapons may have been used in actual combat, not just research.

The only evidence is the pathological specimen that Tachio Ishikawa brought back to mainland Japan in 1943, but it has been found that it does not provide evidence of human experimentation. [citation needed]

Unit 731 short for Manshu Detachment 731 and also known as Kamo Detachment, Ishii Unit, was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Imperial Japan.

They routinely conducted tests on human beings (who were referred to internally as "logs"). Additionally, the biological weapons were tested in the field on cities and towns in China. Estimates of those killed by Unit 731 and its related programs range up to half a million people.

At least 3,000 men, women, and children—from which at least 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai were subjected to experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100. According to A. S. Wells, the majority of victims were Chinese with a lesser percentage being Russian, Mongolian, and Korean. They may also have included a small number of European, American, Indian, Australian and New Zealander prisoners of war. Sheldon H. Harris documented that the victims were generally political dissidents, communist sympathizers, ordinary criminals, impoverished civilians, and the mentally handicapped.

Female prisoners were forced to become pregnant for use in experiments. Though "a large number of babies were born in captivity", there have been no accounts of any survivors of Unit 731, children included. It is suspected that the children of female prisoners were killed after birth or aborted.

Yumi's right. Some seriously shady shit right here.

[ArmasRebane]

It's interesting that the left wing largely influences so many "western" wikis (or certainly isn't marginalized) and yet in a lot of eastern and global south wikis it's the opposite.

Stuff like this reminds me why I think En.WP is better off forgetting the "sum of all knowledge" thing and proudly accept that it's going to have cultural biases, because the reality is the foreign stuff with tons of non-English sources and fewer editors are always going to be ripe for unseen bias. The WMF by and large has the same problem—as identified by the (low-stakes) Scots blowup, if you don't have multiple people overseeing every language they really can't be overseen or controlled in any meaningful way.

I recall especially years ago you'd have users from other projects come to en.wp seeking help because a cadre of (in their minds) POV admins were working together to muscle out everyone. Obviously some of that was a biased retelling from the 'wronged' party, but given the demonstrable examples of where small wikis were controlled by a small corps I'm sure some had legitimate grievance.

[Smiley]

...it's going to have cultural biases, because the reality is the foreign stuff with tons of non-English sources and fewer editors are always going to be ripe for unseen bias.

But jawiki isn't some piddling backwater.
It's the fourth largest wiki and only enwiki gets more views.

They have a severe admin shortage.
Apparently there are 16,000 active users but only 41 administrators.
Out of all languages they have the worst ratio of admins to active users (0.26%). link

I just added a heap of well-sourced information to Unit 731. It lasted ten minutes.
Reason given for reverting: サイズの大幅な増減 手 (Significant increase or decrease in size)

[ArmasRebane]

...it's going to have cultural biases, because the reality is the foreign stuff with tons of non-English sources and fewer editors are always going to be ripe for unseen bias.

But jawiki isn't some piddling backwater.
It's the fourth largest wiki and only enwiki gets more views.

They have a severe admin shortage.
Apparently there are 16,000 active users but only 41 administrators.
Out of all languages they have the worst ratio of admins to active users (0.26%). link

I just added a heap of well-sourced information to Unit 731. It lasted ten minutes.
Reason given for reverting: サイズの大幅な増減 手 (Significant increase or decrease in size)

I think the cultural factors the OP story discussed probably relate. Jawiki isn't a "backwater" in terms of size, but it's very much one of the largest wikis that also has a strong monocultural streak. The comparison to small Eastern European wikis where language is intrinsically tied up with ethnic disputes is an apt one.

The administrator question is a more interesting one. Doesnt look like their RfA talk page indicates any solution to that is coming, but from my understanding of the translated gist I'd wager part of its problem is a weird amount of bureaucracy and process: https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 3A管理者への立候補

[Poetlister]

Funny things happen on the Japanese Wikipedia. Aphaia, a well-regarded player internationally, is blocked there although it's her home wiki.

[Smiley]

I think the cultural factors the OP story discussed probably relate. Jawiki isn't a "backwater" in terms of size, but it's very much one of the largest wikis that also has a strong monocultural streak. The comparison to small Eastern European wikis where language is intrinsically tied up with ethnic disputes is an apt one.

Maybe letting the Japanese Wikipedians rewrite their history from a nationalist perspective fits the Foundation's goal of "sharing knowledge that fully represents human diversity."

.

[Ryuichi]

I just added a heap of well-sourced information to Unit 731. It lasted ten minutes.
Reason given for reverting: サイズの大幅な増減 手 (Significant increase or decrease in size)

That's an automatically added tag. The same as enWiki automatically tags reverts, visual edits, etc.

The edit was reverted because it removed the deletion template at the top of the article. The page is being discussed because of copyright violations.

[Smiley]

I just added a heap of well-sourced information to Unit 731. It lasted ten minutes.
Reason given for reverting: サイズの大幅な増減 手 (Significant increase or decrease in size)

That's an automatically added tag. The same as enWiki automatically tags reverts, visual edits, etc.

The edit was reverted because it removed the deletion template at the top of the article. The page is being discussed because of copyright violations.

Thanks for explaining.

It looks like the supposed copyright violations were dealt with long ago, and it was really an issue of overquoting.

I think the real reason was what an editor on the talkpage refers to as "Chinese brainwashing".

[Ryuichi]

The reasons given in some of the edit summaries: 削除依頼タグの除去を差し戻し。relates to removal of a deletion request template - 保護依頼を削除しないこと。relates to removal of a protection request template. The protection request template was added because of the edit warring.

Of course, neither of those are reasons for a full revert. They could've just re-added the templates.

The "AfD" discussion is here: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... 31部隊210211. I'm still reading policies to work out whether it's the whole page or just the process to request revdel.

EDIT: Looks like it's a request for revdel, not the whole article.

[Ryuichi]

I think the real reason was what an editor on the talkpage refers to as "Chinese brainwashing".

Absolutely. Some editors there will see your edits as engaging in "historical revisionism".

[Smiley]

Of course, neither of those mean are reasons for a full revert. They could've just re-added the templates.

Exactly. "John Locke" was blocked for excessive quoting, but the rest of the material and his sources looked good. It doesn't look like his opponents attempted to compromise by removing quotes.

Some editors there will see your edits as engaging in "historical revisionism".

Well, they say history is written by the winners. Wikipedia may be the only place where it's written by losers.

Ryuichi, how well do you know ja.wiki? Have these problems always been apparent?

[Ryuichi]

Ryuichi, how well do you know ja.wiki? Have these problems always been apparent?

Not well at all. I'm not an active editor, and I don't read political topics there much.

Though, I would say the issue isn't just isolated to Wikipedia.

[Midsize Jake]

Though, I would say the issue isn't just isolated to Wikipedia.

Well, if we're being completely fair about this, there's probably no way a multi-language crowdsourced encyclopedia-like website could enforce or maintain ideological consistency across all all languages, or even just a handful of "major" languages, especially over the long term. And if anything, the problem is/was probably worse for reference materials requiring physical distribution (print, CD-ROM, etc.).

It's definitely a problem, though... it's just that Wiki(m/p)edia isn't equipped to deal with it; if they try, they'll only piss people off. And bear in mind, their recently-proposed goals of "global knowledge equity" can easily be interpreted to mean that they will try, in some fashion or other.

So, like many problems, I guess the larger question here is whether or not the solution is worse than the problem itself.

[Ada Sinn]

Japanese Wikipedia article on Unit 731 just echoes the Japanese educational system. "World War II? Nothing to see here, move along quickly."

[Anonyanonymous]

Well, if we're being completely fair about this, there's probably no way a multi-language crowdsourced encyclopedia-like website could enforce or maintain ideological consistency across all all languages, or even just a handful of "major" languages, especially over the long term. And if anything, the problem is/was probably worse for reference materials requiring physical distribution (print, CD-ROM, etc.).

It's definitely a problem, though... it's just that Wiki(m/p)edia isn't equipped to deal with it; if they try, they'll only piss people off. And bear in mind, their recently-proposed goals of "global knowledge equity" can easily be interpreted to mean that they will try, in some fashion or other.

Yes this is 100% true because of a ton of cultural barriers.

[tarantino]

Japanese Wikipedia article on Unit 731 just echoes the Japanese educational system. "World War II? Nothing to see here, move along quickly."

I know an elderly Chinese gentleman. He doesn't miss an opportunity to politely school the younger Japanese he meets on the atrocities perpetrated at Nanjing.

[Zoloft]

I have a strange idea of how to spend vacation time. I once visited the Yasukuni Shrine (T-H-L) and brought along a World War II history buff. Inside the shrine, there are diaries and letters from kamikaze pilots, actual tanks and aircraft from World War II, and ...a big wall with the 'history' of how World War II began.

Apparently, the Japanese decided they would be the saviors of civilization in the area. People misbehaved and their Imperial Army was forced into action. Somehow, the city of Nanking managed to set itself on fire and people ran headlong into innocent bullets. Then the nasty Westerners came along and abused the heroic Empire.

There are detailed maps.

The fellow I brought along loved the airplane and tank exhibits, the diaries, and letters. He turned purple and started spluttering when we got to the 'history' wall. I politely asked him to keep his objections until after we'd left the grounds, as we were literally surrounded by fanatical defenders of 'honor.'

[Poetlister]

That's why experts are discouraged on Wikipedia. The chap would probably have a heart attack if he started editing the Japanese site!

[Yumiko]

Thank you for sharing my blog. Since I wrote it, I've done more research and discovered that Japanese Wikipedia is controlled by a group of power users/editors.

The talk pages of controversial historical topics, such as Comfort Women, Nanjing Massacre, Battle of Hong Kong, etc., show that many editors have expressed their concerns about historical revisionism. When they try to edit these pages, power users often defend their views by invoking "neutrality" or "copyright issues."

[Ryuichi]

佐藤さん

This problem also exists on other language Wikipedias - group of editors controlling content to fit a biased point of view. I think it is a problem built into the system - the same group decides who is allowed to remain an editor and who is not.

Which is not to diminish any issues with the Japanese Wikipedia in particular; just that it seems inherent to the way Wikipedias work.

[Smiley]

Hi Yumi.

As a contrast, here is an example of how pro-Japanese editors are treated on en.wiki.

Nanshu (T-C-L) is a Japanese nationalist editor who's been on en.wiki for 18 years. His POV was critcized early on, when another user noticed his geocities page: "Korea, the Preposterous World". For a while he tried to whitewash the Unit 731 article, but didn't make any headway.

Numerous users have complained about his edits. In 2016, he was been taken to the admin noticeboard for his political activism but escaped punishment. In October 2020 he tried to delete the Ainu flag article because he believed the flag was a copyright violation. His only block was for 24 hours after he called Ryulong "extraordinarily stupid" (some might say that's a reasonable comment).

In short, Nanshu is tolerated on en.wiki, but has been mostly unsuccessful with his attempts at historical revisionism.


edit: Similarly, XiAdonis (T-C-L) has consistently editwarred from a nationalist POV on a whole host of contentious articles, yet hasn't been blocked. (link 1, link 2)

[Yumiko]

佐藤さん

This problem also exists on other language Wikipedias - group of editors controlling content to fit a biased point of view. I think it is a problem built into the system - the same group decides who is allowed to remain an editor and who is not.

Which is not to diminish any issues with the Japanese Wikipedia in particular; just that it seems inherent to the way Wikipedias work.

Hi, Ryuichi san

Thank you for sharing your insight. Your observation makes sense. So why do you think that the English Wikipedia doesn't have the problem with nationalism/historical revisionism? Is it because the community includes people of various nationalities/backgrounds unlike the Japanese Wiki? Or do you think that the core group of people who have been involved in the English Wiki for many years happen to be liberal minded?

[Yumiko]

Hi Yumi.

As a contrast, here is an example of how pro-Japanese editors are treated on en.wiki.

Nanshu (T-C-L) is a Japanese nationalist editor who's been on en.wiki for 18 years. His POV was critcized early on, when another user noticed his geocities page: "Korea, the Preposterous World". For a while he tried to whitewash the Unit 731 article, but didn't make any headway.

Numerous users have complained about his edits. In 2016, he was been taken to the admin noticeboard for his political activism but escaped punishment. In October 2020 he tried to delete the Ainu flag article because he believed the flag was a copyright violation. His only block was for 24 hours after he called Ryulong "extraordinarily stupid" (some might say that's a reasonable comment).

In short, Nanshu is tolerated on en.wiki, but has been mostly unsuccessful with his attempts at historical revisionism.


edit: Similarly, XiAdonis (T-C-L) has consistently editwarred from a nationalist POV on a whole host of contentious articles, yet hasn't been blocked. (link 1, link 2)

Thank you for letting me know! In fact I've seen a few Japanese tweeting things like "We have to get involved in the English Wiki and correct what they say about Comfort Women," etc. I'm glad to hear their attempts are mostly unsuccessful.

[Katie]

I found another Japanese nationalist editor on the English Wikipedia, namely みしまるもも (T-C-L), who's the main editor of Yukio Mishima (T-H-L)'s Wikipedia article in terms of text added according to this: link and who's made clearly pro-Japan edits such as: link, link, and link. This final edit makes it clear they're a Japanese nationalist: link.

EDIT: corrected a mistake I made, which was accidentally using wpuser instead of wparticle when I mentioned the Yukio Mishima article.

[Yumiko]

Thanks for sharing, Katie. So it seems there are many Japanese nationalists in the English Wikipedia (!) I see that this person was given a notice but is still active.

How often are users blocked in the English Wikipedia? It seems that users get blocked quite often in the Japanese Wiki. For instance, the user/editor who challenged historical revisionists' view on Unit 731 has been blocked...

[Anonyanonymous]

I found another Japanese nationalist editor on the English Wikipedia, namely みしまるもも (T-C-L), who's the main editor of Yukio Mishima (T-C-L)'s Wikipedia article in terms of text added according to this: link and who's made clearly pro-Japan edits such as: link, link, and link. This final edit makes it clear they're a Japanese nationalist: link.

100% agree with the poster. The person mentioned there is obviously a Japanese nationalist trying to whitewash Japan. Wikipedia should block or even ban that person because of the obvious violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, but they didn't.

[Yumiko]

100% agree with the poster. The person mentioned there is obviously a Japanese nationalist trying to whitewash Japan. Wikipedia should block or even ban that person because of the obvious violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, but they didn't.

What's ironic is that many nationalists/historical revisionists in Japanese Wikipedia often invoke "neutrality" to defend their views.

[Anonyanonymous]

What's ironic is that many nationalists/historical revisionists in Japanese Wikipedia often invoke "neutrality" to defend their views.

But the thing is, I saw that they obviously violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view because they are trying to clear Japan off the crimes they did in Wold War II by stating that it never happened or just said that someone else did it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but they are putting their statements in a way that made their statements seemingly the right knowledge to learn, which obviously violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. (according to the related article) But I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't block them, it is not the first time that the user made such a post, according to posts made by Katie about the revision history of certain articles. This is certainly a flaw and it is worth a discussion.

[Yumiko]

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral but they are putting their statements in a way that made their statements seemingly the right knowledge to learn, which obviously violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. (according to the related article) But I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't block them, it is not the first time that the user made such a post, according to posts made by Katie about the revision history of certain articles. This is certainly a flaw and it is worth a discussion.

I agree their views are NOT neutral, and they should be blocked. I heard that if you try to whitewash the Holocaust in English Wiki, you'll be blocked. The same thing should apply to any other war crimes in Wiki of all language versions.

[Poetlister]

WP:NPOV (T-H-L) isn't about what is objectively neutral. It "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If many sources say that the Japanese didn't do something, then that must be mentioned in the relevant articles. This is however clarified:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

[3] The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered

The question is then whether these Japanese viewpoints are significant, remembering that few editors of the English Wikipedia take much notice of sources not written in English. Of course, the idea that the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors is irrelevant is nonsense in practice.

[Yumiko]

I'd like to add something relevant to this discussion. I discovered that users who challenged the revisionist/nationalist views have been blocked. For instance...

Aburakass and Miki08 were accused of "political activism."

ジョンロック was blocked for "excessive quoting" after he tried to edit the Unit 731 page.

If you look at talk pages of controversial historical topics, you'll see that people who oppose historical revisionists are bullied and eventually have their accounts blocked.

[Smiley]

Aburakass

That userpage is so dispiriting.

[Yumiko]

I've decided to contact blocked users to hear their experiences. I couldn't contact Aburakass and Miki08 (their email functions seemed to be turned off), but I was able to contact ジョンロック（John Lock）whose account was blocked after editing the page on Unit 731 and received a reply.

He says he has a master degree in history and read a numerous books on Unit 731. He sent me the old version of this page. You can see that there is a section about "人体実験" (human experiment).

In the new version it's deleted. Now it says there is "a theory" that human experiment took place. When John Lock attempted to restore the old version and engaged in "edit war," his account was blocked.

[Zoloft]

This might make an interesting blog post.

[Ada Sinn]

This might make an interesting blog post.

[Yumiko]

Hi everyone, I just published an article "Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem" in Slate. Please read and share your thoughts.

This forum has helped me understand the issue better. Thank you for your comments and feedback.

[tarantino]

Very good!

[Vigilant]

That is a great article.

[Poetlister]

Hi everyone, I just published an article "Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem" in Slate. Please read and share your thoughts.

This forum has helped me understand the issue better. Thank you for your comments and feedback.

Very good. But it would be wrong to suggest that all non-English editions have similar problems. Of course, each language has an editing community with A somewhat different viewpoint from the English (mainly US) one but for example the German Wikipedia is not nearly so keen on historical whitewash as the Japanese one.

[Bezdomni]

Well done. I particularly enjoyed:

[....] Katherine Maher [....] said, “the fact that we only have one page, it’s the same page that’s viewed by absolutely everyone across the globe, is really important.”

But Wikipedia exists in 302 languages...

[rhindle]

Hi everyone, I just published an article "Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem" in Slate. Please read and share your thoughts.

This forum has helped me understand the issue better. Thank you for your comments and feedback.

Have you identified any of the editors who have put in the revisionism or admins who may give them cover by blocking those who call out the misinformation? The English WP has had their share of bad actors and admin protectors in the past that have been called out. Are there any users you could consider the worst of the culprits?

[Jim]

Hi everyone, I just published an article "Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem" in Slate. Please read and share your thoughts.

This forum has helped me understand the issue better. Thank you for your comments and feedback.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

[Midsize Jake]

Awesome!

This was an interesting point (by one of Ms. Yumiko's blog commenters) about cultural (and, I'd assume, linguistic) isolation:

Another wrote, “The notion that ‘the more people continue to edit, the better it gets’ is uniquely American. This doesn’t happen to the Japanese version because it’s isolated.”

That first bit does describe the "standard dogma" on en.wp, and not just among Americans — though of course many of us here, myself included, hold the opposite view, which is that most non-stub articles (that aren't about newsmakers or current events) reach a point early on where they're more likely to be worsened by substantive changes, and in some cases even additions. That seems to be particularly true of historical material, though again, some subjects obviously have to be updated in response to new discoveries and what-not.

As for the Japanese Wikipedia being "isolated" though, Japan's population is about 127 million, and WP tells us that the Japanese diaspora (T-H-L) is "over 3.8 million" — which seems like a lot until you compare it to other diasporas such as Koreans (7.4M), Pakistanis (8.8M), and Armenians (7.6M, more than twice the size of the Republic of Armenia's internal population). And in this case we're obviously talking about a highly contentious subject (i.e., war crimes), and that contentiousness is obviously the key factor in how the Wikipedia article has been developed.

Still, you have to ask if this kind of "whitewashing" (or more accurately, narrative control) also happens on other Wikipedias whose language-speakers are mostly confined to one country, especially island countries where that's presumably more likely to be the case. My own immediate reaction would be to say "well yeah, probably," but it's possible that this sort of thing is actually more exclusive to Japan because, well, maybe their Wikipedians are just in a better position to get away with it there than anybody else, and maybe Wikipedians in other countries don't have the same motives as they do.

[Anonyanonymous]

Hi everyone, I just published an article "Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem" in Slate. Please read and share your thoughts.

This forum has helped me understand the issue better. Thank you for your comments and feedback.

This is 100% correct and a very great job. Congrats.

[Yumiko]

Have you identified any of the editors who have put in the revisionism or admins who may give them cover by blocking those who call out the misinformation? The English WP has had their share of bad actors and admin protectors in the past that have been called out. Are there any users you could consider the worst of the culprits?

There are many of them, but here are a few examples:

大和屋敷 (meaning, "Yamato Mansion")

Takabeg

They frequently appear on "talk pages" to defend revisionist's views.

S.S.Exp.Hashimoto

This user eliminated the older version of "Unit 731" page.

伊佐坂安物　 & えのきだたもつ are new administrators. Someone reported to me that they have played a part in blocking a user who challenged the article on Unit 731.

So it seems that some administrators are "giving them cover." I also learned that some of the editors communicate via 5chan, an anonymous message board, to discuss users they don't like or want to block.

[Yumiko]

Well done. I particularly enjoyed:

[....] Katherine Maher [....] said, “the fact that we only have one page, it’s the same page that’s viewed by absolutely everyone across the globe, is really important.”

But Wikipedia exists in 302 languages...

The Wikimedia Foundation likes to emphasize that "there is only one page for each topic."

But I've found more than one page for a similar topic on Japanese Wikipedia. For instance, there are at least three separate pages regarding “comfort women” --- “Comfort Women, “ Comfort Women of Japan,” “Comfort Women Issues of Japan.” The content overlaps. The page I mentioned in my article is “Comfort Women of Japan” (even so, it talks about the practices of other nations).

I’ve also found two pages on the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake - “Kanto Earthquake” and “Kanto Great Earthquake.” It’s well known that ethnic Koreans were massacred after the earthquake. One of the articles doesn’t mention that at all. It seems that historical revisionism is not the only problem with Japanese Wikipedia. It’s common to find discriminatory content on minority groups, especially ethnic Koreans.

[Yumiko]

Still, you have to ask if this kind of "whitewashing" (or more accurately, narrative control) also happens on other Wikipedias whose language-speakers are mostly confined to one country, especially island countries where that's presumably more likely to be the case. My own immediate reaction would be to say "well yeah, probably," but it's possible that this sort of thing is actually more exclusive to Japan because, well, maybe their Wikipedians are just in a better position to get away with it there than anybody else, and maybe Wikipedians in other countries don't have the same motives as they do.

I, too, think a similar problem is probably happening on other language Wikipedias... Japanese are isolated not only geographically but also culturally. Most Japanese don't speak English (even though we have to study English in school), so it's hard for Japanese readers to use English Wikipedia. Korea is similar to Japan in terms of culture, etc, but many Koreans speak English, which makes them less "isolated" perhaps.

[Anonyanonymous]

I, too, think a similar problem is probably happening on other language Wikipedias... Japanese are isolated not only geographically but also culturally. Most Japanese don't speak English (even though we have to study English in school), so it's hard for Japanese readers to use English Wikipedia. Korea is similar to Japan in terms of culture, etc, but many Koreans speak English, which makes them less "isolated" perhaps.

But I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't respond to this? Is there some conspiracy or some regrettable truth about it behind the scenes?