Beijing Review - - Forum -

Tech­ni­cally speak­ing, to use QQ and WeChat as a vot­ing plat­form is not a bad choice. It is a con­ve­nient way for vot­ing with huge and ex­ten­sive cov­er­age. It is sup­posed to be fair and trans­par­ent. How­ever, in re­al­ity, most of the vot­ers are ac­tu­ally asked to vote for a child they know lit­tle or noth­ing about. Their votes are not based on the virtue of a child’s work in a cer­tain con­test, but to­tally on their per­sonal con­nec­tion with the child’s par­ents. As a re­sult, those par­ents with the most WeChat con­tacts will al­ways pre­vail. A plat­form that is well placed to be fair and trans­par­ent, mostly due to the lack of ef­fec­tive su­per­vi­sion, is be­ing abused by too many peo­ple, es­pe­cially par­ents, to so­licit votes for their chil­dren. China Youth Daily): buy­ing will mis­lead stu­dents into be­liev­ing that it is morally ac­cept­able to reach a goal by cheat­ing, which is against ed­u­ca­tional tenets.

The orig­i­nal purpose of on­line vot­ing was to en­cour­age democ­racy and trans­parency. How­ever, for var­i­ous rea­sons, on­line vot­ing has be­come a com­pe­ti­tion of par­ents’ so­cial abil­ity rather than stu­dents’ tal­ent. Par­ents tend to take all means to seek votes to win a prize for their chil­dren. On­line vot­ing is a dou­ble-edged sword. On the one hand, it can boost stu­dents’ en­thu­si­asm for self-im­prove­ment, but on the other, if used im­prop­erly, it can en­cour­age stu­dents’ van­ity and self­ish­ness. The ed­u­ca­tion depart­ment of Zhe­jiang Prov­ince has set a good ex­am­ple for reg­u­lat­ing un­healthy on­line vot­ing ac­tiv­i­ties and help­ing stu­dents achieve bet­ter ed­u­ca­tional cam­paigns.

A hid­den money-maker

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China

© PressReader. All rights reserved.