[stephanos]

Anyone have any advice on how to address the fact that a lot of Biblical topics on wikipedia do not use the KJB? I've recently contributed to an article a link and I changed some NIV references to AV ones and they promptly changed them back. I'm a bit frustrated tbh, and wonder if any of you have dealt with this. I've been thinking about contributing a total rewrite of the page under a slightly different name, and then locking it (not sure how to do that yet). Is this a good idea?

for Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[Diligent]

Wikipedia is all about who has the time and patience to get the last edit. The only way to ensure your changes aren't altered is to change them back yourself. You can't do this in an automated way without breaking the terms of service. As for locking, I'm not real sure about that but it's safe to say you can't just arbitrarily lock an entry -- I think there has to be a significant amount of turmoil before that can happen.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Wikipedia is all about who has the time and patience to get the last edit. The only way to ensure your changes aren't altered is to change them back yourself. You can't do this in an automated way without breaking the terms of service. As for locking, I'm not real sure about that but it's safe to say you can't just arbitrarily lock an entry -- I think there has to be a significant amount of turmoil before that can happen.

I avoid wikipedia in every search in which I can avoid it.

There are a few levels of moderators and "administrators" who make decisions on controversial pages and text. The biggest hurdle in these things is their NPOV policy ("neutral point of view"), which is nowhere near the relevant web pages in lots of things like the Bible, or Creation, or Darwinian Evolution, Islam, whatever.

Because the administrator consensus there wins.

That's why areas like the KJB or Creationism or other such subjects need either their own wiki, or a portal on the subject. There is a Creation Wiki, but even there, the administrator, a young-earth creationist with science credentials, does not like any suggestion that the KJB is the only Bible Christians should use today.

-Trutherator

[stephanos]

So I wonder if it is wise to just keep changing it back after Flex changes it to the NIV? To be honest, I've been thinking to myself that perhaps my involvement with wikipedia is just a waste of my time (ie casting my perls...). I appreciate your feedback diligent, thank you.

a brother in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

[Paladin54]

Yes, stephanos, pearls before swine. It tried editing some wrong things but there are poeple who just sit there ready to change any change, always turning it to a liberal curve, in matters besides the Bible.

[stephanos]

Yeah, I think I shall just avoid involvement with that cespool of worldly knowledge. I should have anticipated this before hand. Live and learn...

Much Love in Christ,
Stephen

[Jeremy]

To me Wikipedia is not a reliable source,especially when you can go in and edit the content.

Originally Posted by stephanos

So I wonder if it is wise to just keep changing it back after Flex changes it to the NIV? To be honest, I've been thinking to myself that perhaps my involvement with wikipedia is just a waste of my time (ie casting my perls...). I appreciate your feedback diligent, thank you.

a brother in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

They will cancel you if you keep it up, anything with truth is prohibited, I call it wickedpedia

[atlas]

Guys,


Make a Ruckman post on conservapedia, I just looked and there is not anything listed about Ruckman there. Just an idea.



Atlas

Originally Posted by atlas

Guys,


Make a Ruckman post on conservapedia, I just looked and there is not anything listed about Ruckman there. Just an idea.



Atlas

I plan to do just that, brother. Thanks for the suggestion.