| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
06-29-2008, 11:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Dealings with Wikipedia
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 |
|
#2
06-30-2008, 08:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#3
06-30-2008, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
#4
06-30-2008, 07:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
|
#5
07-02-2008, 07:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#8
07-06-2008, 08:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Folks,
Wikipedia can be a good source, more so on currently less controversial sources and more so if you confirm any items that are edgy. e.g. I was just reading the articles on Huldrych Zwingli, Balthasar Hübmaier, the Swiss Reformation and Anabaptist turmoils and the Zürich Bible and stuff and found Wikipedia quite concise and helpful. Giving some credit where due, I often use Wikipedia as a historical resource -- being sure to check the URL's given and with a cautious eye. Combined with Google books and other books online (mostly before the 1900's you can research and learn and digest at rather an amazing pace, including understanding better 'sides' of an issue). Especially when I am doing Johannine Comma research, or research on another battleground like Acts 8:37 or 1 Timothy 3:16 or the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures, I almost always am amazed at the resources, and Wikipedia is a good fulcrum source. I would say that the only changes to Wikipedia that are personally worthwhile are fundamental .. where you add a basic fact or a link that was missed. There are plenty of those, however you are far less likely to get into a version war. Sometimes our best evangelical outreach is simply first to learn the topics very well ourselves. From that perspective we can write with insight and pizazz. And I agree that ultimately our own Wikis can be very helpful. There could be one that looks at Bible verses and sections in book and chapter order, from the pure and perfect King James Bible perspective, showing the majesty of the pure Bible and also the stench of the corruptions and mistranslations in the modern versions. Ironically, one skeptic did something like this in reverse, often actually showing the corruption in the modern version in the process (which I did highlight in a couple of cases). Maybe there are a few such attempts, on a couple of sides, all flawed. Shalom, Steven |
|
#9
09-30-2008, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please, everybody, please check out Conservapedia. It's newer than Wikipedia, and so doesn't have as many entires (like a separarte entry on every single album Snoop Doggy Dogg ever made), but it's growing. It may not be a Christian site, but it's pro-Christian. It's even got a "Bible Verse of the Day." It's entry on Jesus begins this way:
"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah who, at the appropriate time, was sent by his Father and became a man to be the satisfaction for the anger of God toward us because of our sin, and to reveal to us the nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19). Jesus' major goal is to reveal his Father to those who will repent and trust in him as their only way of salvation from his Father's anger at them for their sin." http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page I've had my own experiences with Wikipedia. I read all the rules and instructions, signed in, and did some very balanced, very fair additions to the profile of Ruckman (which was very negative). All of my additions were gone within a day, except for one: I had identified Hugh Pyle as the man who led Ruckman to Christ. The fact that this one change remained was proof that I hadn't messed up the edits I made. The anti-Ruckmanites are on Wikipedia like flies on a puddle of honey. I only mention this because it was my only experience with editing it. But I'm gonna try some things at Conservapedia..... |
|
#10
10-03-2008, 08:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Linear Mode
