# Reformed Wikipedia?



## tellville (Apr 3, 2006)

I just got an email from FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research: http://www.fairlds.org/ 
, a Mormon apologetic site. They have started a Wiki (http://www.fairwiki.org) so as to compile all their apologetic work as well as theology, etc. I know the Eastern Orthodox have a similar Wiki: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page . 

I´m curious, do us Reform folk have a Wiki?


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 3, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism


----------



## tellville (Apr 3, 2006)

Thank you for the links! But alas, I don't think you understood my question. I am wondering whether there is an actual Reform Wiki, not just articles on Wikipedia, but an actual Wiki devoted to Reform theology and apologetics like the Mormon and Eastern Orthodox ones I linked too.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 3, 2006)

This is the closest I have found so far:

http://www.theopedia.com/Main_Page


----------



## Civbert (Apr 3, 2006)

And that makes me wonder, if the a "reformed" wiki, will it be any more fair that the "reformed" articles on the wikipedia now. I expect that the Mormon and Eastern Orthodox versions are there because they can _control_ the content - but the wiki concept is to let anyone contribute or edit content. Basically, everyone polices the content, so if anything really bad is posted, a more knowledgeable user will go in and correct it, or add an "alternative" view. 

So far, I've found most of the things I've read on wiki to be reasonably fair. I've only found one case of vandalism, and a few cases of extreme bias. I expect that the kinds of people most likely to add or make edits to the site, are people who are knowledgeable of the subject. And when there are conflicting views, often both sides are expressed. It's difficult to misrepresent a view you disagree with, because the proponent of that view will correct your presentation.

So if you find something on wiki that is unfair or overly biased, then correct it. There's no good reason for wiki to be unfair unless the text is subject to a editing war between two sides, and even this is made clear on a wiki by labeling the article "controversial" and seeing the history of the article.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 3, 2006)

P.S. Consider also that if you wanted to find an unbiased view on (for example) Mormonism, would you consider the Mormon wiki to be the best source of information? Will the Mormons fairly present the arguments against their views? So I'd think "reformed" views that a fairly presented on the Wikipedia would be considered less unbiased then those on a specific "reformed" wiki site. So even if the "reformed" wiki is just as fair (if it followed the open content philosophy or wiki), it would not appear to be fair.


----------



## Mike (Apr 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> This is the closest I have found so far:
> 
> http://www.theopedia.com/Main_Page


I don't particularly see why anything closer than the goals of that would be particularly desired in a reformed cyclopedia.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mike_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



The statement of faith is Reformed in a broad sense. Their writing guide exposes some of the weaknesses in their attempt to set parameters for what is meant by "Reformed." 

Do their 8 principles articulated in their statement faith sum up what is meant by "Reformed" or do they represent a "lowest common denominator" of what "Reformed" means? 

Does "Reformed" include "Baptist," "Anglican" or "Lutheran"? Historically, "Reformed" meant something very different from "Anglican" or "Lutheran" (both of which historically included men like Luther and Ussher who believe in the doctrines of grace). Our Webmaster has written an article showing that "Baptist" is a deviation from "Reformed" (although Bunyan and Spurgeon believed in the doctrines of grace). Theopedia's Why Reformed? section downplays any specifically "Reformed" position on church government, baptism, etc. 

If "Reformed" only has reference to the Apostle's Creed + TULIP, then Theopedia may be said to be "Reformed." If "Reformed" means something more historically or theologically precise than the scope presented by Theopedia, then it is only somewhat "Reformed."

Theopedia does allow non-"Reformed" content to be presented (and critiqued). It can therefore serve to some extent as a platform for non-"Reformed" views. 

I think Theopedia can be a helpful resource, but I think its attempt to define itself as "Reformed" raises more questions than it answers.

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------

