# The dark side of wikipedia



## crhoades (Dec 7, 2005)

The dark side of wikipedia

As Christians who are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ - we should decry this as an assault against scholarship. Knowledge is now being deseminated by popularity vote. Yes this is a good way to deseminate information when double speak becomes law but we shouldn't be stuck on the horns of that dilemma.

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

It seems like you get what you pay for!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 7, 2005)

Wicked-pedia???

You would rather have a limited number of news blow-hards on the TV telling us what is the truth?

Who is the guardian of the truth? Would you have the media soleyl be? Or the gov't?


I love Wikipedia, I love blogs, and I love the net. They break the monopoly that corporate media has on what they feed us. 


Wickipedia is a great idea. Those with a vested interest in the topic can post information on the topic. It seems there could be better safeguards, but so far, from what I have seen, their entries surpass the dry stale entires that one would normally get in references.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Wicked-pedia???
> 
> You would rather have a limited number of news blow-hards on the TV telling us what is the truth?
> ...


----------



## crhoades (Dec 7, 2005)

Just to flesh out my above post for clarity's sake...

Horns of a dilemma:

Horn 1 - having to rely on govt. or big media
Horn 2 - the opposite- having a free for all with no restraint

I read blogs everyday. I also check out many news outlets. Christian scholarship should start with the Bible and work outward. It should strive to look at primary sources and interpret them in the light of Scripture. We should study philosophy, arts, history, economics, politics, etc from a Christian standpoint.

What I'm saying is that we should present a more scholarly rebuttal than, "Wikipedia says" or "Fox News says". Either needs checks and balances for not only trustworthiness of facts but also the bias/perspective it was written from. The articles on wikipedia - from what perspective were they written? I have little trust that it was from a Christian perspective. And yes, I read books that non-Christians have written, but do not rest everything on them alone.

[Edited on 12-7-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Dec 7, 2005)

Also for Chris' post:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 7, 2005)

I agree with Chris. I happen to be a fan of Wikipedia and reference it often. But I alwa;ys do so with the knowledge that it is just one source of information out of many, with all of the biases and hidden agendas of its anonymous authors. 

I would be glad if more Christian scholars took it upon themselves to make contributions to Wikipedia articles. I find errors and anti-Christian biases in their articles all the time, not to mention articles on subjects that are completely abhorrent. But there is much that is good and that is simply a repeat of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which itself has errors and biases. 

There is another site worth checking out and making contributions to -- Theopedia. 

In any case, as long as it understood that it is one internet source out of many it can be helpful and profitable. It is not necessarily superior or worse than any other media outlet that I have seen, Christian or otherwise. 

I saw this article a couple of days ago and I grieve for the trouble that man had. But such troubles are not unique to Wikipedia. I do hope that Wikipedia continues to reform and improve, and that it learns an important Ninth Commandment lesson. Meanwhile, we can still utilize and perhaps contribute to this great information tool but recognize its limitations and risks.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Just to flesh out my above post for clarity's sake...
> 
> Horns of a dilemma:
> ...



I see no need to. If someone on here says, "Look what Fox News says or Wik. says this...", then we all need to take it in said context that it is Fox News, it is Wik. (which is not the Bible). Does this mean we have to agree with everything Wik. says? No. We need to be discerning, but nonetheless it is a great tool that we should use. On much of what it writes it is right on. We need not fret just because it isn't 'christian'. Heck, even if it is 'christian' that doesnt even mean it is true, just because it is written by a christian. We all know that. 

We HAVE to rely on what we have/get? However, in all things we must be discerning as to its truthfulness based on Scripture.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2005)

Wikipedia author: False entry was a joke


----------



## SRoper (Dec 12, 2005)

NYT has a little more detail.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 15, 2005)

Wikipedia 'Pretty Accurate' According to the Journal 'Nature'


----------

