Wikipedia

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Wikipedia is a fascinating resource. This article discusses the nature of this growing online encyclopedia.

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[sastark]

I love wikipedia. I use it all the time.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

What's really cool is that anyone can contribute to an article. I think I'm going to chip in my on a few subjects.

 

[sastark]

I'm sure you'd have some great contributions. I've never contributed, but I've read some of the "discussion" on editing certain articles. Very interesting stuff.

Also, thanks for the comment in my guestbook over at geocities.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Some interesting Wikipedia links:

Reformed Theologians

Reformed Churches

Presbyterianism

Calvinism

Reformation

Huguenot

Covenanter

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

R. L. Dabney wasn't listed under Reformed Theologians. How do you add him.

I thought Philip Schaff was an ecumenical not Reformed guy.

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Bladestunner316]

wiki is a place I go often to get overviews on subjects not definitive but decent.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
R. L. Dabney wasn't listed under Reformed Theologians. How do you add him.

I thought Philip Schaff was an ecumenical not Reformed guy.

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

Dabney appears to be a major Wikipedia oversight. An entry for him needs to be created and linked to the Reformed Theologians page. I'm not yet experienced enough with Wikipedia to know how to go about that.

Schaff is what I would call "loosely" reformed (Reformed connections, Reformed background, not solidly Reformed). Ecumenical is quite right. Wikipedia is a fountain of information but it lacks discernment in the labels they apply, which requires discernment on our part.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Wikipedia article on the metrical psalter

 

[Bladestunner316]

Did you write that up?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Did you write that up?

No, I didn't write it. I found it to be historically interesting and worthy of note on the PB, but if I had been the one writing it, I would not have said referred to psalmody as "legalism." Wikipedia itself defines the word as a pejorative term. I would like to edit or contest that section of the article.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Did you write that up?

No, I didn't write it. I found it to be historically interesting and worthy of note on the PB, but if I had been the one writing it, I would not have said referred to psalmody as "legalism." Wikipedia itself defines the word as a pejorative term. I would like to edit or contest that section of the article.

Consider it edited.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Did you write that up?

No, I didn't write it. I found it to be historically interesting and worthy of note on the PB, but if I had been the one writing it, I would not have said referred to psalmody as "legalism." Wikipedia itself defines the word as a pejorative term. I would like to edit or contest that section of the article.

Consider it edited.

Good job, Sean!

 

[Pilgrim]

I edited this entry last year to correct an obvious error.

[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Pilgrim]

 

[Pilgrim]

Dabney wiki article

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

List of Puritans

 

[jaybird0827]

Wikipedia is good stuff. I have generally been pleased with what it knows about things reformed. Now I know why.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

there is another excellent article on the wiki at:
Annals of Information
KNOW IT ALL
Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?
by STACY SCHIFF
The New Yorker
Issue of 2006-07-31
Posted 2006-07-24
i saw it first at: http://community.livejournal.com/infojunkies/1953704.html#cutid1
however the original article is at: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact
the new yorker original will go pay for access sometime.