Jeff K. Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 An interesting article regarding WikiWiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on WikipediaWikipedia is what I consider a wonderful service and a good source for the most part. But sometimes I worry that what is learned about us, a relatively small minority in the world, and about others (who are small minorities in the world) become defined not so much by an objective presentation of facts, but by a stronger manipulation and editing of material facts. How do we ensure that our voice is heard in a world where our voice might be small?
Analytics Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 If you google the example given in the article ("First Vision"), most of the articles on the first page are pro-LDS. Just because non-Mormons have some influence on wikipedia doesn't mean your voice isn't heard.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 My colleague Michael DeGroote had an interesting piece on the front page of Sunday's Deseret News about the battle to define Mormonism on Wikipedia.Submitted for your consideration and discussion.
ttribe Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Just because non-Mormons have some influence on wikipedia doesn't mean your voice isn't heard.Did someone suggest that it was the case that "we" believed our voice wasn't being heard? Near as I can tell the article is highlighting the ongoing tension between the two parties, not that one is being favored (not to mention the effect one particularly zealous BJU professor can have on the process).
Jason Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Who cares? Wikipedia is not a reliable information source for information on any politically-charged topic, including pretty much any religious issue. Too many agenda-driven writers.It's much more useful for discovering what issue Superman died in.
Daniel Peterson Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I care. Very much.We either attempt to define ourselves, or we sit back and allow others to define us.I can't imagine imagining that that doesn't matter.We may think that everybody understands the ideologically charged character of many Wikipedia entries. I'm quite confident, though, that most people don't.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I think Prof. "Foxe" will find he has wasted a lot of valuable time he could have used furthering his actual career.
frankenstein Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 scott loyd, is who should write to, in order to ask that DN change their article formatting? Clicking through multiple pages for an article is cumbersome, but not as cumbersome now that i have effectively block 99% of advertisements on DN. advertisements are resources hogs on slower computers------------------------------------------jason, i share the same sentiment, except that just look at all the farce the "christian world" uses to "prove" the Bible. my experience wit the christian world is "the dead sea scrolls prove the bible", "we know the location of X thus the Bible is true" ------------------------------------------DCP, I agree with you. Many people who use wiki leaks as a source do "question" wikipeida. I have heard of Judges in court case accepting as true, information published in wikipeadia ------------------------------------------has anyone visited the wiki articles in questions to see the "degree" or "type" of "errors".
Jason Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 jason, i share the same sentiment, except that just look at all the farce the "christian world" uses to "prove" the Bible. my experience wit the christian world is "the dead sea scrolls prove the bible", "we know the location of X thus the Bible is true"And? I'm not sure we should care about that either.
frankenstein Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 frankenstein, on 31 January 2011 - 11:03 AM, said: jason, i share the same sentiment, except that just look at all the farce the "christian world" uses to "prove" the Bible. my experience wit the christian world is "the dead sea scrolls prove the bible", "we know the location of X thus the Bible is true"jason: And? I'm not sure we should care about that either.For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they not where to find it - Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heave - These should then be attended to with great earnestness
Analytics Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Did someone suggest that it was the case that "we" believed our voice wasn't being heard? More or less. Jeff K. asked, "How do we ensure that our voice is heard?"
ttribe Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 More or less. Jeff K. asked, "How do we ensure that our voice is heard?"I don't see that question being what you've interpreted.
Jeff K. Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 My point isn't whether or not we are being heard. But whether or not a voice or voices can be overwhelmed and not heard on wikipedia leaving only one side of the debate open. This leads to us being defined by others without recourse in a system that is used much more than Encyclopedias which cannot be changed at the drop of a hat and therefore require greater peer review.
Jason Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 frankenstein, on 31 January 2011 - 11:03 AM, said: jason, i share the same sentiment, except that just look at all the farce the "christian world" uses to "prove" the Bible. my experience wit the christian world is "the dead sea scrolls prove the bible", "we know the location of X thus the Bible is true"jason: And? I'm not sure we should care about that either.For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they not where to find it - Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heave - These should then be attended to with great earnestnessAnd we do - with our missionary efforts and the Church education system. I'm not sure wikipedia is an appropriate forum for missionary efforts.
Vance Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 This is a comment from the comment section that I found interesting.So an anti-Mormon professor from a fundamental Christian college in the Bible belt wants a "neutral" point of view on the LDS Church.Ouch. My sides hurt from laughing.Good reporting, DNews. After looking at some articles on the LDS Church on Wiki, I knew something was up with blatant anti-Mormon phrasology, and point of view in the articles.Good job to the folks who make an effort towards academic honesty and itegrity.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 This is a comment from the comment section that I found interesting.The false notion that one can get the whole story from anti-Mormons while mistrusting Mormons is what prompted this statement, which I made in one of my posts sometime ago and which I now include in my sig line:Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
Analytics Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 My point isn't whether or not we are being heard. But whether or not a voice or voices can be overwhelmed and not heard on wikipedia leaving only one side of the debate open. This leads to us being defined by others without recourse in a system that is used much more than Encyclopedias which cannot be changed at the drop of a hat and therefore require greater peer review.According to the article you cited, the story wraps up by "they started fixing some of those problems. So, in essence, it had the desired affect. I had more influence on those articles by posting what I did on the FAIR website than I ever did by trying to edit them directly."That seems to be the best approach: when they don't apply their own rules or values, shine a light on their hypocricy.Wikipedia seems to be a pretty good non-Mormon resource. If somebody wants to hear what the Mormon apologists have to say, Google treats ya'll very well and you aren't hard to find.
Jeff K. Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 I wouldn't be too sure. We don't know how well the effect was reconciled nor if the patches were permanent. Has anyone looked at the mentioned Wiki article to judge its accuracy or not at this point (let us be reasonable and conclude that not everything need be positive about the article, only that it is accurate in fact and context).
Analytics Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I wouldn't be too sure. We don't know how well the effect was reconciled nor if the patches were permanent. Has anyone looked at the mentioned Wiki article to judge its accuracy or not at this point (let us be reasonable and conclude that not everything need be positive about the article, only that it is accurate in fact and context).I've browsed through it. I don't think the issue is about whether or not it says anything that is false, but rather, the issue is tone. For example, the virst vision entry starts like this:The First Vision (also called the grove experience) refers to a vision that Joseph Smith, Jr. said he received in 1820 when he was fourteen years old, in a wooded area in Manchester, New York. Originally framed as a personal theophany in which Smith received a forgiveness of sins, Smith eventually framed the vision to reinforce his authority as the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to an account Smith told in the 1840s, he went to the woods to pray about which church to join but fell into the grip of an evil power that nearly overtook him. At the last moment, he was rescued by two shining "personages" (presumably Jesus and God the Father) who hovered above him. One of the beings told Smith not to join any existing churches because all taught incorrect doctrines.Smith wrote several accounts of the vision beginning in 1832, but none of the accounts was published until the 1840s. Though Smith had described other visions, the First Vision was essentially unknown to early Latter Day Saints....The arguments don't seem to be about whether what it says are true or not, but rather about proper emphasis and placement of various details. From the discussion page where the editors are battling it out:I'm planning to request a Second opinion about the differences between myself and Routerone over the editing this page unless Routerone makes a prior request.--John Foxe (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[response]John, I tend to find myself in agreement that the Routerone in that the passage is not necessary. It is obvious that others, academics, LDS or otherwise, do not believe the First Vision occurred. Looking at Paul of Tarsus we don't find the obvious statement that Islamic scholars or even liberal Christian scholars do not believe he ever saw anything on the way to Damascus. The first vision article now has 163 footnotes.
Jeff K. Posted January 31, 2011 Author Posted January 31, 2011 Hence my view of context being as important as facts.
Pahoran Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to survey some of the Wikipedia articles on general Christian topics, to see if Bre'r Foxe's fingerprints are on them; and if so, do his contributions consistently come down in favour of skepticism and "neutral" treatment -- or whatever passes for "neutral" treatment over there in Secessionville, South Carolina, or wherever his "university" is located -- or does he allow a pro-Christian POV to prevail?Regards,Pahoran
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.