Wikipedia On Mormonism

[Storm Rider]

The "Mormons" article is one of the better ones. The battleground articles have been "First Vision," "Joseph Smith," "Golden plates," and any of the articles having to do with the three witnesses.

The main issue I have, as I stated earlier, is with the subtle changes in the way the sources are represented. For example, from the Wikipedia article "Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)", we have the following statement:

"Harris once imagined that a sputtering candle was the work of the devil."

This is sourced to an article in Dialogue written by Ronald W. Walker (Walker, Ronald W. (Winter 1986), "Martin Harris: Mormonism's Early Convert", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19 (4). 29–43.).

This is what Walker says:

"Once while reading scripture, he reportedly mistook a candle's sputtering as a sign that the devil desired him to stop." (emphasis added)

So, something that Harris "reportedly mistook" (according to Walker), is now presented as fact in Wikipedia: "Harris once imagined..." The editor also changed the meaning by stating the the sputtering candle was "the work of the devil," without noting that Harris associated it with the "devil's" desire to get him to stop reading his scriptures. If Harris gets "spooked" every time a candle sputters, then it make him sound more unstable than if he saw that event as being a response to something religious that he was engaged in.

Here's another one. According to Wikipedia:

"A friend, who praised Harris as being "universally esteemed as an honest man," also declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy."

(Sourced to "Pomeroy Tucker Reminiscence, 1858," in Early Mormon Documents, 1996-2003, 3: 71. )

Here is what Tucker actually said:

"His mind was overbalanced by “marvellousness,” and was very much exercised on the subject of religion; and his betrayal of vague superstitions, with a belief in ‘special providences,’ and in the terrest[r]ial visits of angels, ghosts, &c., brought upon him the imputation of being “crazy.” " (emphasis added)

Tucker says that some of the locals imputed that Harris was "crazy" (Tucker added the quotes around "crazy"). Wikipedia has changed this to a "local reputation of being crazy," making it sound like this was a generally accepted view of Harris in the region. "Imputation" becomes "reputation."

Notice how the "subject of religion" has been omitted from Wikipedia's treatment, just like "reading scripture" was omitted from the earlier quote. Things that speak to Harris's religiousness have been removed, and things emphasizing his alleged "craziness" have been left in.

The changes are subtle, but when dealing with figures like Harris, they ought to be precise and acknowledge the opinions of those who expressed them.

Oh, and you can probably guess which Wikipedia editor was responsible for adding that information to the Martin Harris article.

WW

I think WW has does a good job of demonstrating an ongoing, consistent process whereby significant LDS subjects are distorted by the misuse of quotes from legitimate sources. It takes an inordinate amount of time to research every source used and confirm that the source is being use properly. Another is distortion by minutiae; things that have very little value are aggrandized to have a much greater priority than is held in LDS theology or teaching. The tone used in writing is also another method to distort the history of the LDS Church and the history of Joseph Smith. This is why I stated earlier that learned historians, those who are already familiar with a great number of sources, would be most effective in editing. Those with lesser knowledge of history find participating in a significant manner to be a time drain that few could assume. I found it to be overwhelming trying to edit against the likes of Foxe and COgden; both were effective with distorting LDS history; one a critic and the other presented himself as an active LDS.

[BCSpace]

A small group of believing LDS should be assigned to edit wiki article(s); enough to keep watch and respond quickly to malignant changes.

I think it would be an error to have an assignment given. Participation should be by choice and by personal initiative and expertise. Wikipedia is a voluntary process that is best reflected by this very nature of the process. It is not a professional endeavor, but is a reflection of the personal efforts of individuals who are committed to sharing their knowledge and expertise. If you want to participate, then do so and if not, don't.

The Church has a PR dept so I would make it a calling, perhaps a missionary one. Such callings, like any other, are always voluntary.

[Wiki Wonka]

The Church has a PR dept so I would make it a calling, perhaps a missionary one. Such callings, like any other, are always voluntary.

Most younger missionaries would not have the required depth of knowledge about Church history that would allow their edits to remain. Wikipedia is often modified by well-meaning Church members who wish to proclaim that Joseph Smith is a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is true. Those edits are quickly removed (as they ought to be), since Wikipedia is not supposed to take a position on the matter.

I think that all of the historical facts ought to be represented in Wikipedia, but in a fair and balanced manner. It always boils down to one's interpretation of what is "fair and balanced."

WW