Does the Watchtower edit those articles about JWs on wikipedia all of the time? Some of the stuff is really far out there... like one thing under the "Practices of JWs" said that Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged from but not prohibited from voting... and if they want to vote, other Jehovah's Witnesses don't discourage them from doing so! That is obviously not true... I know people that have gotten warned and eventually disfellowshipped for voting in an election. They also really downplayed disfellowshipping and a whole bunch of other aspects of the organization. I changed a few things, but it seems they almost immediately get changed back. They make it seem like no one really cares if JWs follow the rules or not, and that most issues are left up to their conscience and no one bothers them if they don't obey. Yeah, right, elders are constantly showing up and bothering them, everyone talks about them behind their back or considers them "spiritually weak" if they don't follow what they're supposed to. The Wikipedia articles take so many things that one can be disfellowshipped for and make it seem like they're no big deal to the organization, and no Jehovah's Witnesses really care if people celebrate holidays, vote, etc. I changed some things but they'll probably just get changed back. I know you've probably been over this topic before, but I haven't, so let me know, okay? I wonder if the Governing Body themselves sits around and changes wikipedia articles!
WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES
by kristyann 2 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
tall penguin
"I wonder if the Governing Body themselves sits around and changes wikipedia articles!"
Nah. They don't have to. There are enough r&f jw's around to do it for them. Anyone can get an account on the wiki and change the articles. They do have to defend them though with references and explanations. And it's constantly up for scrutiny which you'll see if you check out the discussion pages. There are endless debates about the content.
tall penguin -
AuldSoul
That particular point you notice is an escape hatch for the WTS. It is true that voting is now a "conscience" decision, but doing so is considered an act of voluntary disassociation. That is what the article fails to mention.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul