I would say the letter is bullpoo. Its scare mongering to a very clever level.
The imediate call out to the reverend "JW editors" of wikipedia. Was either to root some of them out, get public sympathy for JWs editors and apologists, in an effort to bolster the efforts to make the wikipage a recruitment page.
Well played [edited], you know we can all see your own talkpage and find out that the letter was never delivered.
WT letter advises JWs not to edit Wikipedia articles on JW subjects
by cabasilas 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
vomit
-
vomit
Correction, the letter to be produced was by somebody else not [edited]. Just the text was merged, I apologise, i was running a head of myself.
-
ozziepost
"We have made the choice not to edit anymore because the logic and Scriptural reasoning makes sense to us."
= "We are right because we say so."
Hmmm...yep, that makes sense!
-
VM44
Is the actual letter from the Watchtower banning Wiki participation available? --VM44
-
luna2
The WTS has to be careful. They have the definition of themselves and of the religion that is for public consumption where they try to sound reasonable and non-cultish as possible (the rhetoric that they don't DF people for taking blood for instance). The Watchtower mag is full of double speak so that they can weasle out of responsibility for anything they put in print. Their true agenda is often word of mouth...things presented in a confusing mishmash in the publications is clarified verbally...which can later be denied or blamed on the individual if necessary.
If you've got a bunch of JWs earnestly explaining and editing their beliefs in an official-looking forum such as Wikipedia, the WTS loses some of their control of information distribution.
I've always thought that most of the higher-ups truly believed their own BS....these days I'm not sure of that at all. They seem awfully calculating.
-
DannyHaszard
bump for updates
-
Refriedtruth
Wikipedia 'Edit Wars': The Most Hotly Contested Topics
LiveScience.com - May 31, 2013 On the French-language Wikipedia site, the most controversial articles were about Ségolène Royal, UFOs and Jehovah's Witnesses. On the ... http://www.livescience.com/37034-wikipedia-controversial-topics.html
-
Band on the Run
I visit the page frequently. The tension between JW editors and others is so great. If I remove my loathing for the Witnesses, I think the article is a good summation. The Talk pages are far better than the artiicle. War goes on.
I've posted several times about the heroes who watch over the article for accuracy. The fight seems to happen daily. Wikipedia will be the first source most people consult about Jehovah's Witnesses. Thank you so much for your efforts.
I want to contribute but I am intimidated by the editing wars. Also, I don't have ready access to the WT library. The first things out of the house when we were liberated was the WT trash. Perhaps my best role is cheerleading those who wage the battle.
-
mamochan13
Interesting thread 6 years later. I see Wikipedia is still being edited - JWfacts was right. The R and F may not be allowed to do it, but the approved Bethelites are. I got a smile from the cognitive dissonance comments. I`m guessing that the Society`s letter must have said something about the GB having "qualified editors" that would take care of any revisions needed on Wiki. The same anonymous, faceless ones who provide the literature.
Many years ago my aunt, a faithful pioneer, wrote a letter to our local newspaper in response to something which opened up a spirited debate on the trinity. She was having great fun engaging people and the Letters to the Editor page took on quite a theological tone for a while. Then the elders descended and forbade her to write any more letters.
So this kind of stuff has been going on for a long time. The only place JWs are allowed to "debate" their faith is when they are trying to indoctrinate others, and if they are challenged they are trained to just walk away. As has been pointed out, most don't even think about what they actually believe. They just point you to the literature.
-