WITNESSES FEAR THE TRUTH - WIKIPEDIA

by The Searcher 36 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Jeffro

  DATA-DOG:

  I admit that I don't know much about Wikipedia, but what Jeffro says makes sense. SEARCHER, maybe you would reach more people by simple posting information about the letter on other sites, like Yahoo answers or something similar, or JW chat forums?? You may be spinning your wheels on Wikipedia.

  That's very good advice. There are plenty of places for getting this kind of information across. Wikipedia is not one of those places - at least not until the information can be cited from an appropriate source. And even then, the change in arrangement would best be summarised in a single dispassionate sentence.
• 

  jwfacts

  Oubliette - wow, I am surprised to learn you used to post on Wikipedia whilst an elder. Interesting observation about being woken up moreso by the apologists. I used to post once I left, but found having comments repeatedly removed, and whitewashed, by JWs got to me and I decided to stop.
• 

  The Searcher

  Sigh!!

  Even when a detailed, factual, unopinionated summary of the Org's new contribution arrangement is submitted, it still gets removed!!!

  Sigh!!

  The justification for someone doing so? Is there a personal agenda?

  Surely every single comment on WikiPedia does not demand VERIFIABLE sources, does it?

  I'll make enquiries to establish the person's motives or agenda for removing an entry which is 100% accurate!

  Sigh!
• 

  The Searcher

  I've posted an entry on WikiPedia requesting that the section discussing the Org's RBC's be removed - because there are NO sources provided to verify ANYTHING which is stated about them!!

  Please go and delete THAT section JEFFRO77 - otherwise, some people might think you've got double-standards!! (or worse!)
• 

  Oubliette

  jwfacts, why are you surprised I used to edit Wikipedia while an elder? At first I thought I was doing a good thing, "Defending the Faith" and all that nonsense.

  In a way, it's not so different from lurkers posting here.

  After the WTBTS came out with articles tell JWs to not post to such sites I quit posting on the JW related wiki pages, but continued for a while on other non-JW topics. The sad thing about WP is that any interesting, and therefore controversial, subject is likely to have opinionated and not necessarly knowledgable people editing/contributing to articles.

  It's easy to get into "edit-wars" with people that have no idea what they're talking about. It can get very frustrating. This is one of the reasons that WP is not a reliable source.
• 

  The Searcher

  Thankfully WikiPedia's questionable "standards" of censorship are an irrelevance thanks to sites like this.

  If I'd known that WikiPedia's published information was subjected to the biased scrutiny of individuals with personal agendas, then I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to share the WTBTS own update regarding their un-Holy funding scheme! In light of my experience with WikiPedia, I will gladly spread the word regarding their "trustworthiness"!

  Oh, to have such power and influence!! Sigh!
• 

  Oubliette

  The Searcher, in many ways, and in particular concerning certain "controversial subjects," Wikipedia is a multi-user dungeon (MUD).
• 

  Jeffro

  The Searcher:

  If I'd known that WikiPedia's published information was subjected to the biased scrutiny of individuals with personal agendas, then I wouldn't have wasted my time trying to share the WTBTS own update regarding their un-Holy funding scheme! In light of my experience with WikiPedia, I will gladly spread the word regarding their "trustworthiness"!

  You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Very clear and specific reasons were provided for why your edits are not acceptable. Wikipedia has policies that govern content and behaviour. You've breached both.

  Please go and delete THAT section JEFFRO77 - otherwise, some people might think you've got double-standards!! (or worse!)

  Wikipedia also has policies about editors such as yourself disrupting articles to try to make a point. The correct way to point out that something is not properly sourced - which you can't assume anyone is necessarily aware of - is to comment on the article's Talk page, or add a template indicating that a citation is required. The exactly wrong thing to do is put a paragraph of snarky commentary directly in the article.
• 

  Zoos

  Does WIKI just delete without explanation? No reference to a TOS violation? Anything?
• 

  The Searcher

  @JEFFRO - So YOU can read WIKIPEDIA too? Glad to see you checked!!!

  Now answer the question - Why don't you censor EVERY statement you see which doesn't have a verified source?

  Or is it only topics which could upset your beloved G.B?

  Whatever your agenda is, it's certainly not for the benefit of education, TRUTH, or freedom of speech!