We can likely expect a lot more sites to be dissed by the WT as unreliable in the future.
Most witlesses I know, won't be able to help themselves exploring the information highway now the org is onli
WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!
by Wonderment 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Wonderment
Thank you guys for your comments.
I want to add that Wikipedia is more accurate than generally believed.
Sure, it has been involved in more than a few scandals where the site was butchered by vandals. As Simon noted, religion and politics are specially good target subjects for vandals to butcher specific info. Due to its open nature, this was bound to happen. However, Wikipedia has learned a lot through this, and made the necessary changes to curtail, or at least reduce the unwelcomed intrusions.
But there is another matter to consider. Other established encyclopedias have lost a lot of their business to Wikipedia, if not disappeared altogether. They have zero interest in admitting that Wikipedia is safe and accurate.
And what do you think of established reputable universities? Are they willing to acknowledge that an open website by volunteers can dispense accurate information to the masses? Not likely, since these universities make their living by convincing the public that good accurate information can only come from reputable sources, which is mainly true, but not totally true. Their paid professors are not signing in Wikipedia, and their colleges are not receiving their fame from its contributions. Thus, these colleges have little interest to push Wikipedia to the scholarly forefront as authoritative.
If history teaches us anything, is that many learned leaders from past generations have strived to limit knowledge to a golden few. Religion, fame, pride, and reputation are factors in conveying that only a few privileged ones are capable of transmitting accurate information.
Let us recall for a moment, that in Jesus' time, only a few selected learned men taught religion and Scripture "authoritatively," and Jesus' teaching was considered ‘inferior,’ and mocked before the world.
Later Catholic leaders with Latin learning before the 17th century were the only ones authorized to teach others from the Latin Vulgate. They even resisted progress of Bible translation work. The masses were kept away from vital information. After all, only special schools had the know-how to convey important information, so it seemed.
However, with the advent of printing foreign language editions of the Bible, more people were having access to vital truths. But religious leaders still wanted the fame, and the reputation that only special schools can communicate such accurate info. Today, Ph.Ds, Masters and many other titles have been developed to accomplish this goal. And any entity that do not go through their channels will never seem to be good enough.
Enter Wikipedia! A free website by anonymous volunteers will never look good enough to meet their stringent requirements. Just look at how people treat the NWT by an anonymous committee. Of course those prestigious universities will never give their blessing to Wikipedia or anyone else not going through their approved establishments. What do you expect? It is simply their competition, and far cheaper than what they can offer.
Some published independent studies reveal that Wikipedia is just as accurate as established reference sources. Other studies dispute them. Who are we going to believe? The Watchtower who is known for controlling their subjects? The colleges who depend on thousands of paying customers and prestige to advance their cause?
The truth in this case is not so plain and simple. We have to weigh the source of any published information and compare it with various sources to obtain an approximate truth to any matter.
-
Wonderment
Oh, I forgot to mention about Wikipedia's disclaimer as an authority.
It is due perhaps in the interest of protecting their website from numerous litigious individuals that Wikipedia made such disclaimer. Wikipedia is non-profit, and depends largely on contributions.
The website and the anonymous contributors don't have the resources to squander in defending themselves before the court, so a disclaimer is logically necessary to avoid possible litigation. Other corporations have the financial resources to battle whatever judicial hearings they come up against. Plus, who wants to go against Oxford, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, etc. in court?
-
insidetheKH
the truth is ,...Wikipedia is not reliable if it comes to controversial subjects. Also in certain languages a lot of subjects are biased -
EdenOne
The Watchtower Society will dismiss any website that isn't supportive of their beliefs. A "neutral" view, an "independent" view, or a site that will display the "opposite view" for the sake of balance of opinion, will be a big no-no, nearly as dangerous as outwardly "apostate" websites. Even those that are pro-Jehovah's Witnesses aren't in any way endorsed nor are individual Witnesses encouraged to take part in those. In fact, if it were the GB's way, the only website that any faithful JW could ever access to would be the ubiquitous JW.org.
Eden
-
thedepressedsoul
I bet the Wiki facts on JW's and JW history is more accurate and unbiased then their new "History Book".
-
Oubliette
Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceWikipedia says so itself. Read the article.
People need to learn to use primary and secondary sources that are reliable.
WP is a tertiary source compiled by anonymous editors with many unqualified sources.
WP can be helpful sometimes. Look at the Sources and References at the bottom of a Wiki article. Those are occasionally useful.
-
-
opusdei1972
Thus, the Writing Department looks to standard reference works, articles written by recognized experts, and books produced by respected publishers."Respected experts and publishers consider many accounts of the Bible as mere myths, and the Watchtower's writers as intellectualy dishonests.
-
Slidin Fast
entries written by unidentified or unqualified persons
The venerable WT org does nothing but write articles in the above way. Wikipedia is honest, properly referenced and editable if found to be wrong. It benefits from the wisdom of crowds. It is the WT publications and pronouncements that are written by the unidentified and unqualified, it mis-uses quotes and does not ever properly reference them.
