WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!

by Wonderment 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  steve2

  I agree with Wonderment's comments.

  Wikipedia contains plain-worded cautions about topic accuracy and - please take note Watchtower! - invites readers to submit for inspection any corrections, additions, amendments, requesting corroborating support. How good is that?

  Wikipedia has never ever claimed to be the final word on any topic - unlike some religious organizations (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) AND Wikipedia is often a damn good place to start your research. But yes, it is not the be all and end all - and has never claimed that status. 

   

  I would rather go to a source that openly invites scrutiny than one that warns against scrutiny AND/OR tells me it has done all the research work for me and I can simply take it at its word. Duh!
• 

  erbie

  I love the bit about unidentified and unqualified people! 

  Basically the Watchtower writing department then.

  Priceless!!!

  
  
• 

  wizzstick

  Hmmmm. That WT frames it this way:

  "The Writing Department follows the pattern of ‘tracing all things with accuracy.’  But where can reliable information be found?  While the Internet is a convenient and quick source of vast amounts of information, our researchers do not rely on blogs or poorly documented Web entries written by unidentified or unqualified persons.  For example, Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, warns that some articles on its own site ‘contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism,’ adding that ‘users need to be aware of this.’  Thus, the Writing Department looks to standard reference works, articles written by recognized experts, and books produced by respected publishers."

  How a Wikipedia user frames this point (example here: Wikipedia User):

  In every article, links will guide you to associated articles, often with additional information. You are welcome to add further information, cross-references, or citations, so long as you do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. You do not need to fear accidentally damaging Wikipedia when you add or improve information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, if needed, and the Wikipedia encyclopedia software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.

  Because Wikipedia is an on-going work to which in principle anybody can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some very important ways. In particular, older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed. (See Researching with Wikipedia for more details.) However, unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia can be constantly updated, with articles on topical events being created or updated within minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias.

  Love the way they leave out the context around newer and older articles. I mean, this can't be because of anti-JW articles surely?

  Also interesting to see that the above link is years old (from 2007 if you look at the bottom of the link, not that the WT highlights this) and the newer Wikipedia About main article frames it differently again:

  Wikipedia is a live collaboration differing from paper-based reference sources in important ways. Unlike printed encyclopedias, Wikipedia is continually created and updated, with articles on historic events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years. Older articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced; newer articles may contain misinformation and/or unencyclopedic content. Any article may contain undetected vandalism. Awareness of this helps the reader to obtain valid information and avoid recently added misinformation (see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia).

  I wonder if the Writing Dept helped last year to rank JW's so high in the The 8 religious pages people can’t stop editing

  Deary me - it's all so confusing!
  
• 

  redvip2000

  Thus, the Writing Department looks to standard reference works, articles written by recognized experts, and books produced by respected publishers."

  Yea right! Except when experts don't agree with whatever the Watchtower teaches.
  
• 

  Wonderment

  I could not have said this better myself (from 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

  It seems some here are very suspicious of Wikipedia, and convey trust in other sources.  I am not so sure of how truly reliable these other sources are.  Take for instance the subject of religion from othe Encyclopedias.  Have you read their articles on Jehovahś Witnesses (Incidentally, one of the 8 most edited pages on WP).  I have found most sources to be slanted and provide quite a bit of misinformation on this subject of JWs.  Remember when we were JWs, and disliked the way these sources were not being factual on the whole? 

  Now, if you look at the JW page on Wikipedia, you will find on the whole an informative and accurate picture of the religion.  I find it to be a more balanced view of JWs, with faults, claims and virtues mentioned all in one page.  Try to get that elsewhere!  

  Other reference sources on JWs seem so slanted and incomplete.  Have you ever tried reading the writings of Walter Martin, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes?  These scholars are supposed to be ¨experts" on JWs, yet, I find their works not so trustworthy, and above all, so biased that their info is highly questionable.  Contrary to the popular opinion of those who quote them, they do not provide a balanced picture of JWs at all.  They display their Evangelical bias with passion.  Wikipedia, in just a few pages, beat them all.  Some people object to the facts.  They seek passion to support their bias.
  

  Both works as sources of information, have errors within their pages.  But somehow, due to their open nature, Wikipedia is bound to offer the facts better than the other ¨unbiased¨ sources.

  Of course, I would not base a dissertation in a prestigious college on Wikipedia, but for most of us, Wikipedia is good enough to make it the 5th most visited website to obtain quick data.
  
  

  
  
• 

  Half banana

  "The Writing Department follows the pattern of ‘tracing all things with accuracy.’ 

  It’s rich coming from the WT org to correctly deny Wikipedia the status of authority. Indeed as useful as that source of information is, it consists of contributions from people who know a lot on a particular subject and therefore Wikipedia cannot be authoritative at the academic level. (It often lacks peer review and criticism).

  But but but! Wikipedia is far more reliable as a treasury of knowledge than the Watchtower could ever be. Apart from the usual religious platitudes on behaviour, I would go as far to say that the Watchtower has never said anything useful!

  The WTBTS consistently fail to attribute the source references in their literature. This may seem a small point but it is vital in the world of academic truthfulness...knowledge is not absolutist like 'religious certainty' is. Knowledge and understanding are part of an on-going intellectual dialogue, a concept alien to a publishing company which spouts unprovable garbage as being holy truth!

  They crib hard-won information from secular experts and scientists and then misquote by cherry picking phrases or sentences which appear to fit their own propaganda.

  The Watchtower promotes fetishist attachment to the Bible as did their ‘grandparent’ the Catholic Church sixteen and a half centuries beforehand.

  The Watchtower is a pure tool of uncritical, one -sided and partisan indoctrination.

  It is produced to enslave its followers and deliberately limit their world view, just in case they stumble on accurate information which will discredit or expose the cult for what it really is.

  “Tracing all things with accuracy”? Dire hypocrisy!
• 

  Witness My Fury

  As said already wikipedia is great for things that dont have emotive value or an agenda, anything else is taken with a degree of scepticism.