Wikipedia being abused by Jehovahs Witnesses

by Simon 93 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • ignored_one

    I see they're still saying any criticism of them is NPOV. The article reads like a pro JW puff piece imo.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    I wonder how quickly they would edit something from the book 1984. Perhaps a reference to the rewriting of history, thought control, big brother or something more subtle. A lot of people might not get the inference but there might be many who do

  • DannyHaszard
  • jwfacts

    I ended giving up in frustration. EG, I put in a list of disfellowshipping offenses with references to Watchtower articles to support everything I had written. A JW would go in each day and remove all reasons that he considered an embarassment to the WTS. I imagine Bethel sponsors people to keep it updated, as the Watchtower press department is now basically a marketing firm.

  • DannyHaszard

    Let's keep a vigil All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men/women to do nothing

  • jgnat

    In most cases, Wikipedia works great. The final entry is a combined description of all contributors.

    Wikipedia doesn't work when there are opposing views that have no hope of resolution. Or if a certain party is bent on misinformation. I wonder if the Scientology reference suffers from the same malady? Aha, I see it does.

    Jump to: navigation, search

    altDue to recent vandalism, editing of this article by anonymous or newly registered users is currently disabled.
    Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.
  • moshe

    I believe that a temporary solution is to creat new topics that can be linked. pro-JW people are obviously checking for changes in existing articles. They are changing it back to an approved previous version. If you start with a brand new artice, they work is much harder for them as some office clerk will not be able to just do a cut and paste to change it back. Someone in the writing department , If the WT is behind this , has to take the time to rewrite the article. I have an negative JW comment buried in a biography that so far has held up for 2 months now. If you are adding something into an existing article about brainwashing ,lets say,and you add a paragraph or two about JW brainwashing, then you have to hide it so the pro-JW people don't find it!!

  • sixsixsixtynine

    I think that it's a pretty balanced article. Not overly positive or negative.

    It also contains a lot of information that the average Witness wouldn't know.

    If I had read something like that when I was still active, it would have raised many questions.

  • AlanF

    Very interesting, Simon. I think this points up Wikipedia's major weakness, and is the reason that many people won't contribute to it.


  • chasson

    We have not the same problem on Wikipedia in french, but it is a work of every day, and there are not a lot of JW contributing on this page. I am surprised of some misconception here about wikipedia. There are plenty of procedure to complain about a vandalisation of a page. If a JW has deleted some good contributions you can revert his work of deletion. If this situation is during, you can ask to have a semi-protection of the page, and to start a "conflict of partiality" (i don't have the good expression in english). Yes, it take time but it could be very interesting to show to the wikipedia's community the behavior of some JW. Bye Charles

Share this