Agreed. Complain to Wikipedia. get them to restrict editing. Freedom of speech is vital and articles on Wikipedia have to presents both the pros and cons in order to be balanced. The fact that someone is taking the time to edit the articles and delete the cons is a serious issue. Those who are able must do all they can to make sure the articles in question are maintained as a balanced source of information
Wikipedia being abused by Jehovahs Witnesses
by Simon 93 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
just2sheep
a site on the internet where posts (or whatever they are called on wackypedia) are altered or deleted without the poster's (or whatever they are called on wackypedia) knowledge or permission? and you say you can't find out who did it? i'm shocked. shocked i tell you! what is the internet world coming to?
j2s
-
Nathan Natas
I know that articles on Wikipedia are subject to editing, but I think it is a mistake to call it ABUSE.
The rules of Wikipedia allow for such editing, so there isn't anything sneaky or clandestine going on.
We have rules here on JWD too, and when people complain about the rules, what happens?
If someone doesn't like the way Wikipedia is run, then the wise course would be to AVOID USING IT, as AlanF has done. There are other ways of getting your message out without relying on Wikipedia.
-
Simon
Wikipedia is "sold" as being an informative encyclopedic resource with comprehensive articles.
If someone is going through deleting whole sections that knock on the door of their personal belief system and don't go against the guidelines of Wikipedia then that is abuse of the system. It is akin to someone going to a library and ripping pages out of books or destroying the books themselves IMO.
-
Odrade
Or stealing the books so others can't use them... oh wait! JWs DO that already!
-
Hellrider
The same in Norway, but I am working on it.... I recently changed the article, and removed all the pro-jw-formulations (and there were a lot! - in the style we all know all to well from the Watchtower!!) I also write comments in the discussion-part of Wikipedia (concerning the article), explaining why I have done the alterations I have done, why the previous editer (clearly a jw) had formulated certain sentences the way he had, what he was trying to cover up, etc, and I signed it with my full name (!). Then I changed the article into a very neutral, but also very HONEST article about jws. Not anything to critical, but not glorifying either. Perfectly neutral, but for exapmle, I did mention the belief that only members of the jws will survive Armageddon, etc. I wonder how long it will take before that is removed...I`m gonna follow the article closely.
-
Nathan Natas
Simon said,
Wikipedia is "sold" as being an informative encyclopedic resource with comprehensive articles.
But it isn't really "sold," is it? It's free. As such, it is worth exactly what you paid for it. Or less.
If someone is going through deleting whole sections that knock on the door of their personal belief system and don't go against the guidelines of Wikipedia then that is abuse of the system. It is akin to someone going to a library and ripping pages out of books or destroying the books themselves IMO.
I agree with you that the deletions are dishonest and distasteful, but they are permitted by Wikipedia "law," and so they are OK.
Just as you, Simon, are KING here at JWD and set the rules as you see fit, so on Wikipedia, "Mr. Wiki" is KING and has chosen to permit every Tom, Dick and Dick to edit any article they want in any way they choose.
The better alternative, I think, is for some talented programmer (nudge, nudge*) to come up with an alternative website with different rules about editing. I think one way might be to allow unlimited annotation of articles, but prohibit deletion of someone else's post.
*Look at the immensity of JWD. I have faith that you could do this, Simon. It could be mildly commercialized with Google and maybe membership fees so that it would be "worth doing" and maybe blathering zealots would find it a less appealing place to be if they had to pay for their soapbox. In fact, you have my permission to call it SOAPBOX.com
-
free2beme
Editing post and submissions on places that should be about information of both sides, is frustrating. At the same time, not that shocking when it comes to the JW's.
-
Forscher
"conflict of partiality"
I think the english phrase you may be looking for is "conflict of Interest" Chasson.
Forscher -
chasson
Thansk Forsher.
To add something, regularly, on the french's Wikipedia some JW are complaining about the non-neutral view of the article, but as antiJW they could discuss with us to see if something is wrong. To insist again, it take times, but generally, the discussion stop quickly.
For example, a JW thought that the Watchtower don't ask to her followers to avoid the Internet and discuting religion on it. We have provide some Watchtower and Kingdow Ministry's extracts and the discussion has ending.
Bye
Charles