Wikipedia being abused by Jehovahs Witnesses (page 8)

truth.ceeker

Jeffro,
I can empathize how you seem to be the 'protector' of the wikipedia and how you must respond to acts of vandalism. So I can assume that when a person such as myself who wants to do what they think is a good thing, you take that as a form of 'vandalism' and proceed to act as judge and give your sentence on it accordingly instead of offering advice and helping those who earnestly want contribute.

So you go ahead and do what 'you' think is right.

..truth.ceeker..

under_believer

God, truth.ceeker, you are certainly giving everyone an object lesson on why Wikipedia is such an assy place.

Listen, there are community standards and acceptable content for Wikipedia. You are violating them. For proof of this, I have only to state (correctly) that there are exactly zero other long-standing Wikipedia pages that follow the format and substance of what yours does. Find me another "these are some random quotes from someone" page that has standing and reputation (i.e. has existed for a reasonable period of time and isn't embroiled with controversy), and I will back down on this.

The dishonest way you introduced your "article" to the group lends credence to the idea that it was off base. Why not just say that you wrote it? Why act like it was something you stumbled upon?

cabasilas

truth.ceker,

Start with reading the editing policies for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist just to post embarrassing things about the WT Society. All Wikipedia editors have prejudices but try to make your edits fit the guidelines re: a neutral point of view and remember it's an encyclopedia for the masses...not just for JWs. So JW jargon needs to be avoided.

truth.ceeker

ub: I had no ill intent when I initially posted. However, being a novice in the wiki-world I soon realized that my intentions were viewed as ignorant and 'assy. I initially had thought about saying that I created one to preserve this information but then thought that it might not be a good idea until I had a chance to see how people would react.

c: I'm not here to post 'embarrassing' things about something just for the sake of embarrassing them, unless you believe what the WTBTS stands for. I wanted to preserve published documents that so many people here have been able to use in learning the truth. Maybe the wiki was not the right avenue for this information, but instead of helping a person to realize this, condescending words and actions were the things given.

I appreciate your words of encouragement as you do what you believe is the right thing to do, but I ask you to be mindful of how you do it. The difference in helping someone learn is in the delivery of the information. Keep up the good work that you do.

..truth.ceeker..

cabasilas

If I sounded condescending, I apologize. That was not my intent. We all learn and grow, myself included.

Jeffro

.truth.ceeker.

No one said you had any ill intent (though it was suspicious that you stated that you "search for" an article that you had actually created). My comments on Wikipedia were due to the unencyclopedic nature of the article, not about whether the information should be "preserved" or whether they were "embarrassing". Once I realised from your revert that you didn't have much experience with Wikipedia, I gave you the extra info that it belonged at WikiQuote instead. Rather than accept advice, you then responded on the forum (and repeated in a personal message) with snide remarks about my adherence to the rules of Wikipedia. One of the principles of Wikipedia is to "Be Bold" in making edits, which is what you did and that's fine, but part of that is to accept that your edits may be objected to. Don't take it personally.

Jeffro

LOL, that was so funny. I like the last line

"to tell people about a paradise where people live forever and play with vegetarian lions and all that other stuff. Despite their fervent marketing efforts, nobody is really sure what they speak about. People in response just pretend not to be home, or show up to the door naked, which shocks the sexually repressed Jehovah's Witnesses."

That's pretty close to the mark. It probably belongs in the real article. LOL

(This comment is intended humorously and I take no responsibility for anyone vandalising the Wikipedia article)

Jeffro

mcsemike:

JW's are NOT supposed to be on Wikipedia for starters. The WT has made it plain that the Internet is off limits to JW's except for the official WT site.

That is not true. They are 'warned' of 'dangers' on the internet - some legitimate, such as children talking to pedophiles in chat rooms, and some illegitimate, such as reading 'evil' 'apostate' material. However, there is no sanction at all about Jehovah's Witnesses using the Internet in a general way, or being restricted to specific websites.

Zico

Wikipedia is where I found out about the 607 date problems. And thus began my search...

Hells Fairey

well it says last updated 16 october, so someone must keep an eye on it..

Wikipedia being abused by Jehovahs Witnesses

Share this