JWpedia.org - a new transparent, unbiased, neutral wiki

pickledparsnip

Hi all.

As requested by many membeers of the exjw reddit community a JW wiki was created, in an effort to centralise easy-to-read info on everything from doctrines, to past lawsuits, to literature. We aim to stay as NPOV as possible, hoping to not look outright 'apostate' (i.e. bitter exjws flaming) but rather a professional collection of information.

We would appreciate any contribution, at the moment there are very few of us doing all the work when we have free time. I know there are a lot of very knowledgeable people out there that could really make the project shine, and even if you aren't all that knowledgeable there are still little edits to be done. The project is in no way profitable and will fall flat without community support.

If you are new to wiki editing a quick google search will find you thousands of tutorials.

Please feel free to spread the word to anywhere you think will get us contributing, although be warned at the moment we aren't even a week old so the project is by no means complete.

http://jwpedia.org

Regards to you all

inkling

So, fair and balanced... like fox news? :p

I kid, I kid.

Seriously though, while I see that the site could be a valuble resource for those with serious doubts that havn't quite jumped to a hardcore exjw forum, I think the wording still feels really apostatey:

"The writer immediately puts evolution and creation on the same level. Apparently belief is what matters, not fact. To give itself legitimacy, the writer claims that this is a thoroughly researched examination. We'll see how that holds up."

"once again, the writer makes this a matter of belief, not of facts, making this chapter already a pile of denialism."

"This article compares these and other forms of manipulation and rhetorical fallacy with Watchtower quotes, to identify how the Watchtower supports false lines of reasoning."

Obviously I agree with the points, but the bias of the author is very clear, and should instantly spook any active believing witness

[inkling]

pickledparsnip

That is why there is a large warning at the top of that article:

The neutrality of the style of writing in this article is questioned . Please see the discussion on the talk page .

It was written by someone a few hours after the wiki was installed who had no idea what they were doing.

It has only been a few days since the site went online, the first of which were spent configuring, and no once has had a chance to correct it yet.

These are the sorts of things we need people like you to help with.

metaspy

just stumbled onto this.

while small, this wiki will be a good resource.

Jeffro

The site has potential, though it may require tighter administration.

When viewing the list of all pages on the site (or a few clicks of the 'Random page' link) it becomes evident that most of the content (i.e. the page names with the format NameSurnamennn) are clearly SPAM, most likely generated by a script. This could be improved by only allowing registered users to edit (already done), and also requiring a Turing test (CAPTCHA or other human verification) when creating an account. The existing SPAM pages should ideally be deleted by an admin of the site.

The other issue is that whilst pages on the site are not under the same requirements as Wikipedia regarding sources and may therefore provide information that is likely but not necessarily reliably sourced, this also allows for considerable problems with neutrality and notability.

RayPublisher

A great start. I hope that this can gain more momentum and become yet another resource for ones to learn TTATT.

Christ Alone

pickledparsnip, you have a PM

PYRAMIDSCHEME

There is no such thing as "unbiased."

Christ Alone

There is no such thing as "unbiased."

True, but I think he was looking for articles that show both sides of the issue and attempt to remain objective. Of course nothing can be purely objective. It is impossible to separate observation from interpretation. A distinction can be made between the two, but not a separation. Therefore as one observes he also interprets, and this always involves subjectivity. However, an attempt can be made to equally demonstrate multiple positions and views of every story and allow the reader to reach his or her own conclusions.

pickledparsnip

Hi guys, I'm here because Jeffro kindly emailed me letting me know this thread has been bumped. I'm incredibly busy at the moment, and as you can see the site got little support and I gave up trying to carry the weight alone.

The message above perfectly describes what I was trying to accomplish. There is obviously nothing truly unbias however it is definietly something we can strive for. Our three core content policies were to be the same as Wikipedia's: NPOV, verifiability, & no original research.

I have explained the situation further to Jeffro via email so hopefully he can clear up any other questions any of you have. He is also now an Administrator at JWpedia.

Regards to all

JWpedia.org - a new transparent, unbiased, neutral wiki

Share this