Is Wikipedia turning pro-Watchtower?

by cedars 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cedars

    Hi everyone

    I was doing some research and stumbled upon the following two Wikipedia articles, both of which (at first glance) appear to be mostly PRO-Watchtower.

    Take a look for yourself...

    The persecution article seemingly attempts to portray JWs as unfairly persecuted. It has a one-line nod to the persecution in Malawi, but mentions nothing on the disparity with the Society-sanctioned political involvement of the brothers in Mexico.

    The child abuse article waxes lyrical about how the two witness rule serves to protect people from unfair accusations. It even quotes sources that suggest the problems with child abuse in Jehovah's Witnesses are nowhere near as bad as the Catholic Church. Though last updated less than a week ago, it mentions not a single word about the Candace Conti verdict.

    I'm honestly horrified and heartbroken. I've long looked upon Wikipedia as a beacon of objectivity when it comes to JWs. Could it be that they've sold out to the Watchtower as part of its cynical new internet "hearts and minds" strategy?


  • wannabefree

    I don't think Wikipedia wrote them, they just allowed them to be published.

  • james_woods

    That is correct - Wikipedia is just contributed information. Much of it is not exactly what you would call reliable.

    Didn't Wikipedia have an issue with the Scientologists loading up their pages with pro-Scientology baloney?

  • aposta-Z

    Would not be surprised if apologists or even the Bethel Hacker Departement keep a close eye on what is submitted and appears on the page...
    At least this is up:

  • cedars


    Didn't Wikipedia have an issue with the Scientologists loading up their pages with pro-Scientology baloney?

    Well I hope they start to similarly take issue with the Watch Tower Society sharpish before interested web-surfers start to buy into this crap.

    Is anyone familiar with the complaints process, or editing articles? When it comes to JW-related stuff, until now I've never needed to bother.


  • donuthole

    Cedars you have a pm

  • Finkelstein

    It would be in the WTS. best interest to fill WIKI with information that they conjured up themselves in a self supporting fashion.

  • sabastious

    The Watchtower has the manpower to make sure Wikipedia says what they want it to say. EXJW's are not organized like the Watchtower is, so it's really no contest. It shows a weakness in the Wiki model.


  • cedars

    Thanks donuthole, I've replied!

    I must say I was a huge fan of Wiki up to this point, but the love affair is now in tatters.


  • Refriedtruth

    Cedars good for you for alerting we need apostate volunteers to keep a vigil on JW WBTS entries at wiki.

    It is heavily 'doctored up'.

    I just wiki-ed Camels the animal and the info was perfect,98% of the time it is.Anything that generates controversy is hacked to s**t as Wiki is so called 'open source' authored

    We had to make this page to offset Watchtower propaganda,unfortunately not as high ranked,'s_Witnesses

Share this