Is Wikipedia turning pro-Watchtower? (page 2)

aposta-Z

@sabastious: Yup. Getting apostates organised is like herding cats... lol

You just need one of the wikipedia people responsibles for managing the page (don't know how they are named) being favorable to JW (because they're a witness, have been raised in a JW familly, or have had a good relationship with some witness colleague or friend) to make sure the most disfavorable information gets labelled as comming from disgruntled ex-members, or as having unsufficient sources, and it would get repeatedly removed from the page.

The French version of Wikipedia is far more honnest about the JW.

I suggest trying to edit the most obvious stuff and rewriting it in a neutral manner, and adding the missing information - though only when you can find links from web newspapers and court documents that are hosted on a neutral platform (the newspaper official site, state court websites, etc...) A link to Barbara Anderson's site, Freemind, JWFacts, would be automatically removed on grounds of being "opposers", even though they have no qualms linking to the WT official sites...

Soldier77

You can flag it as biased or needs more info when you come across it there. It's not that hard to edit and change, you just need to be familiar with how Wikipedia is run and the process it takes to submit/edit/etc.

If some of the people here were to contribute half or what they know on this board, Wikipedia articles concerning JW's could be much more accurate. With a tone of neutrality, instead of outright accusations and name calling.

Somewhat like the tone you generally take with your blog Cedars. :) Very well done.

cedars

Thanks Miles3 and Soldier77. It seems my timing with this thread is rather coincidental. A team of writers is being assembled to monitor and improve the JW Wiki articles, and I have been drafted in. Let's hope that with a bit of communication and effort our combined efforts may thwart the Watchtower's propaganda machine.

Maybe getting apostates to work together isn't quite as bad as herding cats after all!!

Cedars

Lurker555

Last paragraph of the sex abuse article mentions the "california case".

sabastious

Let's hope that with a bit of communication and effort our combined efforts may thwart the Watchtower's propaganda machine.

-Sab

Terry

Wikipedia is a great idea and like all great ideas has a built in default to the weakest link.

Have you ever gone to a Pot Luck dinner? Sure you have!

Everybody brings their own dish.

This is Wiki : Pot Luck Dinner.

If somebody is a lousy cook, then, the dish they brought will give you a stomach ache.

It all averages out. Check the sources and be skeptical and vigilant.

Wise up, too--there is no easy way out. We all have to taste test every single thing we allow into our brain.

Trust is a fragile basis for opening the hatch into your head and allowing somebody to pour in whatever they please!

Band on the Run

I read the Discussion pages on a regular basis to see who is winning the war. The discussions are brutal. Altho I am not a regular editor, I stand ready to propose changes if there is not an equipose. Unless something has changed, I do see neutrality. It seems to be a daily battle between pro and anti Witness factions. A few have no WT ties. What I found scariest is that the WT has some very sophisticated wiki editors. It is NOT your usual JW crowd.

I urge people to strike back if the articles are proWitness. Wikipedia is probably the most visited site for info about the Witnesses. The discussions are amazingly learned. The people involved are very savvy concerning wikipedia policies. Sometimes the topic is locked.

With no time to read now, I will check in a few days. They may revert after a few days. If not, we have the means to change the tone of the article.

Aware!

I was curious one day about what the world thought of JWs and decided to read what Wikipedia had to say. It is what helped me in part to learn TTATT.

Scott77

I think, if the Watchtower has resorted to using wikipedia to spread it falsehood, it has done a great service to us and the public in general. We can write a rebuttal clearly quoting their publications. For example, the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi can be sharply contrasted with that of Mexico to show how inconsistent is the Watchtower approach to the same issue of neutrality. By and large, the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses claim of persecution is rather self-inflicted. I get the feeling, they want to be to be persecuted in order to claim the right be the true christian and align their questionable beliefs with end of the world.

Scott77

Is Wikipedia turning pro-Watchtower?

Share this