Is Wikipedia turning pro-Watchtower?

by cedars 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • mind blown
    mind blown

    Cedars! Thanx for bringing this up!

    Under Governing Body, wasn't there info regarding Leo Greenless and Ewart Chitty regarding the alleged aligations? Now it's all about Franz.

    Below is the only thing that now mentions them:

    The following individuals resigned or were asked to step down from their positions in the body (years active in parentheses):

    Is there any way or anyone that could re post the info on Wiki. It could be stated that it's alleged these stepped down for pedo acts and homosexuality? Maybe BOR can word it in a way not to cause issues. I think it's very important the masses know this, expecially the newer ones.

    I remember exacty when all this came down, however, the main spin was about Franz and really not too much about the other GB members.

  • jwfacts

    Cedars, anyone can create or edit a Wikipedia article. It is an amazing concept, as incorrect information quickly gets removed or tweaked by other people passionate about the topic. If a person does not write in an encyclopaedic manner, another person will adjust the tone of the sentence. Unfortunately, people are overly passionate about religion and are often unable to distinguish between fact and faith.

    In the early days of Wikipedia, I wrote a lot of the information about the Watchtower. However, any information that paints the Watchtower in a bad light was quickly re-written, and I got the feeling there is someone in Bethel assigned to monitor the articles. It became too frustrating for me, as endless battles continued with JW's trying to remove information. Eventually I gave up, and a friend of mine spent about a year fixing articles, but he too gave up. There was one other exJW that was very knowledgeable and really owned the project for a long time, but I am not sure who is taking ownership now.

    I originally tried to link, but it was taken down as non-neutral site and non-authoritarian. However, people have linked some articles from jwfacts, such as the page on statistics. A great idea was when Google stopped using links from Wikipedia for calculating its rankings. People were always adding in sites to improve their SEO, and without that motive, sites are now more likely to be relevant to the topics.

    The first pillar of Wikipedia is that " Wikipedia is not a soapbox , an advertising platform , a vanity press , an experiment in anarchy or democracy , an indiscriminate collection of information , or a web directory ." It is difficult with religious topics to stop it from becoming a soapbox, and I am impressed that the information regarding the Watchtower is surprisingly neutral. There is a dispute resolution process, and disruptive posters can be banned or articles locked when things get out of hand, such as when a JW continues to delete information without due cause.

    Regarding Candice Conti, there is nothing to stop someone from here adding a paragraph to a relevant article, or starting a new page. It would be interesting to see how long it remains for, or how the information gets spun by Witnesses. Whereas JW forums are filled with misinformation regarding the case, on Wikipedia it will not be tolerated to make random accusations as to her motives or guilt.

  • jwfacts

    Check the View history tab at the top of the page to see who is editing articles.

    Jeffro77 has been actively looking after the Watch Tower articles for many years. You could contact him and see if there is some way to assist.

  • The Oracle
    The Oracle

    We need a concerted effort to monitor dishonest Watchtower article uploads and be vigilent about correctling false submissions.

    The Watchtower has learned that the internet is a powerful tool for communciating information to the public and they desire to manipulate it with their massive spin doctor factory.

    We cannot let this happen. We will not let this happen.

    Sorry Watchtower. Our bullshit detectors are buzzing. It's time to make some corrections.

    The Oracle

  • dgp


  • cedars

    Thanks for that insight jwfacts. When you put it like that, it sounds like Wikipedia has been a battleground for some time. I can understand the likes of yourself or others giving up after a while through sheer frustration. No one likes to see their own detailed or well-researched information being removed or chopped up at the whim of the JWs on the other side. I could imagine growing very despondent after a while.

    It sounds like there is a team of writers being organized to even the load, and I am happy to add my services. Maybe as part of a more combined effort, we can make a difference. I really do appreciate your background info though - it's fascinating. It also helps me to understand the enormity of the task!


  • Jeffro


    Though last updated less than a week ago, it mentions not a single word about the Candace Conti verdict.

    Actually, the Candace Conti case is mentioned in the Lawsuits section.

    It should be borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapboax or a forum, and it has rules for inclusion of content.

    This is not necessarily an endorsement of either article.

  • Jeffro
    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...

    There are rules on Wikipedia about reliable sources, which explicitly exclude blogs, forums, and other unverifiable sources. It is tedious and unhelpful to claim that all 'unfavourable' information is removed simply on grounds of opposers (though this does also happen). Sites that have received notable coverage in the media might be suitable as sources. However, those named above are probably not.

  • cedars

    Thanks Jeffro, I only quickly scanned the articles to get a feel for the overall tone (which IMO is pro-WT), and I obviously missed the reference to Candace Conti. I'm glad it's in there somewhere.


  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Anyone here can edit wikipedia, once you are registered. Indeed, I found this site through a link in wikipedia discussion pages. The battle takes place daily. Some of the pro JW editors make good points which scares me. The article is mediated frequently. Reading the discussion is far more interesting than the actual article is. A few people on both sides have dedicated their lives to the wikipedia articles.

    Wikipedia may not be reliable but it is free and immensely popular. More people prob. consult wikipedia than come here for information.

    The articles are always in flux.

Share this