WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia!

by Wonderment 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Wonderment
    Wonderment

    Did anyone notice this WT's subtle attack on Wikipedia?   They wrote (From the 2011 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 9-10.   Source: 'Tracing All Things With Accuracy'):


    "The Writing Department follows the pattern of ‘tracing all things with accuracy.’  But where can reliable information be found?  While the Internet is a convenient and quick source of vast amounts of information, our researchers do not rely on blogs or poorly documented Web entries written by unidentified or unqualified persons.  For example, Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, warns that some articles on its own site ‘contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism,’ adding that ‘users need to be aware of this.’  Thus, the Writing Department looks to standard reference works, articles written by recognized experts, and books produced by respected publishers."


    Me thinks that the WT Society have heard of a lot of brothers quoting Wikipedia as an authority on religion and other material, and some of this material is not always WT friendly.

    I am sure Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it is an amazing site.  Even doctors and professors use it privately, quietly.   There is a reason for that.  The fact is that no reference work is perfect, no matter how reputable it is.  There are errors everywhere.

    It seems that the WT wants to undermine the authority from the highly visible and prominent Wikipedia site in the interest of further safeguarding their reputation. 

    By the way, the WT's quote of Wikipedia's admission of errors only confirms the openness and candor of Wikipedia, unlike the WT Society which hardly ever acknowledges they make mistakes in their theology and publications. 

    What do you think?



  • Simon
    Simon

    To be fair, most schools and universities warn against quoting from Wikipedia as well.

    It tends to be OK for more factual things but anything emotive (religion / politics) and all bets are off - the model simply doesn't work in practice.

    Opinionated people with "belief" simply can't allow facts to stand. They want to promote their own version of reality at every opportunity.

  • jwleaks
    jwleaks
    On any Wikipedia page I have found that the three most useful sections are: References, Further Reading, and External links.
  • Naoscillator
    Naoscillator
    Their feelings about Wikipedia are understandable. Months before this yearbook was published, I read the Wiki entry on Jehovah's Witnesses. From the first sentence on, my perspective began to be altered as I adopted an outsider's viewpoint. Just the naked facts in the absence of standard WT spin made me start questioning if we weren't just another sect.
  • Jonathan Drake
    Jonathan Drake
    I don't see a problem with this statement. I quote Wikipedia for light discussion, but if things get serious head to my study. Wiki is just not reliable for everything. 
  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    The WTS just doesn't like the fact that Wiki is honest and open about them.

    Thus, they choose to shout "don't believe them lying bastards"! (Could it be that the "pot" knows the "kettle"?)

    Doc

  • millie210
    millie210

    And they dont like that anyone can edit WIki. Too many people with facts to add to their page.

    I heard that the brothers at Bethel are on Wiki a lot correcting and editing as much as they can.



  • WTWizard
    WTWizard
    At least Wikipedia openly warns that information may contain faults.  Does the washtowel do this?
  • JeffT
    JeffT
    I regard Wikipedia as a good place to start for an overview of a subject.  However I would never quote it in a scholarly work.  
  • JWdaughter
    JWdaughter
    I think Wiki is a great place to start-if they offer info without references then you can take if for what it is worth, but when they provide references you can get clued into great (real) source material. I think that they should have acknowledged that because it is true and as a teacher, I have spoken to my students about it several times a semester. It's really a great first step for subjects that are unfamiliar to a researcher or student. I also told them if they EVER used Wiki as their primary source material that they would lose an enormous amount of points for each infraction and it could result in a total fail, regardless of other merits of a paper. (I was a hardass about that).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit