Catholicism and Wikipedia

[akasseb]

Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia has become one of the most powerful sources of knowledge and information that the world has ever seen. Anyone who has engaged in internet research is familiar with the influence of the site. After all, if you search for any term in a Google search, the Wikipedia entry will appear at the top, or near the top, of the results.

Therefore, this is an important area of evangelization for Catholics. We need to make sure that the contributions of the Church and her members are properly represented on the site. If you have an area of interest or expertise, I recommend reviewing the relevant articles for accuracy.

Does anyone here regularly contribute to Wikipedia? And if so, in what areas?

 

[NewsTheMan]

Good idea actually. I wonder who has edited/written the current Wiki article? The Vatican should gather together a whole task-force team to do it to make sure it’s accurate

 

[carn]

Good idea actually. I wonder who has edited/written the current Wiki article? The Vatican should gather together a whole task-force team to do it to make sure it’s accurate

Will not work, unless in a subterfuge way.
Catholicism is considered to be something conservative and therefore any group openly trying to put catholicism in positive light will meet resistance from the mods.

 

[Invictus_88]

No true, Wikipedia is about objectivity. Even when it fails to be objective, objectivity is the standard in all things.

Any attempt to flood wikipedia with arguments singing the subjective praises of the Church will obviously be rejected, but well-written, competently sourced, and accessibly formatted pages about the lives of Catholic saints, the good work of Catholic charities, and the documented effects of Catholic social teaching would be (and are) accepted without quarrel.

Trouble is, doing it right takes more work and dedication than doing it badly and getting modded.

 

[carn]

No true, Wikipedia is about objectivity. Even when it fails to be objective, objectivity is the standard in all things.

I disagree. but its hard to prove.

For shortness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Susceptibility_to_bias

Some conservative dislike wiki for perceived liberal bias, no serious liberal voice does dislike wiki for conservative bias. Therefore a liberal bias is likely, because one cannot avoid bias in political issues and if wiki bias would be averaged on such topics on both sides some people would perceive bias.

 

[promethius]

Therefore, this is an important area of -]evangelization/-](my insert: apologetics) for Catholics. We need to make sure that the contributions of the Church and her members are properly represented on the site. If you have an area of interest or expertise, I recommend reviewing the relevant articles for accuracy.

Minor correction that should clear up some confusion of terms. We should ensure that the discussion of catholicism is objective and fair, but it should not be used as a tool to convert others via subjective testimony.

 

[akasseb]

Just to be clear, I am encouraging well-researched, well-written, objective, accurate, and informative contributions to Wikipedia. These contributions need to be made in areas in which one has expertise. Furthermore, one needs to be knowledgeable about the editing process and dynamics of the editing community.

If Wikipedia appears to be biased, we are just as much to blame as anyone else. Because anyone can edit the articles, perceived bias is not imposed from the top down. Many times it is simply bias by omission. In this case we can provide a service by highlighting the contributions of the Church.

 

[carn]

Because anyone can edit the articles, perceived bias is not imposed from the top down.

Unfortunately that might be not true:
frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/
frontpagemag.com/2011/09/01/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-ii-coddling-progressives/

"The Wikipedia entry for Che, the top google search result for “Che Guevara,” is an example. The 12,707 word entry features a single paragraph with 235 words of criticism – a modest 1.8 percent rate. This suggests that a Marxist revolutionary who commanded the guns executing the “enemies of the revolution” after the fall of Havana is far less controversial than Ann Coulter. And when one frustrated Wikipedian described the entry as a “hagiography” and protested the exclusion of the work of prominent Guevara-critic Humberto Fontova, whose analysis of the revolutionary’s nihilistic violence stands as an antidote to the romanticism of his apotheosis as St. Che, he was rebuked by a high level contributor (one of the 4000 most active) with the telling handle “Redthoreau.” The justification for the exclusion: facts from Fontova are “written in an hyperbolic and un-encyclopedic tone.” Thus Fontova’s informed view of Guevara’s bloody career is missing from the entry because Redthoreau objects to Fontova describing Che as “revered by millions of imbeciles.” In contrast, the Wikipedia entry for another of the Left’s icon, Noam Chomsky, asserts that America is a genocidal terror state worse than Nazi Germany, a sentiment even many leftists would characterize as hyperbolic. Yet Chomsky has the most detailed and respectful entries of any political commentator. And as of mid-August 2011 his page had an even higher level of protection than most living persons: a lock logo with the warning that the profile could not be edited by unregistered or new users.

Incidentally, Fontova’s own Wikipedia entry is 826 words, 432 of which are criticism, an unusually high 52 percent. Unsurprisingly, the primary author and watchdog of Fontova’s entry is Redthoreau."

Cannot say, whether this criticism of wiki is objective, but it confirms my personal impression, anything remotly dependent on political views (and religion also depends partly on that) at wiki im very sceptical of its objectivity. And its realy a nice article for a communist murderer:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevera
And it is locked.

But try, maybe the bieas is less serious than i suspect.

 

[Invictus_88]

There is bias in instance, just as there are instances of vandalism. The standard is objectivity, however, and if a source or reference is legitimate and relevant then it will be accepted.

If everyone who ever complained about “liberal bias” or contributed instead to ‘Conservapedia’ knuckled down and made a couple of sound, properly referenced contributions to Wikipedia, the situation would not be as it is now.