Wikipedia is pro-atheist, anti-Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanCrusader

Guest
Wikipedia is clearly run by atheist swine.

Look at their “Ressurection of Jesus” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

Its basically a giant attack on the Ressurection.

Same with the “Virgin Birth” article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth#Paul_of_Tarsus

Again, its a giant attack on the Virign Birth basically.

I could post numerous articles that are similar. Wikipedia will trash every Catholic-Christian subject.

And yet in their articles about Judaism, Mohamedanism, atheism, paganism, ect. Wikipedia does not list a single criticism. For example look at their atheism article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Footnotes_and_citations)). In the tiny criticism section, the wikipedia article actually defends the atheists.

The vile atheists are ruining our society and I’m sure they would love to bring about the extermination of all Christians if they could. Fortunately they don’t have the power to do that, so it looks like they’ll settle on controlling wikipedia.
 
Wikipedia is a compilation of whatever someone wants to write. There isn’t even a formal peer-review, from what I understand.
 
I like your zeal:thumbsup:
You are correct in your assumption about the Wiki.
I would be willing to wager that your ancestors rode alongside my own in the Holy Crusades.
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
I like your zeal:thumbsup:
You are correct in your assumption about the Wiki.
I would be willing to wager that your ancestors rode alongside my own in the Holy Crusades.
WP
Click to expand...
Thanks:D

I’d be very honored and proud if I had crusader ancestors. The crusaders were true heros.

I’m half Irish, half Italian. Quite a few Italians went on crusades, so its certainly possible.
 
If you intend to do research on spiritual topics, better stay away from Wikipedia. It is hardly an objective and verifiable source in any case.
 
RobedWithLight said:
If you intend to do research on spiritual topics, better stay away from Wikipedia. It is hardly an objective and verifiable source in any case.
Click to expand...
Thats true. However many unaware folks looking for a brief read-up will see all the atheist poison on Wiki and drink it.
 
RomanCrusader said:
Thanks:D

I’d be very honored and proud if I had crusader ancestors. The crusaders were true heros.

.
Click to expand...
I am in total agreement with you on, however public opinion has turned against us on the matter.
I still stand by the plan of James IV and regret that it wasn’t undertaken.
WP
 
The Wiki article on the Shroud of Turin is particularly biased in my opinion:mad:
I am a John Wesley Style Methodist with little tolerance for anti-Christian bias.
WP
 
Why don’t we go change it to make it better? Isn’t that the point of sites like Wikipedia?
 
Not true that Wikipedia is anti-Catholic; remember that one can edit the articles there, so it very much depends on who’s doing the editing. For instance, the article about “Vicarius Filii Dei” is very much in favour of the Church.
 
Which in fact makes it unreliable simply because it is so vulnerable to biases. An article about Catholicism written by a secular humanist or agnostic would definitely be slanted or highly suspect, and even dangerous. It would therefore be better to consult known Catholic sources for explanations on Catholic beliefs and practices.
 
I found much inspiration on the “Historical Jesus” page and that wasn’t written from an atheist position, but a neutral one. It explored the man, and left the divinity up to you.
 
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia anyone can edit. So if there is something that looks like Anti-Christian there, let’s just revise it.

I guess having articles from a ‘neutral point of view’ (one of Wikipedia’s objectives) is a rather difficult task.
 
patrick457 said:
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia anyone can edit. So if there is something that looks like Anti-Christian there, let’s just revise it.

I guess having articles from a ‘neutral point of view’ (one of Wikipedia’s objectives) is a rather difficult task.
Click to expand...
Anyone can edit Wikepedia? How does that work? :confused: How do they make sure it’s accurate?
 
St_John said:
Anyone can edit Wikepedia? How does that work? :confused: How do they make sure it’s accurate?
Click to expand...
Isn’ that one of Wikipedia’s subtitles? ‘The Free Encyclopedia anyone can edit’?
You need to register first to edit an article, though.

I usually only trust Wikipedia for other things besides Religion. Even some of those articles need to be taken with a grain of salt though.
 
Seeks_God said:
Wikipedia is a compilation of whatever someone wants to write. There isn’t even a formal peer-review, from what I understand.
Click to expand...
Yes, anyone can post whatever they want on Wikipedia, which is why it is not always a reliable source. However there are some orthodox articles, when it comes to Liturgical seasons and Holy Days, as well as the Mass.

I remember reading the wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth II it stated that in 1987 she confessed to having a romantic affair with Princess Diana. :rolleyes: Don’t you think the media would have brought that up during Princess Diana’s funeral reports.
 
Psalm45_9 said:
Yes, anyone can post whatever they want on Wikipedia, which is why it is not always a reliable source. However there are some orthodox articles, when it comes to Liturgical seasons and Holy Days, as well as the Mass.

I remember reading the wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth II it stated that in 1987 she confessed to having a romantic affair with Princess Diana. :rolleyes: Don’t you think the media would have brought that up during Princess Diana’s funeral reports.
Click to expand...
That’s a good and bad thing about Wikipedia, isn’t it?

The good part is, if you see some article containing information about which you know better, you can revise it.

The bad part is, Many abuse this editing ability. I remember reading an article yesterday. Someone vandalized a part of it with rather obscene words I couldn’t type here.
 
wiki is not pro or anti anything. anyone in the world with access to a computer is allowed to post anything they like. which makes it completely worthless as a source for anyone doing serious research.
 
puzzleannie said:
wiki is not pro or anti anything. anyone in the world with access to a computer is allowed to post anything they like. which makes it completely worthless as a source for anyone doing serious research.
Click to expand...
You need to be sure no one has vandalized the article and keep an eye out for articles marked as ‘not presenting a neutral point of view’ or ‘lacks citations’.

One thing that bugs me though, is what do they mean by ‘Not presenting a Neutral Point of View’? Just what is the definition of ‘Neutral’?

…Not saying Wikipedia is useless though. It might be helpful in some situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top