-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wikipedia
- Thread starter Vee
- Start date
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
Wikipedia is truly a digital world wonder.
I've learned so much from wikipedia, but it's not a secret that there are groups who push their agenda on wikipedia, especially political groups.
also wikipedia must not be taken for granted, it's known to contain mistakes, if you take something from wikipedia and decide it's so and plan to use the knowledge, always do additional research.
I've learned so much from wikipedia, but it's not a secret that there are groups who push their agenda on wikipedia, especially political groups.
also wikipedia must not be taken for granted, it's known to contain mistakes, if you take something from wikipedia and decide it's so and plan to use the knowledge, always do additional research.
Me too, but when I'm very interested in a subject I'll always check different websites, books, podcasts, etc, so Wikipedia works as a starting point.
Exaltist Ethan
Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Most Wikipedia articles have references to other websites. When there is obvious vandalism I correct it as soon as I can.
I believe in God because of Wikipedia. I was doing research regarding pantheism and nature and came across this notion of The Omniverse. Now I believe that The Omniverse is a panendeistic God - although actually I am still pantheist - I believe our Universe is godlike and everyday things interact with each other and change. It was because of Wikipedia that I found out about Syntheism too.
I pretty much owe all my spiritual debt to Wikipedia. Maybe I should pray to Wikipedia as my God, hmm?
That was exceptional, and I say this as a monthly Wikipedia supporter. Thanks.
Wikipedia is handy, with a vast amount of information but i would not trust it to be unbiased or accurate. Pages can be written and edited by anyone with whatever agenda they hold. Usually they are pretty good at weeding out false information though on occasion it can take some time. I read a report a while ago it can take up to 2 years to rectify false info. Another report places its accuracy at around 80%.
If i use Wikipedia i check the info with a second and sometimes a third independent source.
If i use Wikipedia i check the info with a second and sometimes a third independent source.
Wikipedia has been considerably more useful than
Uncyclopedia. Just look at this article, which gets
at least 3 basic facts wrong, eg, Christians & the Sith....
Christianity
Conservapedia is even more riddled with error.
Uncyclopedia. Just look at this article, which gets
at least 3 basic facts wrong, eg, Christians & the Sith....
Christianity
Conservapedia is even more riddled with error.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I had no idea Christianity is monounsaturated!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That exactly. There's a treasure trove of a good information on it, but it's not necessarily in the pages themselves but in the citations. I used it a bunch in college as a starting point for research to begin gathering sources and information. Of course it's not all good or accurate, but it's been consistently rated as about as accurate as the Britannica. Just check the sources and double check elsewhere (which for research you likely already are).
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I forget the exact numbers, but it's something like clicking on the first link of a wikipedia page, do that a few times and you'll get to a philosophy page.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Exactly. I use and see it as only good for base general knowledge.
When you look at edits by whom goes by names sounding like ..
SnuffylocksJohn. xXterminatoriXx. Nurdyboy500 etc..
You get the picture.
Yes, that was a modern discovery.
Early Christians were unaware of that status.
So sayeth Twilight Hue ...
Apologize, I didn't watch the video. But I do find Wikipedia incredibly useful.
Then again, I used to own (finally got rid of it as it was too unwieldy) Encyclopedia Britannica. Never owned a copy of Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie, which is a bit of a shame, because it was practically the embodiment of the Enlightenment. (Many of its articles were written by Baron Thierry d'Holbach, and he certainly had an agenda, as intelligent as he was.)
But even were I from Diderot's era, or from any of the decades during which Britannica was being revised and updated (because what we know changes as we learn...which is a bit of a tautology, really), I would still have made sure to check out the claims in any of them -- if I were going to use those claims in an argument.
What humans may claim to know -- well they just might have it right. And they might not. How do you find out? Check and check again. Look for other sources.
I'm a (very minor) editor there typically only fixing small errors. You can see for yourself how it works by fixing things you find in error and watching what happens.
Studies comparing it to the Britannica found that it had more errors than Britannica but fixed them faster.
And yes, there have been fights on various topics, typically political ones as you might expect but the governance structure is pretty good at locking those pages down.
But then, early Christians weren't Christians, by today's various definitions, were they?
Don't know.
Don't gots me no Bible learn'n.