Comments about ‘Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Wikipedia’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 30 2011 1:37 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Janet Pete
Salt Lake City, UT

Understand that this kind of questionable source information is very wide-spread and depends upon the intellectual integrity of the editors. Anyone doing research should realize that Wikipedia cautions readers as to the nature of the information. Whether written by a pro- or anti- individual, there is bias and the information must stand the test of time.

As an example, consider the entry for Scientology. It is a certainty that Scientologists are just as concerned about defamation as any other religious group appearing on the website. Anyone who accepts controversial information without some level of skepticism is probably looking for material to support a prejudiced view in the first place. They just want reinforcemnt of their beliefs and are not interested in balance.

My2Cents
Kearns, UT

From my few times of visiting Wikipedia I can't believe anyone takes this site serious. I was doing some information searching and found so many errors in there information I decided it not reliable to use it and I haven't been back to it since. Wikipedia is not legitimate nor accurate about anything and is the last place to seek information, especially if using this site for education or homework studies.

It is nothing but misinformation and limited value for information. If you want to find a lie or false data this is the place you go to. This web site is so bad I wouldn't even validate the errors is has because there are too many to bother with.

What really concerned me is when the government got so wired out of their minds when information was being spread on this site and their reactions only validated the truth in some of their exposures.

Other than that, anyone smart enough would avoid this website as the fraud and misinformation it is. This self proclaimed cyber encyclopedia is not worth the waste of time.

Tom Smith
Sandy, UT

This information will certainly change the way I view Wikipedia information in the future!

pat1
Taylorsville, UT

We all use Wikipedia instead of the traditional encyclopedia because of its convenience. Yet, as has been emphatically stated earlier, all internet sources must be evaluated as to the validity of their information. That is the nature of the world wide web.

I applaud the young missionary's zeal, but there will always be those who do not agree, as he will surely discover on his misson.

my screen name
Murray, UT

re: Xpat

History has two sides but moral truth doesn't.

I think we have the responsibility to find moral truth, or in other words, the truth that is mostly in line with our Creator's morality.

Your example of the American Revolution points this out. The Brits said the American's were rebels. The American's said they were freedom fighters. Which is more in line with God's moral truth? I believe the American's because I believe the Declaration of Independence. The "people" have the right to establish a government that doesn't violate their "God given" rights. That's what they did.

People are free to believe the interpretation of events, but there's only one interpretation that is more in line with our Creator's. If we find that Truth, we create a better world.

But then, your interpretation may be different...

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

I often refer to Wikipedia, but I always take a grain of salt with everything I read there.

And, it's true...there is no such thing as unbiased history. But, there are those who deliberately choose to tell lies and defame. That's what anti-mormon posters do. Just be aware.

AZnewser
Snowflake, AZ

Xpat:
Your comment was "too long and redundant."

This article reminds me that the Internet can be used for good and for evil.

Cedarite
Cedar City, UT

Stephen Colbert said it best with the word "Wikiality" as he praised Wikipedia's adherence to the principles of "truthiness".

defibman
Syracuse, UT

The problem is that if you "consider the source" as my mother used to always tell me, you cannot do that with Wikipedia. Since the "source" is really not known by a casual reader. If everyone that reads the article knew that the person who changed the article was a professor at an "anti-Mormon university, then we could "consider the source".

Wikipedia is looked to due to its ease of getting some info, not due to its facts. Most of its contents are true but I have found many things to be just plain wrong. I stopped going there several years ago and will not use it again.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Good story DN. I learned al about Wikis and Wikipedia

Mary E Petty
Sandy, UT

Thank you, Michael DeGroote. Fascinating clear evidence that the eternal battle for truth continues in the ongoing war between good and evil. And we all get to choose for ourselves what side we will be on and fight for. We get to decide how we will use our time and exercise our agency. One day all mankind will know the Truth in our own language and through our own experience. Real Truth will be known and recognized that day by all when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.

Till then, my goal is to learn to be like this chief mortal provider of truth who said I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Come Follow me. Love one another. And Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Truth is Jesus Christ. the Son of God; my Elder Brother and the only begotten of our Father in Heaven. I intend to be on His Side when Truth is known by all of us mortals.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Wikipedia reflects a lot of the problems with organised religion. Aside from the known historical facts, it's pretty much free from burden of proof, and totally subjective. Everybody gets to say not only that they're right, but as such everyone else is wrong.

Janet
Ontario, OR

As a college instructor who teaches students to write research papers, I feel Nicholson's pain. Human nature often trumps our careful attempts to get students to search well-documented sources and diverse points of view when pursuing answers about controversial topics. Time and again, students go to sources that validate their preconceived notions. Those who can overcome that comfortable habit learn what serious inquiry means. No one in my department allows Wikipedia as a source.

Captain Kirk
Lehi, UT

@xpat

I am not trying to attack you because I thought most of your post was right on ...
But I found it interesting that you are also guilty of exactly what you are warning about when you assume that Nicholson was using both screen names. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. We can't know this from the article. There is certainly reason to suspect but you assert it as a fact and use it as evidence of a bias in the article.

huggyface
Murray, UT

Wikipedia is a great tool for understanding, I use it all of the time. But Wikipedia is not considered a credible resource in academia, meaning that it can't be cited in a research paper.

This article is further evidence that what Moroni told Joseph: "my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people."

These arguments about Joseph Smith are similar to trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon is true - via scientific evidence. It's not possible, you have to rely on faith. You can know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost.

sense,please
Salt Lake City, Utah

Can't anyone use apostrophes correctly?

"...found that 42 percent of all American's 18 and older use Wikipedia to look for information..."

Demosthenes
Rexburg, ID

Reasonable people realize that if you want to learn about Democrats, you don't ask a Republican -- you talk to a Democrat.

Similarly, if you want to learn about Catholics, you don't ask a Baptist.

So why does a non-Mormon think he has the right to tell people about Mormons?

It's unreasonable.

Full-on double rainbow
Bluffdale, UT

@Cats

Any comment or post that put the church in a negative light must be a lie or defamatory? I believe chuch history can speak for itself.

Madden
Herriman, UT

Wikipedia is great for factual information sharing, where science, math and research knowledge can be shared for the benefit of others. That is where its strength lies. When it comes to hot-button issues, it is simply a masked editorial page. Read those for entertainment only, just like the comment thread full of trolls in any BYU sports article.

juni4ling
Somewhere in Colorado, CO

So an anti-Mormon professor from a fundamental Christian college in the Bible belt wants a "neutral" point of view on the LDS Church.

Ouch. My sides hurt from laughing.

Good reporting, DNews. After looking at some articles on the LDS Church on Wiki, I knew something was up with blatant anti-Mormon phrasology, and point of view in the articles.

Good job to the folks who make an effort towards academic honesty and itegrity.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments