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
Dave from Taylorsville
Taylorsville, UT

(1951) Well it must be true. . . it's published!

(2011) Well it must be true. . . it's on the internet!

You gotta be really gullible to think that Wikipedia is reliable AT ALL. That's like thinking an ally brawl is a hockey game. (Poor analogy, but you get it.)

The missionary in question has more problems than believing in Wikipedia.

Common-Tator
Saint Paul, MN

There is truly a reason why Wikipedia is not accepted by serious academic institutions as a viable source when citing information. Guess "this be one of them"!

Quagthistle
Utica, KS

Honestly (and no offense to the author, for this was a well-written article in my opinion), but there is a mentality that is at the heart of the problem, not merely on the Wikipedia but in the US and abroad. This idea is that, if someone else wants to fight for their op[inion, it's best to let them have their way and then complain about it. Do you think the US won it's independence by having generals who said, "Oh well, the British outnumber us, so let's just give up and complain a lot." No, of course not. Whining never solved anything. If we, as the LDS community, want Wikipedia's articles about us and our history to be accurate or at least fair, then *WE* (not the owner of Wikipedia or anyone else) need to join the fight and battle as tenatiously as our opponents. Fundamentalists won't go away if we just sit in a corner and complain (or "give up"), and worse, they will be like anti-missionaries (or birds of the field who carry off the sown seeds, if you prefer)...

Quagthistle
Utica, KS

The Wikipedia came into existance because places like Britannica wanted to make millions off families trying to spread knowledge to their children. What would people here have families do? Go back to paying $50 a volume for sets of encyclopedias? Maybe we should send our kids to the library...Oh gee, the nearest library to me with any decent research section is 65 miles away. I guess my kids (if I had any) should start walking now. Maybe they'll get there and back by March.

The Wikipedia is a noble goal, to spread and share knowledge for *FREE*, but noble goals are rarely accomplished by sitting on our hands, whining. In short, if we want it to better, we must *MAKE* it better, not complain that others aren't doing it for us. The internet and Wikipedia are here to stay, and we'd better join the fray if we want things to get better.

Signed, Quag (Pamela)

PS: This word limit is annoying...

Vanka
Provo, UT

There sure seems to be a pattern: Whenever LDS don't like the unflattering information about them, they attack the source.

If Wikipedia was dominated by LDS so as to portray only positive things about the Church, then LDS would sing its praises as the most reliable, truthful and accurate source of information available!

Afterall, that is how they regard the information provided by the Maxwell Institute and FAIR.

Roger N.
Union City, CA

The idea that LDS "attack the source" if they don't like unflattering information about them is simple generalization, and it does not apply in this case. There are a number of LDS Wikipedia editors who do an excellent job employing "unflattering" sources.

The real issue with LDS Wikipedia articles is related to the accuracy in the use of sources, rather than a desire to remove them. FAIR's reviews of LDS Wikipedia articles do not advocate removing any sources, whether they happen to be "flattering" or "unflattering."

However, when an editor uses the words of Richard Bushman as a citation for a statement the clearly does not reflect Bushman's original intent, that is wrong. The restatement of an author's qualified opinion as expressed in a source as an unqualified "fact" in the main text of the Wikipedia article is wrong. The harassment of any editor by another editor because they do not assume good faith is wrong. That applies both ways - non-LDS who harass LDS, and LDS who harass non-LDS. All of these items violate established Wikipedia rules.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

It's just not worth the effort; I have more productive things to give my community, work, and family than to sit on my computer unendingly using weasel words and cutting off context to villify things I don't agree with. The depth to which wikipedia is filled with anti-Mormon and other anti-Christian sentiments, anti-Republican, anti-Conservative (and everything tied in any way to these ideas, such as Israel), anti-marriage protection is simply incurable.

Any and all examples of anythign on any page that involve any of those topics will villify them. Go to any topic on logical fallacies using political sources and Republicans are always the ones used as examples. Communism is almost always noble, and capitalism is almost always evil or failing.

to comment

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