Anglican wiki

Discussion in 'Questions & Suggestions' started by BibleHoarder, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Should this site, Anglican.net, host an Anglican/Episcopal wiki, since there is OrthodoxWiki.org and similar sites? Anglican information on the internet that is reliable and up to date is often fragmented. I would contribute some articles (though not an awful lot, since my understanding of Anglicanism is still a bit shoddy on some things) but I think we should consider it.
     
  2. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    402
    Likes Received:
    186
    What would you say the benefits are of hosting our own Wiki, in contrast to editing what's on Wikipedia.org?
     
  3. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    The ability to promote a more pro-Anglican view as opposed to Wiki's 'neutral' standard (if it can even be called that)?
     
  4. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    402
    Likes Received:
    186
    Understood. Isn't Wikipedia open to editing by all?
     
  5. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Are you suggesting the presentation of "alternative truth" as it is euphemistically termed nowadays? I have always thought that the only alternative to a truth, is a lie.
    .
     
  6. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    535
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    High-Church Laudian
    I think an Anglican Wiki might be useful, but I do see problems regarding who speaks for Anglicanism. I would hope, using this site as an example, that orthodoxy could be maintained, while still having some flexibility for opposing views.
     
    Botolph likes this.
  7. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Actually this does make me wonder: if Wikipedia is open for editing by all, then shouldn't we all just go and edit things there? Maybe it's that Wiki isn't truly 100% editable, with their own moderators who don't have the Anglican interests at heart.
     
  8. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    If you can find anything factually inaccurate concerning Anglicanism in a Wiki article, you are entitled to question its veracity. What they won't allow is people going on there to remove uncomfortable 'truth' or to insert their own cherished 'truths', sincerely held perhaps but merely opinions rather than facts.
     
  9. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I mean, I don't know about that. There are plenty of people who will impose their cherished truths on Wikipedia pages; that's why even their founder has recently said he would not use Wikipedia to rely on facts.

    My only question is who has the ability to edit it. If people who are anti-Christian can edit it, then so do we. So what's the point in starting our own wikipedia? Or is the point that the anti-Christians have more power within the Wikipedia administrative roles?
     
  10. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    791
    Likes Received:
    969
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I guess the issue is who is to establish the authoritative Anglican position. This forum reflects traditional views of within Anglicanism, but given that we have no magisterium as such, and the very notion of such a role is in a way counter-anglicanum. I recognise that some of the views expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Office of the Secretariat of the Anglican Communion, and resolutions passed by the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, The Church of England, the Episcopal Church, are and have been challenged on this site.

    Anglicans, for authority, look to the primarily to the Holy Scriptures, and then to historic creeds, tradition and reason, and in this we find both the challenge and the strength of our part of christendom.

    If all the Anglians in the world were laid end to end, they would never reach a conclusion.
     
  11. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    778
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    So the only way an Anglican wikipedia would work (on a purely functional/pragmatic level) is with something like this site's doctrinal mechanism. One doesn't have to agree with how they've done it here, but something like that would be necessary to strip off the edges of acceptable belief, and impose a dominant system of acceptable areas of belief. Which would not exist on Wikipedia, obviously.

    This leaves me with the question of, without a central 'doctrinal mechanism' on Wikipedia, who and how decides its articles currently? I have noticed a whole lot of Anglican articles on Wikipedia which I flat-out knew were factually incorrect. I just don't want to get into a wrestling match with a mob of counter-editors whose numbers and identity I don't know.
     
  12. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    791
    Likes Received:
    969
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I agree. I edited an article (or perhaps proposed an edit) based on the factual evidence that the article provided links to, which was initially refused, then accepted, and then edited back to the way it was before. I am aware that truth in itself is not sufficient argument. In my case I think it is a bit of a problem of the Black Swan, so there is a level of frustration in the wisdom of the crowd approach that Wikipedia presents, because sometimes the crowd can be wrong, or misled, or poorly informed. Common sense of course is remarkably uncommon. As an attempted editor, part of the frustration was probably the lack of discussion or information provided about why these things happened.

    I don't dismiss Wikipedia out of hand, and it is certainly one of the easiest to access sources of information on a great deal of stuff, however in terms of reliance, you need better sources, and you need to be prepared to hang a question mark over any statement on Wikipedia, however in a way that is true of every Encyclopedia.

    So yes, I share your frustration with the platform.
     
  13. Tiffy

    Tiffy Active Member

    Posts:
    331
    Likes Received:
    75
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I have to agree with what you say here. There is so much 'alternative truth', out there now that it is foolish to completely trust anything one reads on line.
    .
     
  14. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    393
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    It is more reliable on more trivial, non-controversial information, but it errs even on these subjects. You'd expect bias in controversial or touchy subjects like religion or politics, but for instance, if you want to know something about a book, video game, movie, or musical album, you can find errors and misguided info in those articles too. I had written a concise article on one particular musical album and they deleted it for who knows why. I have it saved offline in txt format with the wiki code, but haven't attempted to repost it. Wiki is also extremely biased on the subject of papal supremacy, where the authors quote the works of the fathers and others in favor of it much the same way as your average Roman apologist would. Not good, but if you've read the entire texts in context, you know this isn't true.

    I did contribute to the Douay-Rheims article in the part concerning the Douay-Rheims Only movement. Someone came and edited it later, but only slightly. Regardless, the majority of what remains there is largely my own work and contribution to the article. But what gets removed and accepted can be unpredictable, even when sources are cited, since sources can also vary in their trustworthiness. Some would even say it's redundant to have to check the source itself for reliability.
     

Share This Page