Featured How Bad is Wikipedia on the Bible?

Years ago the "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered. A man or small group of men were put in charge and access was denied to everyone else. After several years (in which very limited progress had been made) folks who had photocopies of the scrolls published them. Then all sorts of smart people starting working on them.

Widespread dissemination of primary sources is the way to go. Light those candles....

 

Wiki is unreliable. If they are being used as a source for the purpose of discussion on the subject that is one thing. If they are being used as a source to say "see this is proof of what I am saying therefore I am right" then such use of them is not credible.

 

This is how I see it as well.

Wikipedia is a great place to find footnoted references which one can use as a jumping off point for real research into the subject matter.

 

Wikipedia was charged with calling certain documents "manuscripts" rather than "texts." But was a source cited? What if the meaning was general, i.e. any document written before the printing press? Any hand written document.

Beware of those who find or say they find, some nit or error, and use it to dismiss the entire work or view. No work of man is perfect, especially if alternate definitions are imposed.

 

Here is an alternate summary of Biblical Textual Criticism:
http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/TextualCriticismOfTheBible.htm

 

Not a biblical expert, but I am a researcher and I often look at wikipedia for generalities on a topic. I do work with children, however, and I've found it's better to show them how to glean any good out of a mediocre and prolific resource than to leave them to their own resources.

 

So it is after all better to light a candle.... Thanks

 

I can access it with Chrome just fine. Clearly they have read this thread and are denying you secure access

 

Perhaps. I am not able to access many websites --but Wikipedia? No problemo.

I've never had a problem with Wikipedia. It's a wonderful resource when used with discernment.

Tell me, do you have any objections to their pages on John R.Rice, Japan or Tennessee Temple?

As I said, I look mainly at bios, history, science and inventions.

 

What about Theopedia then?

Would say that it is a good starting point to do researching, but jusy ise it to point you to soem real scholarship!

 

John, I left teaching just as Wikipedia was becoming an issue.

The first class was always the "Why do we study history" speech.

The second class was always about the difference between primary and secondary sources, research.

The only redeeming value I find in Wikipedia is the little outline they have at the top (and even that's just for inspiration, not to actually use as your outline) and the Bibliography and sources at the bottom.

For informal things, like when I want to look up information on a song or artist for my show, (should be "wanted", I guess, since I'm not doing the show right now), it's fine. But for academic research, no.

 

That is how we seem to all see it here, in that it is good to point us towards much better sources for academic researching, but should not be used exclusively as being "gospel"