Wikipedia

[slavereeno]

I know wikipedia is a flawed source of information in general... However, when you read a lot of Mormon topics like "Anachronism in the book of Mormon" These entries seem to me to be pretty heavy handed towards the apologists. As in the apologists get a lot of screen space without any rebuttal. How is this? Compare this with for example, the Flat Earth entry in Wikipedia.

[dogbite]

As a user written product, the apologists are more motivated to protect the church than it's critics are to tell the truth. The church also finances some apologists and similar groups like more good foundation If you look at the edit history you can see a lot of edit wars in the church related topics. You can also flag them as sensitive topic to require review of edits. Most ex Mormons grow out of their anger in a few years and give up trying to tell the truth on wikipedia while the apologists remain fueled and funded.

[Hagoth]

I remember reading somewhere that FairMormon devotes a lot of time to patrolling LDS-related Wikipedia topics and making sure they don't have too much un-useful truth.

[slavereeno]

Well that makes sense I suppose... I can't believe the efforts used to maintain the status quo. How long can it last?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Well that makes sense I suppose... I can't believe the efforts used to maintain the status quo. How long can it last?

For as long as people believe and teach their children to curse the United States unto the third or fourth generation.

[MerrieMiss]

Wikipedia is one of the few ways my husband actually reads church stuff (because it's condensed and easy to skim) and he has found small things that are troublesome to him or at least show that the narrative that the church teaches in the benches every Sunday is not the same as what actually happened.

I don't think he's ever looked up any kind of apologetics on Wikipedia (I don't know that it has ever crossed his mind to look up apologetics anywhere), but more like information on certain people or events. I can't recall all of the things he'e read, but I believe a few things were Brigham Young changing the way succession happened in the church, verification of polygamous marriages/policies, ages of certain people and who they were related to, etc. I've found it to be a useful source to point him towards in order to verify facts, not to look for apologetic answers. Those footnotes to sources are great. It's also good for looking up something like, "History of horses in the US." It's kind of weird to my husband that every source, scientist, natural history museum, etc thinks differently than the church.

For example, a few weeks ago in Sunday School we had the lesson on being a good citizen. In class, Joseph Smith was upheld as a law abiding, constitution loving, US loving prophet. I pointed my husband to the Wikipedia article, "Joseph Smith and the Criminal Justice System." Lots of good stuff there, and Wikipedia isn't blocked on church wifi.

[slavereeno]

For example, a few weeks ago in Sunday School we had the lesson on being a good citizen. In class, Joseph Smith was upheld as a law abiding, constitution loving, US loving prophet. I pointed my husband to the Wikipedia article, "Joseph Smith and the Criminal Justice System." Lots of good stuff there, and Wikipedia isn't blocked on church wifi.

I will have to check this article out. I have referred DW to some wikipedia articles also like the entry on swedenborg.