Silenced has a call to action in regards to the mountains of erroneous material that fills up many Wikipedia entries that pertain to the hundreds of Churches of God and Armstrongism. Many have fairly accurate information in them, while others look like they have been written by the PR officers of the various splinter cults. The biggest offenders are (which should not be a huge shock):
Radio Church of God/Worldwide Church of God
United Church of God
Philadelphia Church of God
Living Church of God
Terry Ratzmann
Roderick C. Meredith
Silenced writes:: Wow. Just…wow. Did he write this himself?
This includes one that is missing and SHOULD be written: Ron Weinland
Armstrongism has always done a white wash on its self over the decades. In its eyes it has done no wrong, committed no evil, and has been the most glorious resurrection of the True Church in 1,900 years. The truth is, in many cases, that the Church of God has blatantly lied about it's history. It has attempted to cover up murders, suicides, huge legal challenges, rapes, wife swapping, child molestations, stalkings, embezzlement and more. If you can name an evil present in the world it most likely can be found existing in Armstrongism. One person some years ago even accused he Church of genocide with is vile medical prohibitions. How many thousands have died over the decades because of church leaders deliberately banning medical intervention?
It's time these liars be held accountable on Wikipedia!
So if any of you want to join the Wiki Truth Squad contact Silenced for more information
First of all, Wikipedia has a rule that says a Wikipedia page cannot be written with the purpose of promoting or advertising something. Clearly, when someone singlehandedly writes their own Wikipedia page, it cannot help but violate that rule.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a big problem that many Wikipedia pages have, and these are no exception, is that people write great tracts with no citations, or improper citations, to support their claims.
Wikipedia is a great demonstration of Pilate's question, "What is truth?" It clearly shows that there is no such thing as "truth" but only truth from a particular point of view. One man's "truth" is another man's propaganda.
If you want to see the hashing that goes on behind the scenes between "interested" and disinterested parties, just click on the Talk tab. The more fighting there is, the more balanced the page is likely to be. The less fighting, the more likely it reflects only a single point of view (see the PCG edit page--empty!). But it is here that you can see what issues are being fought over, if anything.
We are not the only ones scarred by religion and its many lies & cover-ups:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
Wikipedia is also a dynamic, as opposed to static, site. This means that so long as people have a vested interest one way or the other in a site, it is constantly subject to change. It is not like, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, in which an article is researched, written up, and then remains unchanged until the next edition is printed.
ReplyDeleteIt's good that there is a cadre of people who are interested in preventing their fellow humans from being scammed or defrauded, but those who believe that the scam is some sort of transcendent truth, comprehendable only by a certain elect few, are going to protect it as agressively as a proud landlord will attempt to thwart grafitti vandals who would deface his walls.
Velvet, who had compiled the "Purple Hymmnal" website, had at one time attempted to get Wikipedia to edit their article on Dwight Armstrong, only to have one of Dwight's relatives fight the changes. The relative ended up getting the upper hand, as it seems that those who are perceived as being "insiders" to the topic are given greater credibility.
At best, those of us in favor of accountability can demonstrate that controversy does surround certain groups or approaches. It would be nice if our versions got to stand as truth, but unfortunately that is not the case when a third party moderates or controls the final version.
BB
Check the "discussion" section of the Wikipedia entry on UCG (well, once Wikipedia's protest is over) - and you'll find COE member Scott Ashley's name right in the middle of the back-and-forth debate.
ReplyDeleteAs the old saying goes:
ReplyDeleteTruth is the first casualty of war
And we are definitely in a war folks--an "infowar" of sorts that I don't see ending anytime soon...