"PaulHammond" <pahammond@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a6073867-48a5-47ec-8a98-9958bd1e3be6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
23 Jul, 15:03, Bob <RobertAr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The article cited seems to affirm what I think most of us already
> knew: that Wikipedia is a mixed blessing. It is subject to error,
> both honest and dishonest. And while it is not reliable enough to bet
> the farm on, it does provide one of several available "beginning
> points" in the research of many subjects. If one takes it as that,
> then Wik can be a useful resource. If one takes it as a substitute
> for honest research, then one does so at risk.
>
> Wikipedia's articles relating to Baha'i are almost transparently
> influenced by propaganda. In such cases, Wik's controllers would be
Robert, I don't see much evidence that you know anything about the BF
other
than some of the propaganda. It is no surprise that it bears some
resemblance to what you see on Wikipedia, so you can mistake it for
propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baha%27i
"The Bahá'í Faith is a religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in
nineteenth-century
Persia.[1]"
Factually incorrect. Baha'u'llah had left Persia before declaring His
mission.
Though the article did start off wrong, much of it is not only
referenceable, but somewhat accurate. You might do well to learn about
the
BF by studying the article, and discussion any discrepancies that you see
between the article and the lies which you have chosen to believe.
> well advised to restrict access to the writing and editing of such
> articles, and to append a section for pro-and con- articles or
> addenda, so that at least the reader can avail himself of other online
> resources, for example, the Former Baha'is website.
>
> Unfortunately, most people will, I fear, take the easy way.
>
> On Jul 22, 5:24 am, 303 <wahidaza...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
PH: Well, I think it's fair enough that people don't reference Wikipedia
in serious research articles.
PH: Similarly, they shouldn't reference the Sun newspaper (except possibly
in a media studies essay about newspapers), nor should they reference
"the bloke I met in the pub last night".
PH: But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to meet a bloke down the
pub who actually knows what he's talking about. And, of course, you
can ask the bloke down the pub who knows his stuff to recommend a
couple of good books (all good Wikipedia articles should include
sources - that's part of the problem with your Most Great Name
article, isn't it? That it's badly referenced?)
This one is Robert Arvay, who probably knows less about the BF than most
of
the non-Baha'is who post to TRB.
PH: Incidently, Nima, you SHOULD realise that the term "screed-monkey"
refers to a usenet/internet kook who amuses themselves by posting big
long articles that they haven't digested properly (and then spamming
them rather than talking to people) - that's why I apply the term to
you. I really doubt that many screed monkeys are also history
professors.
PH: Something useful I learnt from those alt.usenet.kooks guys you kindly
introduced us to when you were trying to bash your former friend Seon
Ferguson and turned up a guy from there who liked taking the piss out
of him.
PH: Law of unintended consequences, anyone?
For sure, an unfamiliar handle posts in, and says the BF articles in
Wikipedia are ***ed up, and of course it looks like Nima.
- All Bad
|
