Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) The problem confronting many Wikipedia editors is that religion elicits passion -- and often, more than a little vitriol as believers and critics spar over facts, sources and context.


  1. Wikipedia is a liberal secularist propaganda sight. I feel sorry for anyone nieve enough to get their info from there.

    I would recommend Conservapedia, which is run by Phyllis Schlaffly’s son. It presents the Biblical perspective on all matters of knowledge. Did you know that Einstein’s Theory of Relativty is liberal claptrap? It’s true! You won’t learn that at Wikipedia or the Satanic public schools!

    • It’s frankly embarrassing that you are afraid of publicly-editable information as “liberal claptrap,” and that you openly recommend a source that advertises its political biases.

      I can only hope you are a troll deliberately misrepresenting the conservative wing as backwards and ignorant and “nieve.”

      • “I can only hope you are a troll deliberately misrepresenting the conservative wing as backwards and ignorant and “nieve.””

        Ronald is a parody troll. But he is hardly misrepresenting the conservative wing as backwards and ignorant. Conservapedia IS a pretty good example of that.

          • Just to clarify, is “wackadoodle” as used here intended as a personal attack or disparagement of a religious, minority, or other protected group?

            Such things are prohibited on thid site, I am lead to believe.

            Or is “wackadoodle” and its troll variety actually a new species or subset of protected groupings due to its minority behavior patterns? If so, the reference is positively appropriate and please carry on.

          • For once I am not disagreeing with you. But you miss the important thing: intent.

            Ronald is ridiculing the beliefs being posted and exaggerating for effect. You say similar things, but seriously.

          • I don’t know why Doc Anthony calls me wackadoodle. We seem to agree on everything. It is rude of the Doc, but Christ gives me the strength to carry on!

            Also I do not take steroids. Thos are bad for you. I built up my muscles using the Charles Atlas method, and you can too!

    • Ronald, someone needs to have a LOOOOONG talk with you. I can’t think of any comment in any forum recently where every single sentence was utter idiocy, until I saw yours. Gee, that’s a real attraction–Phillis Schlaffly’s son! You could have said Adolf Hitler’s long-lost great-grand-nephew and it would have perked me right up. With thousands of editors, I doubt if Wikipedia could be characterized as anything other than “eclectic” in its makeup, and anyone who tried would be spotted right off as a troller. “Conservapedia,” huh? I have to wonder if they have an agenda of some sort…

      • Phyllis Schlafly is a great American icon who has done much to support Christian values in America, such as leading the oposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Clearly her wonderful genetic legacy and dedication to public service has carried on in her son. Conservapedia is a fantastic resorce that is widely used by home schooled children.

        You should read Conservapedia’s article about why Einstein’s E=mc² is WRONG.

        Also here is they’re list of all the things they have been proven RIGHT about:

    • Wikipedia, unlike Conservapedia, is full of contested points of view. Conservapedia has only one view, and it is from deep inside a sphere of denial of facts and promotion of fictions, as Ronald’s own comment here suggests. He believes there are magic, evil spirits at work in the public schools, and that the science behind America’s nuclear armoury is liberal claptrap.

  2. samuel Johnston

    As a young student of religion, I almost despaired of getting “objective” information. Now I know the trick. Read and study as many different points of view as, you can, and soon you will have a “nose” for it.
    In his autobiography, “Transition” (page 58), Will Durant, explains his “conversion to Darwinism”.
    “I read reply after reply to Darwin; and found the refutations much easier to understand than the theory..Like the theologians, I was poor in facts but had a keen nose for fallacies…It was these refutations that made me an evolutionist.”
    (Transition, copyright 1927, Simon and Schuster, Inc.)

    • Great note, Samuel. In Origin of the Species Darwin worried repeatedly and often about the “missing links” in the geological evidence, but his explanation as to why they weren’t all there was very plausible. Years later and much research later, a lot of those “gaps” have been filled. Even the atomists, as far back as Lucretius, realized that all living matter starts out as a “seed” and grows and evolves, and that God didn’t put species, or people, on the planet fully formed or fully grown. Adam and Eve would be the prime examples. Evolution is science backed up by facts; the Bible is a series of stories backed up with no evidence whatsoever–great as literature, bad as science.

  3. This is why Wikipedia should only be used as a starting point when seeking out information – particularly with a subject that can (and often does) lead to polemical discourse. Very interesting article that provides a good reminder why we should always read everything with a critical eye, and seek information from multiple sources.

  4. The internet – and Wikipedia in particular – is an embarrassment of riches.

    It is extremely difficult to stay ignorant in the internet age
    which is why I am so upbeat about the future.

    We have more information, free books, speeches, music and culture
    than any generation in history.
    I still marvel at the potential of Google to educate the world
    one question at a time.