Wiki Hoax Article Not Caught for Five Years

_{Barry Arrington

January 5, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Maybe I overlooked, but: How many hits did the Bicholim entry have?Seqenenre_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

JW: I paused to look at the Trinity article, and note the tone of your response. Let's clip the intro at Wiki:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] A nature is what one is, while a person is who one is.[3][4][5] The Trinity is considered to be a mystery of Christian faith.[6] According to this doctrine, there is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.[6] The three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. Trinitarianism (one deity in three persons) contrasts with nontrinitarian positions which include Binitarianism (one deity in two persons, or two deities), Unitarianism (one deity in one person, analogous to Jewish interpretation of the Shema and Muslim belief in Tawhid), Oneness Pentecostalism or Modalism (one deity manifested in three separate aspects), and social trinitarianism (three persons united by mutual love and accord).
I wish the ID article had an intro like that! There is a fair and accurate summary of the teaching and views of those who accept the triune nature of God, and there is an indication that this is (i) a mystery, and (ii)that it is objected to by several identified groups or positions, which are linked to. In turn, glancing at a cross section, these views are also fairly summarised at a 101 level. In dealing with scriptural data, the article surveys what led many early Christians to the doctrine,and deals reasonably with the Coma Johanneum. (Note, the 325 and 381 Nicene Creed does not and did not advert to this text, but is in effect a review of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, with a preface and epilogue. Cf. textual comparison on phrases in the classical English version here.) The historical survey is also quite good for something so short. I would have liked a bit more on the evidence that indicates that the Imperial Family over the fifty years in which the Nicene formulation was debated onward before being reaffirmed and extended in 381, had a definite tendency to lean Arian or even revert to paganism in personal views, but by and large sought Imperial unity, however that is probably a bit much to expect. This is in fact exactly what I would expect of an encyclopedia undertaking a NPOV approach to major issues, some of which will be unavoidably subject to controversy. The article, then, is not a hoax, something offered under false pretences. One may disagree with it, as I assume you do from your monicker, but that is a different thing, and indeed this is not the place for a debate on why you or I take the views we do. I will say, however, that your characterisation of the course section previously linked, is intemperate in tone and insinuations, and you need to seriously look at that. By contrast the ID article misrepresents ID from its opening words, asserts easily disconfirmed smearing falsehoods, and is laced throughout with a definite agenda. For instance, on fair comment, something like:
in the second statement of the decalogue in Deuteronomy 6, we find the great creedal prayer of Judaism, the Schema, in v. 4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one [????? --'echad (ekh-awd') adj. 1. (properly) united, i.e. one]." The peculiar thing, is that the word for "one" is the word for complex, not simple unity: echad, not yachid. The former being used, for instance, of the unity of grapes in a bunch in the story of the spies returning from Canaan. So, already, right from the books of the Law, we see a hint that the sense in which God is one is complex, not simple . . .
. . . is to be regarded as fair comment on a reasonable reading of publicly available evidence [e.g. download The Word free Bible study software and load a good Hebrew text with it then compare using the Strong's feature], it is not "anti-christian propaganda." Cheers, KFkairosfocus_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

@kairosfocus: I had a look and saw the same old anti-christian propaganda. (Btw. I have links, too.) Indeed, no debate needed.JWTruthInLove_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

TA: Right now the biggie hoax article that is a focus of attention at UD is the hit piece on ID, presented as NPOV, which includes not only bias and misinformation but outright propagandistic false assertions. KF PS: JW, not to be debated here at UD, but you may wish to have a look here.kairosfocus_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

@timothya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrinityJWTruthInLove_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

"Can you point to a Wikipedia article that is currently published and that you regard as a hoax?" Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionbornagain77_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

I think we can all understand why it is that Wikipedia can host a hoax article (possibly because it deals with an obscure subject that few people are likely to read and object to?) Can you point to a Wikipedia article that is currently published and that you regard as a hoax?timothya_{January 7, 2013
January
01
Jan
7
07
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

PS: Think, GoF Design patterns. Then in light of the well known spaghetti code problem, ask yourself if such patterns are signatures of design.kairosfocus_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Andre: wiki plainly has a lot more influence. KFkairosfocus_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

LoL! strawmen, not "starwmen"Joe_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Talk Origins, where starwmen are made and refuted...Joe_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

If you think Wikipedia is bad Talk Origins is a hoot!Andre_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Semi OT: Here is something else you probably will never find in wikipedia: Vincent van Gogh’s unappreciated journey with Christ Excerpt: Most art critics and historians believe Vincent lost his faith sometime between 1882 and 1885. Yet Havlicek found abundant evidence in Vincent’s letters and his art that an abiding faith remained, even as his health and behavior deteriorated. Surprisingly, most of the Christian-themed paintings appeared in the last three years of his life.,,, “He loved Christ enormously at the end of his life,” Havlicek maintains. “He said Christ alone among all the magi and wise men offered men eternal life. In spite of a broken life, something glorious emerged.” http://blog.godreports.com/2012/11/vincent-van-goghs-unappreciated-journey-with-christ/bornagain77_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

F/N: I observed the dig at NWE (recently contrasted with Wiki on ID). Followed up:
You have followed a link to a page that is not yet available for public viewing on the New World Encyclopedia. However, this page is under construction at the New World Encyclopedia work site where editors and writers are preparing several thousand carefully selected articles for this encyclopedia. If you are an expert in an area, and would like to participate in the creation of the encyclopedia, we invite you to consider applying as a writer. Information on applying is available at the Writer Application link. We hope that you will return to use this encyclopedia and watch it develop.
They were caught by the hoax ll right, but have responded appropriately. Wiki now reads:
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Bicholim conflict in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Search for "Bicholim conflict" in existing articles. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. Other reasons this message may be displayed: If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.
H'mm . . . KF PS: More to follow on a much more important -- and still unacknowledged -- Wiki hoax article, the hatchet job on ID.kairosfocus_{January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

It's the Big Lie in microcosm. Crazy claim with bad grammar and no sources? Zapped within hours. Crazy claim with an hyperlink to a non-existent white paper and century-old Oxfordspeak to match? Nobody checks it for half a decade.englishmaninistanbul_{January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Naturally enough, there is a Wikipedia page about this. Personally, I do not find this at all troubling. Anybody who is troubled by this has probably been using Wikipedia the wrong way.Neil Rickert_{January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

I was under the impression that wikipedia was a hoax. There was a time when encyclopedias were respected references Just sayin'...Joe_{January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

per wikipedia: Wikipedia:Academic use Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2] This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use further notes: Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012 Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/wikipedias_tyra061281.html And even peer review has its problems: An Interview with David Noble - Peer Review as Censorship by SUZAN MAZUR - 2010 Excerpt: SUZAN MAZUR: I’ve been focusing on abuse inside the peer review system in recent articles for CounterPunch. The system seems to have spiraled out of control – to the extent that at the low end we now find virtual death squads on Internet blogs out to destroy scientists who have novel theories. They pretend to be battling creationism but their real job is to censor the free flow of ideas on behalf of the science establishment. The science establishment rewards bloody deeds like these by putting the chief assassin on the cover of The Humanist magazine, for example. But you’ve written in "Regression on the Left" that the problem IS the peer review system itself. Why do you think so? David Noble: When you say THE problem is the peer review system – the peer review system in my view is doing what it was designed to do — censor. And filter. Peer review is a system of prior censorship, prior review – prior meaning prior to publication. So the idea of abusing the peer review system sort of adds insult to injury, because the peer review system itself is injurious.,,, http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/26/peer-review-as-censorship/ Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment - November 2012 Excerpt: to make matters worse, science’s attempts at internal controls, such as conflicts of interest disclosure, are not keeping up with the problem. Sarewitz points out that industry teams, who seek actually to implement scientific findings, are consistently unable to confirm what were thought to be “landmark” findings. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-sarewitz-bias-is-like-magnetic.html Peer Reviewed Research: The Fraud Explosion - October 6, 2012 Excerpt: “Misconduct (fraud and plagiarism) is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.” http://crev.info/2012/10/the-fraud-explosion/ Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - Oct. 10, 2012 Excerpt: Peer review works best when most of the reviewers believe in at least two truths: 1. Objective moral values (like honesty) exist. 2. Human minds originated from a source that underwrites proper cognitive function aimed at discovering truth about reality. Here lies the problem. Materialistic modernism, which has embraced Darwinism, undermines belief in the two statements above.,,, http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/bornagain77_{January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply