It took several things, including the discussions on Mark and Andrew's blogs about a possible network for the EC's in the UK, for me to even bother to look at the Wikipedia entry on the Emerging Church.
Glad that I mentioned it now - but the warning about getting embroiled in the editorial stuff is duly noted....
6 comments:
Wow that's one of the worst examples I've seen.
There's much better stuff in the discussion page but it's not being put into the main article.
OTOH it's typical of wikipedia.. once it steps outside things like science and the history of star trek it gets very poor.
Me no understand. What's bad about the Wikipedia entry?
I don't think it's bad or inaccurate as such, just a bit weighted...
1/3 of it is a list of names with no real explanation of why they're there or who they are. 1/3 of it is put in by a hardline evangelical with a beef against the emerging church... the remaining 1/3 is very weak IMO.
There's a much better article on the discussion page that is being worked on but they haven't put it in.
The weakness of wikipedia is *anyone* can edit so many parts of it read like a poor highschool essay... I stopped reading it a while ago.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Sanctus blog for a moment there. Ba-dum tsch!
Post a Comment