Sometimes I am amazed that “Truthdig” would even post stories that are obviously rooted in religious fervor to discredit knowledge.

Now, isn’t it funny that Wikipedia is being attacked on this level shortly after the launch of the christian version of Wiki, called Conservapedia?

WTF is up with Americans consistently falling for this tactic that has grown very old since being used exponentially after Sept. 11th?

Let’s put a halt to this madness people. Put the brakes on before we spiral out of control. Turn off the television and plan a trip. Commune with nature and let love be your religion. If you want to worship something, consider something other than what has been given us to worship.

Consider worshipping the beauty found in the mathematical rules of the universe. This is something we can all truly enjoy. Consider: z=z2+c.

The universe revolves aroung the Earth, which is flat, blood-letting will cure what ails you, and oh yes, don’t let the sea serpents bite. All of these “truths” would have been in Wiki if it had existed at the time.

I have not read anything written by Essjay, but if it’s accurate and is the truth as he knows it, then OK.

the very nature of theology is deception, I say let Essjay continue his rants!

Great. Now people more people will be claiming that Wikipedia is some kind of fraud. What is bad about that is that when there is truth and facts are at stake—whether history or theology or whatever—all one needs to do is to reference “Essjay” to debunk anything on Wikipedia.

This has, perhaps, damaged Wikipedia’s credibility. But it should not.

What was not even addressed in the Time article, is whether or not what “Essjay” wrote was accurate, met standards, or was of quality to be published in the first place. One assumes it was as Wikipedia is not written in a vacuum. Cases of falsehood on Wikipedia are quickly fixed (which is due to it’s openness!).

Ooooooo! He’s a “college dropout!” How scary!

Yeah, well, George W. Bush graduated from Yale, didn’t he?

As long as Jimmy Wales continues to promote his ignorance of the value of the traditional editorial practice as a virtue, Wikipedia will remain a questionable source of information.  Unfortunately, most of the people who consult it are more interested in answers than questions.  So, however flawed it may be, most likely it will remain an extremely POPULAR source of information.

People who get all excited about this fail to understand what Wikipedia is.

A Wikipedia article is not, doesn’t pretend to be - and never can be - an oracle of truth. But if it is well sourced, one can use it as a good starting point for one’s own research. Also, if the topic is one important to many people, one can be sure that many eyes have seen it and that blatantly challengeable assertions have been and will be challenged. Where the article is suspect, a perusal of the editing history can be very helpful in further aiding research.

But let’s face it: the old “regular” encyclopedias were never the oracles of truth they pretended to be (and were dangerously accepted as). We live in a world without oracles of truth, and we always have. It’s just more obvious now. We can never go back to trusting that Father Knows Best.