Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia written collaboratively by people from all around the world. Wikipedia is the first mainstream wiki encyclopedia and certainly the most well known of all wikis. It is a truly international effort and a testament to the success that can be achieved with the MediaWiki software . Wikipedia reports having tens of thousands of active contributors working on over 20,000,000 articles in more than 280 languages.
The Wikipedia website states:
|“||Because Wikipedia is an ongoing work to which anybody with Internet access can contribute, it differs from a paper-based reference source in some important ways. In particular, mature articles tend to be more comprehensive and balanced, while other (often fledgling) articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopaedic content or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation which has been recently added and not yet removed.[Reference needed]||”|
Anticreation Bias on Wikipedia
Many CreationWiki authors have expressed frustration with Wikipedia and its apparent double standards. Wikipedia claims to take a neutral point of view (NPOV) and in most cases it seems to follow it quite well for most topics. However, when it comes to creation science and intelligent design, it has a consistently negative point of view toward them. This bias results from contributors who do not like or in some cases show a clear disdain and annoyance for all things biblical. Sadly, this sentiment extends to the administrators as well. An example is the classification of creation science and Intelligent design as pseudosciences. This is a rather standard anti-creationist tactic which has been implemented by Wikipedia.
An example of this negative bias towards creationism and ID within the pages of Wikipedia was the vote to delete an article titled, "Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared." Not only did the voters, or what are editors of Wikipedia vote based upon their opinions, but even the administrators "forgot" the neutral point of view rule and did not feel the need to remind the voters that they should be voting on the merits of the article, not their personal opinion on creationism.
Furthermore, the contributor who proposed that the article be deleted—after he had vandalized the creationist views listed there—considered the Talk.Origins Archive to be "the most balanced treatment on the web to date"! Some of the comments in support of the vote to delete were:
|“||The title of the page is inherently wrong, as it suggests that creationism is a scientific view.||”|
|“||...comparing religious doctrine to scientific theory is comparing apples and oranges, and thus non-encyclopedic.||”|
|“||By opposing "creationism" to "mainstream science", the article title suggests that creationism is a scientific POV.||”|
|“||Creationism is not science.||”|
|“||Delete, since creationism is ultimately based on untestable religious beliefs...||”|
Many public schools overlook Wikipedia in the use of their programs to keep the internet decent for children to look at. Wikipedia, however, provides access to pornographic pictures and videos, and while censorship measures were attempted in the past by Wikipedia staff, the website's users did not comply. Wikipedia contains a gap between its staff and users, is largely unregulated and prone to vandalism. Wikipedia is not an appropriate website for children -- or adults.
Trinity School incident
NPOV at Wikipedia would seem to mean rather that they conform to the POV of the editors. Almost all conservative Christian institutions and individuals get treated differently at best or thought to be only believers in lies at the worst. The Trinity School of Apologetics and Theology reportedly had a long battle with Wikipedia over numerous false reports published on their site.
In spite of documented evidence to the contrary, they were forced to contact the WikiMedia Trustees before the articles containing slander and libel against them were finally removed.[Reference needed]
CreationWiki on Wikipedia
Wikipedia previously had an article about CreationWiki, which has since been deleted. The article was typically found expressing the anti-creationist sentiment said to be found there and retained a clear POV criticism of CreationWiki. Subsequent articles about CreationWiki have been posted that were also rapidly deleted.
In April 2006 there was a proposal to delete the article, and the end result of the discussion (with ten votes to keep and seven to delete) was "No consensus (defaults to Keep)". However, another proposal to delete in August 2006 succeeded, with four votes to delete and two to merge to a separate article on Christian Wikis. However, that latter article was itself deleted in early November 2006.
The behavior clearly demonstrates the aforementioned anticreation views of the Wikipedia editors. It is also noteworthy that the Wikipedia editor who first recommended the deletion of the CreationWiki article is the self-proclaimed head of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.
Wikipedia has been set up for Interwiki linking. A link like
[[Wikipedia:Main Page]] will appear like this: Wikipedia:Main Page and redirect you to Wikipedia's Main Page. To create a titled link, use a format like
[[Wikipedia:Creationism|Creationism]], which will simply appear as: Creationism.
- Wikipedia Main Page
- About Wikipedia
- Notice to Students: Wikipedia No Longer an Acceptable Source by Casey Luskin. Evolution News & Views. Discovery Institute. November 27, 2007
- Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia by Cade Metz. 4th December 2007