 Posted Friday, October 13, 2006 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
For the last month or so, I've been engaged in various discussions on Wikipedia.org regarding the CS family of articles:
Christian Science
Christian Science Board of Directors
Church of Christ, Scientist
Manual of the Mother Church
Mary Baker Eddy
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
Scientific Statement of Being
Initially, all I did was add links to Christian Way to the external links sections of the articles. Some of the links were soon deleted and I'd add them back. One edit war went to mediation (see Balance and Critical Perspectives on the MBE talk page). Though I presented precedence for leaving the CW link, the mediator disagreed and I submitted to authority in accordance with Romans 13:1-7.
Within the discussions, it was suggested that an article be created regarding the controversies of CS. I am now in the process of outlining, organizing, researching, and writing such an article. I also invited Soapergem, who objects to inclusion of the CW links, to join us here for futher discussion.
As part of my due diligence in writing the article, I'd like to solicit the input of the contributors to the CW forums including the CSists.
I've found the threat such a simple link represents to apparent CSists to be interesting. They cannot seem to tolerate balance or alternative perspectives. Such tolerance does seem to be present among the followers of many other controversial leaders such as Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sun Myung Moon, Kip McKean, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jim Jones who seem to be able to handle it. Even the article on Alcoholics Anonymous founder, Bill W, includes a link to web sites providing opposing points of view on 12 Step Programs.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 13, 2006 4:54 PM
|
|
|
|
For over a hundred years, CS'ists have opposed the publication of literature that denigrated and refuted their religion. They've organized boycots of bookstores and publishers, and, of course, TMC bought up the plates of Bates & Dittemore's Mrs. Eddy: Biography of a Virgin Mind and had them destroyed.
I had thought that Christian Science had er, "evolved" past this nonsense.
Methinks I was wrong.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 13, 2006 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
followingHim,
The titles aren't quite right here. Hope you don't mind if I correct them.
Mary Baker Eddy: The Truth and the Tradition by Ernest Sutherland Bates and John V. Dittemore
Mrs. Eddy: The Biography of a Virginal Mind by Edwin Franden Dakin
I haven't at this point read the Wikipedia articles that Do Go has linked to, and I don't know who is involved in the controversy over them from the the Christian Science side. However, when I've visited the Reference Room on the third floor of the MBE Library, I've noticed "hostile" biographies like those by Dakin and Bates/Dittemore sitting on the shelves for all to look at, along with other biographies of Mrs. Eddy.
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
I think this is a good idea. Do go for it ;-)
Erol
<< For the last month or so, I've been engaged in various discussions on Wikipedia.org regarding the CS family of articles:
Christian Science
Christian Science Board of Directors
Church of Christ, Scientist
Manual of the Mother Church
Mary Baker Eddy
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
Scientific Statement of Being
Initially, all I did was add links to Christian Way to the external links sections of the articles. Some of the links were soon deleted and I'd add them back. One edit war went to mediation (see Balance and Critical Perspectives on the MBE talk page). Though I presented precedence for leaving the CW link, the mediator disagreed and I submitted to authority in accordance with Romans 13:1-7.
Within the discussions, it was suggested that an article be created regarding the controversies of CS. I am now in the process of outlining, organizing, researching, and writing such an article. I also invited Soapergem, who objects to inclusion of the CW links, to join us here for futher discussion.
As part of my due diligence in writing the article, I'd like to solicit the input of the contributors to the CW forums including the CSists.
I've found the threat such a simple link represents to apparent CSists to be interesting. They cannot seem to tolerate balance or alternative perspectives.
Do Go Be Man
<>< >>
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:56 PM
|
|
|
|
<< [...]
I also invited Soapergem, who objects to inclusion of the CW links, to join us here for futher discussion.
As part of my due diligence in writing the article, I'd like to solicit the input of the contributors to the CW forums including the CSists.
I've found the threat such a simple link represents to apparent CSists to be interesting. They cannot seem to tolerate balance or alternative perspectives.
[...] >>
Hello All,
My name is Gordon, the one known as "Soapergem." That's my online handle which I use at a good number of websites, but you can call me by my name. Quick background info (the part of the background that you'd all be concerned with, anyway): I'm a Christian Scientist; I was raised CS and have remained that way, though I have not gone through class-instruction.
I raised an objection to the inclusion of the link specifically in the article titled, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures." I made no such objection in the discussion section of Wikipedia for any other article. My viewpoint is very simple, so let me outline it for you:
- Wikipedia is meant to be a factual, unbiased encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should reflect the same professionalism found in Encyclopædia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia, and should be accurate, focused, unbiased, and succinct.
- Inclusion of a link to your website (i.e. Christian Way) should, indeed, be found in several of the "CS family of articles," but not all of them.
- The Christian Way website examines and gives careful scrutiny to the core beliefs of Christian Science. Thus, a link would be appropriate in any articles that are discretely focused on core beliefs.
There are seven links you provided as part of the "CS family of articles," and let me address them.
First of all, I do believe a link to the Christian Way website (hereafter referred to as "CW") should definitely, without any question, be included in (1) Christian Science and (2) Church of Christ, Scientist. These articles are specifically and obviously meant to examine and describe the core beliefs of Christian Science. Adding the link to CW is a natural way of providing balance and alternate perspectives.
I do not believe the link to CW belongs in (3) Christian Science Board of Directors or (4) Mary Baker Eddy. The former is an article on a structural committee, and does not include any content on the core beliefs of Christian Science. Thus, an inclusion of the link to CW would be biased. The latter is a biographical article. Although Eddy was the founder of CS and her life very much revolves around the core beliefs, this article is a biographical text. It is not meant to persuade readers one way or another that the beliefs of CS are right or wrong--it is meant to describe a person. Thus, a link to CW on this page would be out of place.
The link to CW should likewise be excluded from (5) Manual of the Mother Church and (6) Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. These articles are about textbooks, their origin, and their publication. Simply put, the core beliefs of CS are outside the scope of both of these articles, and therefore a link to CW would not make sense. The inclusion of the link to the latter of those two is the current hot topic on the wiki, so I will expound on this a little further.
There is a clear precedent set on Wikipedia that inclusion of links to alternate or critical viewpoints of the material is a good thing. However, this precedent comes with the stipulation that these links are directly and obviously relevant to the material at hand, and are not just loosely or partially related. From the "Wikipedia Manual of Style": "Wikipedia is not a web directory"
It is clear to me that the core beliefs of Christian Science are directly discussed in links (1) and (2), but the article in question, (6), although related to Christain Science, is ultimately an article on about 700 pieces of paper bound together--not on a belief system. It is undeniable that S&H itself is a repository of all of the core beliefs of CS, but the Wikipedia article on S&H is not focused on the beliefs but instead the book itself. Quite simply, the beliefs and controversies related to CS are outside of the scope of an article whose focus is nothing more than a textbook. Discussion, explanation, and links related to those are separated into articles (1) and (2) to provide structure and organization.
Furthermore, if you examine the Wikipedia articles on the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur'an, there are no critical external links included at all. Therefore, the precedent is set that all relevant content related to criticism and controversy of a particular religous movement should be included in the articles about those belief systems and their churches, but not in the articles about their textbooks. If we include this link in (5) and (6), then we alter the current balance to Wikipedia, which can only be rectified by including links like "Former Christians for Mohammed", "Former Muslims for Jesus Christ", or even "Former Jews for L. Ron Hubbard" in the articles on the Bible, the Torah, and the Qur'an. At the end of the day, this really starts to bog down Wikipedia with a lot of bias flying in every direction, so what I am proposing is that such links be omitted from all such articles (i.e. articles on textbooks).
I hope my stance is clear. Ultimately I am unconcerned with the fact that these links are included, and more concerned with where they are included. I do not see this link as "threatening," I just feel that Wikipedia loses its encyclopædic value without a clearly defined scope for all the articles.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Gordon,
Welcome to the forum! Glad you accepted my invitation.
I could almost agree with your point regarding the S&H article only being about the book itself if it only contained the publishing history and not a claim to the foundation of the Christian Science movement.
Would you object to the following edits and deletions?
Change the first paragraph to:
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures was written by Mary Baker Eddy.
Change the second paragraph to something like:
The author claimed it was inspired by the biblical studies she began in 1867, following her alleged healing experience during the prior year. (the citation to Peel's reference to her suing the town of Lynn for irreparable damages six months later should be included)
Delete the following paragraph which represents the CS core beliefs:
The book itself posits a wholly metaphysical view of Christianity in which sin, disease, and death are not of God, and are therefore not real. Christian Scientists believe that by striving toward a spiritual view of the world as God's creation, they can overcome the "false beliefs" of these adversities.
Change the last full paragraph before the bullets to:
The second section, "Key to the Scriptures", examines parts of Genesis and Revelation, and provides a Glossary of Eddy's metaphysical interpretations of commonly-used terms from the Bible. The final section, the last 100 pages, are testimonies of people who had claimed to have "been reformed and healed through the perusal or study of (the) book".
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
I just did some reading in some of the Wikipedia articles on MBE and Christian Science. I found numerous serious errors of fact that should be apparent to anyone who is familiar with modern scholarly biographies of Mrs. Eddy or who has researched these topics at the MBE Library. To say I am unimpressed by these articles would be an understatement! I don't know what can be done about it, though, as apparently anyone can write into these articles anything they want, without any scholarly accountability.
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
I don't know what can be done about it, though, as apparently anyone can write into these articles anything they want, without any scholarly accountability.
Though we are often at odds regarding CS, I encourage you to make the corrections you see that need to be made. Keep in mind the desire of the Wikipedia community to retain a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Based on our discussions, however, I feel that your contributions would be accountable and accurate within the scope of the topic.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Digitalican e-mailed me asking his post on a duplicate thread name be consolidated:
To Go --
I managed to mispost on the Christian Way Forums because it would not
let me post into the thread as an anonymous user (it complained because
"some fields" were not filled in. So, my post is in a separate (but
identically titled) thread. I'll let you clean it up.
--Digitalican
Per his request, here is his posting (unitalicized for easier reading):
Anonymous
Sunday, October 15, 2006 10:56 AM (NEW!)
Hello,
My handle is Digitalican and I'm a Wikipedia Editor. I was invited here by Do Go Be Man to discuss our disagreement about the appropriate inclusion of external links to christianway.org on Wikipedia.
First off, let me say that I am not a Christian Scientist. I was raised in the CS church and am class-taught, but left Christian Science thirty years ago for reasons entirely different than the members of christianway.org.
My current beliefs are largely not relevant here, but let me assure you I see no "threat" in the appropriate inclusion of links to the christianway.org website on Wikipedia. Faith without doubt is simply dogma and at a very fundamental level I think divergent points of view are essential to crystalizing our own thoughts and beliefs. From what I've read in these forums, it's that principle that brought most of you to where you are from Christian Science.
Soapergem has stated, certainly more eloquently than I can, the exact problem with To Go Be Man's inclusion of links to christianway.org in Wikipedia articles related to Christian Science, whether they explicitly cover Christian Science belief and practice or not. It is important to point out that links to christianway.org have not been removed from articles where CS practice and belief are discussed directly. Dispute has arisen only when the perspective offered by christianway.org is not directly relevant to the article at hand but relevant only by indirection to the article's subject.
Why is this significant, you ask? It is, after all, only one small link. That, however, is the way link clutter comes -- one small link at a time. One of the goals of trying to build an encyclopedia is to keep each article concise, accurate, relevant and uncluttered so that the knowledge a seeker is looking for is at hand and comprehensible. Wikipedia currently fails almost more often than it succeeds in this goal, but that's why it's a work in progress and that's why many people are trying to work on it constructively.
tmcl: I agree entirely that the articles on Christian Science, and Mary Baker Eddy are poorly written, at best. That's why rolling up one's sleeves and digging in is helpful. Yes, anyone can edit an article but ultimately those edits seem to iterate to a pretty decent solution. It's an interesting process, to say the least.
To Go Be Man: Don't talk Soapergem into doing your work for you. Make your edits and be responsible for them.
I'm puzzled about edit #1. I think I need further explanation.
Edit #2 is also strange. Unless our ESP licenses are up-to-date (and I turned mine back in several years ago) we can't lay claim to understanding what did or did not inspire someone other than ourselves to do something. Empathy even at its best can never tell us why someone has done something, only what we would have done if we were them. I would agree entirely with the inclusion of the word "alleged."
I would conterpropose for edit #3: The book itself posits a wholly metaphysical view of Christianity in which sin, disease, and death are not of God, and are therefore not real. Further, it suggests that by striving toward a spiritual view of the world as God's creation, these "false beliefs" can be overcome. This summarizes the content entirely within the context of what the book says, without referencing beliefs or practice.
I agree entirely with edit #4.
...and this is how we iterate to a solution.
My desire, in all of this, is to clean up the various Christian Science articles on Wikipedia and tie them together with an infobox, which lists all the related articles. This would allow people looking for alternative views on Christian Science on controversies within the Christian Science Church, belief system or practice can find what they are looking for from any article without having to wade through link clutter. To this end I appreciate To Go Be Man's willingness to organize and work on an article on Controveries in the Christian Science church. Far from excluding information critical of the church or marginalizing it, this should make such information more readily available to those looking for it.
If you don't like what you see, don't simply destructively criticize it or deface it. Make it better.
--Digitalican
|
|
|
|