Hi Folks,
Wikipedia can be a good source, more so on currently less controversial sources and more so if you confirm any items that are edgy. e.g. I was just reading the articles on Huldrych Zwingli, Balthasar Hübmaier, the Swiss Reformation and Anabaptist turmoils and the Zürich Bible and stuff and found Wikipedia quite concise and helpful. Giving some credit where due, I often use Wikipedia as a historical resource -- being sure to check the URL's given and with a cautious eye. Combined with Google books and other books online (mostly before the 1900's you can research and learn and digest at rather an amazing pace, including understanding better 'sides' of an issue). Especially when I am doing Johannine Comma research, or research on another battleground like Acts 8:37 or 1 Timothy 3:16 or the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures, I almost always am amazed at the resources, and Wikipedia is a good fulcrum source.
I would say that the only changes to Wikipedia that are personally worthwhile are fundamental .. where you add a basic fact or a link that was missed. There are plenty of those, however you are far less likely to get into a version war.
Sometimes our best evangelical outreach is simply first to learn the topics very well ourselves. From that perspective we can write with insight and pizazz.
And I agree that ultimately our own Wikis can be very helpful.
There could be one that looks at Bible verses and sections in book and chapter order, from the pure and perfect King James Bible perspective, showing the majesty of the pure Bible and also the stench of the corruptions and mistranslations in the modern versions.
Ironically, one skeptic did something like this in reverse, often actually showing the corruption in the modern version in the process (which I did highlight in a couple of cases). Maybe there are a few such attempts, on a couple of sides, all flawed.
Shalom,
Steven
|