How Bad is Wikipedia? Codex Alexandrinus as a Test Case

[Oberon]

Evangelical Textual Criticism: How Bad is Wikipedia? Codex Alexandrinus as a Test Case

Anyway, I was checking the wikipedia article for Codex Alexandrinus. That is over 7,000 words and 94 notes. It is full of information, and probably would give readers a reasonable idea of the manuscript. And the problems are sometimes subtle. Like the fact that a large proportion of the scholarship cited is from the 1800s (that doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it dated). Practically every sentence is poorly expressed (and that comes from an Australian). Look at that first note to Greek Bible! But I found a load of problems. (I know it can change all the time so I'll include the relevant bits here.)

Some of the pitfalls apply to a lot of the posting at Wiki.

[Rutabaga]

wiki is a shit source for anything...


if you want to know something, just ask me.


i can make up stuff, too...

[tlmjl]

Wikipedia is a left wing website....under the direction of Soros.

[Authentic]

Wikipedia is a left wing website....under the direction of Soros.

Is that why they let me edit it?

[Physics Hunter]

Is that why they let me edit it?

Does that make you proud?

[Authentic]

Does that make you proud?

I have been challenged and reverted several times - and blocked.

I am just happy that some of my edits (and in at least one case, a full section of a fairly major article) remain intact.

[Oberon]

I've had mixed results with Wiki. Some articles have a lot of great online sources, others list books, etc., others are just poorly written propaganda. I still like to check it fairly often, and I like the principle behind it if not all of the results.

[S-N-A-F-U]

Anyone can create a Wikipedia user account and write an article, on any topic whatsoever.

It's right there, clearly stated in their terms of service. IOW, there are better sources, if one is looking for credulity.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Anything controversial is suspect in Wikipedia. However if you want to read about such things as albatrosses, steam engines, mustard, various caliber ammunition, geographic locations, etc... I find Wikipedia useful. You have to know what might be a target of progs. For example ...


Wikipedia used to have a page of climate change skeptics. These were people who actually gave permission to be listed. Of course the list was too impressive and eventually it was removed or hidden . Clearly that was a prog target.

[yeuemmaimai]

Wiki can be accurate but a lot of it is not.

Rarely use it as a source unless I know the content is correct