Peter Kirby

I described a website called "Errancy Web" with the following features:

1. Primarily content that is owned by poster, but also collaborative content.
2. Content generates a threaded commentary, which is always owned by respective users.
3. Content is tagged with keywords and with Bible verses for indexing.
4. Content is rated for quality and "dug" for the hot factor.
5. Content can plug in Bible verses and link to Bible resources.
6. Content is cross-linked to other content on nearby Bible material, similar keyword space, and perhaps in other ways--so you can continue finding content you like reading, commenting on it, and perhaps riffing off your own content along similar themes.
7. Various other ways technological for accessing content, such as search boxes and RSS feeds and aggregators and intelligent rating-based "stumbler" ability (users who liked this also liked...).

NOTE THAT THERE IS NOTHING (in the software) SAYING THAT SAID CONTENT HAS TO BE ABOUT AN "ERROR". But it should probably relate to the Bible in some way.

YOU CHOOSE the direction, context, and branding of the new site. You choose the name.

I will weigh more heavily votes that have commenets to go along with them, and make my decision after getting the consensus of the IIDB and ErrancyWiki communities.

I have not put an "other" option because that would skew the vote, but if you can think of another domain name that could be used and isn't yet purchased by someone, PM me so I can snag it!

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Phishfood

Errancy Web

Vorkosigan

I like iBiblestudies, as it has that broader idea to it than Errancy.

Michael

spin

If you dropped the i from iBiblicalStudies, you could call it BS for short.

What I don't understand is: what is the exact point of the site? Who exactly is it for? That would help when choosing a name.

ETA:

I've just look through the other poll and have answers to my questions.

You could leave the i and use an acronym IBIS with an icon of Thoth (the Egyptian ibis headed scribe god reading the bible).

Maybe try, "Satanic Verses", or "The Liberated/Open/Unfettered Bible", or "The Well Versed Bible", or "Bible Revelations", or "Behind the Bible", or "Reclaiming the Bible", or "BibleAtoZ", or "Bible: Better or Verse", or "Bible Analysed" (Banal for short), or give me a bit more time...


spin

youngalexander

Errancyweb: seems to stand opposed to Inerrancy and imply that the web is devoted to errancy, which you specifically disclaim.

iBiblicalStudies: may be general but seems a trifle clinical, altho spin might have a good hook re BS.

ResearchTheBible: as above, seems a nice, bland, uninformative title.

TBW: more encompassing than Errancy and will excite attention.

I vote TBW.

Peter Kirby

Its target audience includes:

* Joseph Wallack
* Peter Kirby
* Michael Turton
* Mark Goodacre
* Stephen Carlson
* Clarice O'Callahan
* Chris Price

I believe that if something can be made that best fits this demographic, and meets their expectations and needs in a Bible-related interactive site, then that is what the name (and direction, context, and branding) should be.

Part of the question is a bit of a trick--some people might want the direction to go the route of the contradiction list (spiced up and refried, but still a contradiction list). Others might want it to go the route of a traditional stogy cross-referenced technical biblical commentary. Still others might want to have a place to post devotional and metaphysical musings (unfortunately for them, dailybiblefuzzies.com wasn't bought up by me).

The trick here is to define both the name and the direction of the site's culture, editorial policy, and community base. What kind of site would you like to see take advantage of the software I'm making?

Should it be--more traditional and technical, more freewheeling and frosh-soph?

Should it be--more combative and confrontational, more congenial and community-oriented?

Should it be--more etiology (how did this come to be) or more ontology (is this real)?

And other such decisions and dichotomies for its direction. Lastly, to what degree should the site have a unified and defined culture, and to what extent should it declare itself neutral and open to all subcultures? (Yahoo! Groups is an example of an entity that nurtures many subcultures.)

The last question is probably the most difficult, because allowing certain elements and subcultures will drive away others (e.g. the high brow participants like the scholars in the above list), while prescribing a unified culture has its own risks (think of the scholarly discussion lists where the posts can be numbered on one hand every month).

When answering these questions, it's probably easiest to think of the website software as some kind of weird souped-up bulletin board.

regards,
Peter Kirby

Jayhawker Soule

Respectful.

mountainman

I agree with spin .... BS.
but perhaps ........... mainstream BS.


Seriously, best wishes with the project.



Pete

Peter Kirby

Another possibility is market segmentation.

Which is to say, release an "iBibleStudies.com" website as well as an "ErrancyWeb.com" website.

iBibleStudies.com--this segment of the populace is looking for scholarship or even non-scholarly musings that are respectful of all participants.

ErrancyWeb.com--this segment of the populace is looking for "a better SAB" with a few "contradictions or your soul back" feature items and a long tail of lesser documented errors and issues.

I could definitely see a "Best of EW" aggregator (as one of many aggregators for iBS--another one would feed in the biblio-blog-osphere) allowing certain scholarly items from EW to filter up into iBS. I could also see the VerseLink feature on EW being "powered by iBS" so that the scholarly resources and nonpartisan musings of the iBS trickle down to the error-hunters.

So we would have two communities here, and I could definitely see a third site being made (not by me) that really was DailyBibleFuzzies.com. The great thing about the software here is that you can write it once and copy it. (Anyone think I should make the software I make open source?)

regards,
Peter Kirby

MrMalone

I like the project idea. I wonder, though, about the editing that could go on. I mean somehow Wikipedia gets by rather well it seems but I can't imagine how many things they have to edit. Is there a submission process where edits are reviewed before posted?

The reason I ask is because most people would not contribute to Wikipedia if they didn't feel they were a relative expert in the field or could provide good sources for their information. The potential problem I see with iBS could be that it would run into the "priesthood of all believers" and have to really be monitored for useful information. The same problem will exist with the angry lashing of those vengeful on Christianity and lack of understanding of hermeneutics.

That said, I love the idea.

I'd probably vote along the lines of iBibleStudies simply because it's tame, easy to remember and could produce search results for people that might not actually be looking for Biblical errors.

I like a number of ideas spin came up with too.. very creative.

I just thot of Bible herme neutered.com. Funny but hard to spell or remember perhaps. It could be a subtitle tho.

Also, you say you have a target audience? That's interesting, obviously there is some background there.

Perhaps you could invite more people like Bart Ehrman to contribute. Perhaps Elroy McInley would be interested in helping out. If you could get L. Ray Smith to paraphrase (a lot) he could be interested in adding to things as well.

Anyway, I like the concept of the project, I'm interested to see how it develops. When you come up with a name I can maybe work on a logo for it.

Btw, I don't really have a problem with Errancyweb. Maybe Errancywiki. No doubt about the purpose there.