Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 08-07-2005, 08:48 PM

You can see the question posed here and here and comment at those links or on this forum.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner · 08-07-2005, 09:09 PM

Another potential negative is the risk of commercialization, which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to see (and I certainly wouldn't). Though, despite occasional rumblings, the risk is probably minimal. As long as Google keeps offering support its competitors will keep following suit. And Wikipedia is exactly the type of venture Google is likely to support.

All in all, it's probably the best route to go--lest it becomes an isolated remnant. Apoloigies for my own lack of participation in recent months--I've recently been married, so 'net time has been fighting a losing competition with spending time with my new wife.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby · 08-07-2005, 09:11 PM

Married? Rick, that's great! Congratulations!

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

tommorris · 08-08-2005, 11:13 AM

" Some articles might not be strictly "Neutral Point of View" and may not survive the Wikipedia review process."

Yes, the whole 'God is real' thing isn't particularly neutral. This is pretty much true for theology in general.

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommorris

Yes, the whole 'God is real' thing isn't particularly neutral. This is pretty much true for theology in general.

Fortunately, that's not a tenet of Theowiki.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer · 08-08-2005, 08:23 PM

Peter, isn't this the second person who claimed you were a theist trying to convert us heathens? My, my!

Peter Kirby · 08-08-2005, 09:33 PM

Since I've become an atheist, I've been accused of sock puppetry three times and have been mistaken for a theist more times than I've counted. Even though I've strived to keep the same account name for all venues, Peter Kirby. I wonder what my profile says...yep, switched to atheism in '97.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer · 08-08-2005, 09:54 PM

For Pete's sake!

maybe it's the interest in Christian studies that people automatically suspect you, though I've gotten mostly "atheist" or "satanist" when I entice Christians to the field.

kiwimac · 08-09-2005, 01:04 AM

As I said at Theowiki, the two sites are not really comparable. One is for a far more diverse audience than the other, it can therefore afford to be far less in-depth than Theowiki.

Kiwimac

Peter Kirby · 08-09-2005, 01:32 AM

Unfortunately, in practice, the equivalent Wikipedia articles are already present and usually in more depth already than the Theowiki articles. One problem is really that Theowiki is too broad. Attempting to cover everything concerning all the world's religions requires a 30-volume encyclopedia in itself. In addition to supporting Wikipedia, I would like to throw my support behind more specialist projects that are more likely to attract scholars and get finished (or "provisionally complete"), such as an Open Access Bible Dictionary. There is already talk about such an effort going back several months in the blogosphere (see my most recent Christian Origins entry). That would be under a Creative Commons license. Theowiki, however, as it stands, is redundant. Believe me, I am the last one who wanted to find that out, as I put a lot of effort into building the site. The domain name and directory structure could still prove useful (see the "entrepot idea"--Theowiki as a gateway to Wikipedia for religion and Bible scholars and enthusiasts).

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

08-07-2005, 08:48 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Should TheoWiki merge into Wikipedia? You can see the question posed here and here and comment at those links or on this forum. thanks, Peter Kirby

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2005, 09:09 PM	#2
Rick Sumner Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada Posts: 2,612	Another potential negative is the risk of commercialization, which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to see (and I certainly wouldn't). Though, despite occasional rumblings, the risk is probably minimal. As long as Google keeps offering support its competitors will keep following suit. And Wikipedia is exactly the type of venture Google is likely to support. All in all, it's probably the best route to go--lest it becomes an isolated remnant. Apoloigies for my own lack of participation in recent months--I've recently been married, so 'net time has been fighting a losing competition with spending time with my new wife. Regards, Rick Sumner

08-07-2005, 09:11 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Married? Rick, that's great! Congratulations! best wishes, Peter Kirby

08-08-2005, 11:13 AM	#4
tommorris Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: UK Posts: 141	" Some articles might not be strictly "Neutral Point of View" and may not survive the Wikipedia review process." Yes, the whole 'God is real' thing isn't particularly neutral. This is pretty much true for theology in general.

08-08-2005, 08:23 PM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Peter, isn't this the second person who claimed you were a theist trying to convert us heathens? My, my!

08-08-2005, 09:33 PM	#7
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Since I've become an atheist, I've been accused of sock puppetry three times and have been mistaken for a theist more times than I've counted. Even though I've strived to keep the same account name for all venues, Peter Kirby. I wonder what my profile says...yep, switched to atheism in '97. best wishes, Peter Kirby

08-08-2005, 09:54 PM	#8
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	For Pete's sake! maybe it's the interest in Christian studies that people automatically suspect you, though I've gotten mostly "atheist" or "satanist" when I entice Christians to the field.

08-09-2005, 01:04 AM	#9
kiwimac Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Mayfield, NZ Posts: 1,407	As I said at Theowiki, the two sites are not really comparable. One is for a far more diverse audience than the other, it can therefore afford to be far less in-depth than Theowiki. Kiwimac

08-09-2005, 01:32 AM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Unfortunately, in practice, the equivalent Wikipedia articles are already present and usually in more depth already than the Theowiki articles. One problem is really that Theowiki is too broad. Attempting to cover everything concerning all the world's religions requires a 30-volume encyclopedia in itself. In addition to supporting Wikipedia, I would like to throw my support behind more specialist projects that are more likely to attract scholars and get finished (or "provisionally complete"), such as an Open Access Bible Dictionary. There is already talk about such an effort going back several months in the blogosphere (see my most recent Christian Origins entry). That would be under a Creative Commons license. Theowiki, however, as it stands, is redundant. Believe me, I am the last one who wanted to find that out, as I put a lot of effort into building the site. The domain name and directory structure could still prove useful (see the "entrepot idea"--Theowiki as a gateway to Wikipedia for religion and Bible scholars and enthusiasts). best wishes, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.