iggy

Yes I believe him…

Another blogger notified me of your mention of my SeekerSensitive.com site today, and I must say – I agree with you on the false advertising appearance that you pointed out, as it relates to posting links on pro-seeker listings.

I was given the website domain that you mentioned, by a previous owner who apparently set up whatever it is that you saw. If I find my site falsely listed under wrong directory categories in the future I will pursue having the link delisted.

I probably won’t be back to talk further on this thread. You know how I feel about your site, and we are bound to simply disagree on everything other than the fact that we both feel that each other’s sites end up doing more harm than good. But I wanted to answer to your concern about my site’s advertising, and also say that I think your point in mentioning me on your site was valid this time. Thanks for allowing me to respond to your charges.

There are many forums which christian groups have used to skewer statistics or exaggerate the truth in order to win people over to their side. Sometimes it is to scare people into getting saved, like Hagee using a story about a woman being possessed by a demon in which she could hear the demon coming down the hall toward her, getting closer and closer and closer (it really was something to be told by campfire). Other times it is to win support for a political cause. As you probably know, there are websites galore of exaggerated christian claims, sometimes downright lies.

Your article sighted certain christians adding claims of sexual or other abusive behavior to the Wiki profiles of emergent leaders they didn’t like and Jim at Old Truth being a bit deceitful in hopes of bringing readers to his site. My point is that lying/exaggerating/duping in this way isn’t anything new.

I should add that, of course, christian groups aren’t the only agenda-driven organized groups to use these tactics. It is okay, in my opinion, to push one’s agenda using rhetoric, but not to be dishonest or attempt to hoodwink the public. Christians shouldn’t knowingly lie.

I vaguely remember a guy (politician i think) having to resign because of a comment he made on Wiki..He implied his boss was a suspect in the Kennedy assassination, it was meant as a joke, but back fired..

When you two get into it,who decides what’s posted and what;s not? Is it decided by who as the most reputable source?

When you two get into it,who decides what’s posted and what;s not? Is it decided by who as the most reputable source?

Part of it is source reputability (blogs are completely out, and professional publications are usually acceptable), and part of it is relevancy.

With biographies, the items need to be deemed relevant in some way to the person’s notability. In general ‘trivia’ is frowned upon, though innocuous trivial items are often allowed. For criticism in a biography (particularly that of a living person), there is a much higher bar of ‘proof’ of source and notability of the criticism. Additionally, Guilt-by-Association is highly frowned upon and stripped from biographies when found.

For instance, noting that Hank Hannegraff isn’t a Calvinist is not really relevant, because he’s not notable for being an anti-Calvin crusader. On the other hand, noting that Mark Driscoll is a Calvinist would be notable, as it is part of his ’street-cred’ that he hangs his hat on.

If the two editors cannot agree, they can ask for a “third opinion” in which an uninterested low-level admin examines the case at hand and renders an opinion on what to include. If the disagreement continues, one can request arbitration – which brings in multiple high-level admins to render opinions. In the [REDACTED] case last year, he skipped step 1 (discuss on the ‘talk’ page) and step 2 (get a third opinion) and jumped to step 3 (arbitration), and got smacked down. In the mean time, the opposing editors requested (and received) a third opinion in their favor.

Geezee seems a awful lot of effort to be constantly rechanging stuff,

Actually, there’s a thing called a “watchlist”, where you can tag articles you want to “watch”. It gives you a dashboard showing you all the recent changes to “watched” articles. There are also ways of using bots to email you when changes occur.

Anyhoo – once you’ve got the hang of it, the wiki system does the work for you, and a quick glance will tell you if you need to revert a change (which takes the click of a button and a quick, short explanation), or if you can ignore a change.