“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters” ― Albert Einstein link
I often use Wikipedia as a resource when I am writing a post. Today I am going to to demonstrate the limitations of Wikipedia and discuss how to edit the information that is faulty. I think TWW readers could make a difference in getting the truth out in this medium.
A brief history of SGM/SGC as seen through the eyes of TWW.
I have been contacted by The Washingtonian, which is planning a lengthy article on the child sex abuse scandal associated with Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM). SGM has recently changed its name to Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC). Although I usually turn down requests for interviews, I do have one exception — anything that deals with abuse and, in particular, child sex abuse.
The Deebs have followed the controversies that have swirled around SGM/SGC since long before the start of our blog. Once our blog started, the situation at SGM began to heat up and we often wrote posts on the various allegations. We have no personal connection to SGM yet we believed that the problems of that church group were blatantly obvious, even to outsiders.
For those of you who do not understand the issues surrounding SGM/SGC, here is a link to the guest post, Sex and Power: What’s Up With Sovereign Grace Ministries? that I wrote for The Internet Monk in 2013. We have written extensively on SGM/SGC since the beginning of our blog in 2009. TWW has taken a stand, based on our beliefs and research, that the child sex abuse victims and their families who filed a lawsuit against SGM are telling the truth.
You may read some of their stories by clicking on the links on the sidebar of our homepage titled Never forget those SGM abuse and the silence of the leaders. The numbers underneath those names stand as testimony for the days of dead silence by various Calvinista leaders who are BFFs with CJ Mahaney.
What is Wikipedia?
According to Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour. All of these changes are recorded in article histories and recent changes
How does this work?
According to Wikipedia's extended information page it is due to the fact that anyone can be an contributor.
….Wikipedia is open to a large contributor base, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds. This allows Wikipedia to significantly reduce regional and cultural bias found in many other publications, and makes it very difficult for any group to censor and impose bias. A large, diverse editor base also provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented. A large number of editors contributing at any moment also means that Wikipedia can produce encyclopedic articles and resources covering newsworthy events within hours or days of their occurrence. It also means that like any publication, Wikipedia may reflect the cultural, age, socio-economic, and other biases of its contributors.
Anyone can be an editor, and that means us and you!
Some of the information in Wikipedia can be erroneous or misleading.
Allowing anyone to edit Wikipedia means that it is more easily vandalized or susceptible to unchecked information, which requires removal. See Wikipedia: Administrator intervention against vandalism. While blatant vandalism is usually easily spotted and rapidly corrected, Wikipedia is more subject to subtle viewpoint promotion than a typical reference work. However, bias that would be unchallenged in a traditional reference work is likely to be ultimately challenged or considered on Wikipedia.
While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling articles and those monitored less well may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information. Wikipedia's radical openness also means that any given article may be, at any given moment, in a bad state, such as in the middle of a large edit, or a controversial rewrite.
Many contributors do not yet comply fully with key policies, or may add information without citable sources. Wikipedia's open approach tremendously increases the chances that any particular factual error or misleading statement will be relatively promptly corrected. Numerous editors at any given time are monitoring recent changes and edits to articles on their watch list.
How does TWW use Wikipedia, knowing that the information can be faulty.
Until now, we have limited our usage of Wikipedia to two areas.
- If we have been reviewing a large amount of information and understand our subject well, we will quote directly from a well written summary on Wikipedia to give an overview of the matter at hand.
- Also, we will use Wikipedia to find resources to consult. At the bottom of every Wikipedia article, in an area labeled *Footnote,* one can see the resources used in creating the statements in the post. Go to the bottom of the Wikipedia post titled Sovereign Grace Churches and you will see entries like this one.
10. Tomczak, Larry (1989). Clap Your Hands. Word Publishing. pp. 179–196. ISBN 978-0-85009-315-5.
Why is this all so important?
Every day, English speaking people are responsible for 8,524,715 views per hour! Go to that link and see how many people access Wikipedia who speak other languages.
Recent reports indicate that most people first look at a church's website before actually visiting the church. Can you imagine the number of people who also consult Wikipedia to learn about ministries and controversies?
What if the information they read is biased, wrong or misleading?
Questionable information under the Sovereign Grace Church entry.
I plan to point out just a few entries that I think could be misleading to someone who is researching the controversies surrounding SGM/SGC. I am hoping that the eagle eyes of our readers can spot more. Here is the link to the Wikipedia post.
Under the section titled "Child Sex Abuse Scandal", you will find the following:
1. The sex abuse never happened.
An independent investigator also found no evidence of an attempt to cover up child sex abuse, and that the sex abuse allegations that were investigated likely never happened at all.
Note that there are no footnotes for this rather gargantuan allegation. None. This is the first tip off that there is no concrete evidence to back up this claim. The Ambassadors of Reconciliation was one group that investigated what happened at SGM. TWW has stated that any organization that markets itself to church leadership in order to receive a tidy payment for its services may find it difficult to be objective link and link.
There was a report that Covenant Life Church hired an attorney to look into the allegations surrounding the Nate Morales abuse. It has been reported that the lawyer only consulted the pastors and the pedophiles and did not spend time discussing the issues with the victims and their families. So perhaps there is another independent investigator who was used to *prove* the allegations were false. if so, a footnote with the proof needs to be added.
Whoever said this without proof should be ashamed of themselves. (ed.update 7/16)-Pedophile pled guilty in a court.) You can read about that in Happy Mom's story. I look forward to making a documented correction to this portion of the article.
2. One of the plaintiff's has recanted.
One of the plaintiffs has since recanted her story, admitting it was false.
Once again, there is no footnote to link to evidence of such a statement. If this is true, it needs to be corroborated.
3. The Nate Morales trial leaves out important information.
In May 2014. Mr. Morales was accused of abusing four boys in their homes (not on church property) in the 1980's and early 1990's. None of the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit was named as a victim in the Morales case and no church employees were charged with wrongdoing in that case
Once again, there is no footnote for this statement. In fact, Grant Layman is the brother-in-law of CJ Mahaney and was also an SGM pastor, working at Covenant Life Church. He made the following statement in the trial.
Under cross-examination Attorney Drew asked: "Did you have a responsibility to report the crimes to police in 1992?" to which Grant responded: "I believe so." Then Defense Attorney Drew asked: "Did you report it to police?" Grant responded: "I didn't do it."
Also, there were possible conflicting statements between what was said during the trial and what was said by the CLC pastors. You can read about it here.
An idea and a challenge to our readers as well as ourselves.
I think it would be helpful to those who view various articles on Wikipedia which deal with controversies surrounding ministries, churches and church leaders for the full story surrounding these incidents to be documented.
1. The first thing I would like to do is to dispute the SGC post. I have a few pieces of information that could be corroborated with footnotes. I would love to hear the thoughts of our readers on other things that could be corrected on that post.
2. I would like to enlist the help of all of our readers to go through Wikipedia looking for posts of interest to our community and see if there is information that needs to be added, deleted or corrected. For example, we could explore the posts of Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Bob Jones University, Elevation Church, Hillsong Ministries, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, CBMW, etc.
3. After we suggest changes or dispute the facts as written, etc., we need to keep watching these posts for changes being made after we have made our changes. That means we would need people to keep their eyes on certain corrected posts. For example, Mirele is an expert on Kent Hovind (Dr Dinosaur.) She would be perfect to check for needed edits as well as to follow up on the information.
How does this editing / disputing thing work on Wikipedia?
Here is a post called 10 Simple Rules for Editing on Wikipedia. Here are a few.
- Rule 1: Register an Account
- Rule 2: Learn the Five Pillars
- Rule 5: Do Not Infringe Copyright
- Rule 6: Cite, Cite, Cite
Here is an overview from Wikipedia on editing.
Anyone can edit most of the articles here. Some articles are protected because of vandalism or edit-warring, and can only be edited by certain editors.
Anyone with an account that has been registered for four days or longer and has made at least ten edits becomes autoconfirmed, and gains the technical ability to do three things that non-autoconfirmed editors cannot:
- Move articles.
- Edit semi-protected articles.
- Vote in certain elections (minimum edit count to receive suffrage varies depending on the election).
Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Few editors learn about most of those tools, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.
Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been approved by the community, and have access to some significant administrative tools. They can delete articles, block accounts or IP addresses, and edit fully protected articles.
Bureaucrats are chosen in a process similar to that for selecting administrators. There are not very many bureaucrats. They have the technical ability to add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.
The Arbitration Committee is analogous to Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of this Committee are elected by the community and tend to be selected from among the pool of experienced admins.
Stewards are the top echelon of technical permissions. Stewards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them since they normally only actca when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has several special roles and privileges. In most instances, however, he does not expect to be treated differently than any other editor or administrator.
So, think about it. With all of our incredibly, well-informed readers, I think we could make a difference in some of these articles. I shall plan to make the SGM/SGC changes after we discuss the post. Perhaps someone will beat me to it.
If you do decide to edit something on any Wiki article, please let our readers know. We could feature the changes in a TWW post.
Finally, here is a YouTube tutorial on editing Wikipedia.
No way am I first!?
@ roebuck:
Yay!!!!
I was wondering if celebrity preachers do the same thing:
PR Firm Busted Gaming Wikipedia Entries for Celebrity Clients
http://www.mediaite.com/online/pr-firm-busted-gaming-wikipedia-entries-for-celebrity-clients/
@ Daisy:
I bet you could keep an eye on Wikipedia. Think about which one you’ll do.
Here's my latest post. I wrote this on Redeemer Arlington and the Incredible Potential it has Against the "Legacy of Ashes" of Sovereign Grace Ministries. The first part may be hard for some SGM Veterans to read, but I hope the second part is better.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/redeemer-arlingtons-incredible-potential-against-the-legacy-of-ashes-of-sovereign-grace-ministries/
I would LOVE to help with this project. I’ve been meaning to learn how to edit Wikipedia anyway because I regularly see typos and other issues on there.
From point 3 in the Wikipedia article:”(not on church property)”
Just keep all them yungunz on church property, and we’ll keep em real safe-like, ya hear?
Sigh……..
I read this post yesterday and I would normally be surprised that there are still so few responses. In fact, I am sure the lack of outward response is indicative of a huge inward response. I read this post, pondered it, spent the night with it in my subconscious, and this morning I am thoughtfully approaching the Wiki entry for the EFCA (Evangelical Free Church of America), the organization that my former church is somehow “accountable” to, and yet refused to intervene in my truly traumatic “loving and biblical” church discipline process, because each church is “independent.” I will continue to do my due diligence, researching this avenue and my qualifications to pursue it honestly and responsibly. I suspect Eagle might do the same.
My hope is that the power to do what is good and honest and righteous (our proper moral response to others) is taking root in many believers who have read this.
Janet Varin wrote:
Yes! And thank you Dee, this is empowering and so helpful. Shame on those who have slanted an encyclopedia article w/o citing facts to hide the truth and throw child abuse victims under-the-bus, once again. Ugh.
One of my summer jobs while in college was working at a meat packing house. On Wednesdays, I helped the “Baloney Man” make his delicacy. I learned that meat packers don’t throw anything away … it just goes into the baloney (didn’t eat the stuff for years after that experience). The baloney in Wikipedia may be cleaned up, but another baloney man will just put it back in. I’m sure biographical content is carefully slanted personally by the person referenced (e.g., Mahaney and Driscoll don’t want too many pig parts in their baloney).
__
“Changing Da SGM/SGC Wiki Spotz?”
hmmm…
Protecting their Wiki article is a hill that SGM/SGC will die on?
Yep.
(An Wiki editing war has happened before with mixed results…)
huh?
Q. Has TWW started another SGM/SGC Wiki editing war?
-snicker-
What?
hmmm…
Couldn’t happen to a more ‘choice’ 501(c)3 registered ‘non- religious’ non-profit tax free group of ‘family’ churches?
Could be…
(grin)
hahahahahaha
SKreeeeeeetch!
Do not be deceived Kind Folks : Bad church pastors corrupt(s) more than just good gray matter…
(sadface)
ATB
Sopy
—
For the issue of possibly misleading through tone or omission of pertinent info, Wikipedia has “neutrality” guidelines to address such problems in an article. Perhaps the SGM article should be reviewed for such problems. On your three accuracy objections to the article, I have these observations:
1. The statement you quoted from Wikipedia is literally true. It does not say the abuse never happened, only what “an independent investigator found”. There are no written sources to cite because Liebeler’s report has not been published publicly. I suppose the footnote should read something like “Reported verbally by Lars Liebeler to Covenant Life Church at two members meetings in October, 2014”.
2. I heard the same thing from a friend of some of the plaintiffs. Again, it has not been reported in writing to my knowledge, so the footnote should read something like “Personal communication with plaintiff”. I have no idea who inserted that statement into the article. Given the lack of written documentation for the claim, it should be treated with skepticism or caution and perhaps removed. Corroboration would have to come from the plaintiff, who might not wish to speak more publicly so far.
3. Grant’s statement during his testimony does not contradict the statements you quoted from Wikipedia. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing. The issue of the confusion and information silos among CLC pastors about the Morales case (stemming partly from hush orders from their own attorneys) would be fine to add to the article, though I am not convinced it is of central importance in understanding the case. I don’t think it invalidates the existing statements.
By the way, by comparing the revision history of the Wikipedia article, I found that the statement about a plaintiff recanting was added in this edit:
01:26, 10 April 2015 Mapman43
Mapman43 is a Wikipedia account that no longer exists; it was only used for editing the SGM article to add text about the lack of proven guilt in the civil suit, on 10 April and 10 May 2015. The edits made by that user (aside from a 3-word clarification on 10 May) can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_Grace_Churches&type=revision&diff=655766456&oldid=655376653
It’s important to keep Wikipedia accurate from the get-go. Other sites rely on Wikipedia, and will copy/paste info trustingly, and there it will remain even after Wikipedia is corrected. A google search will then show the inaccurate info on the secondary site(s), and Facebook etc will perpetuate the false information.
Dave MacKenzie wrote:
Hi Dave
Thank you for your input. Here are some thoughts to consider. How do you know it is Liebeler’s report that is being quoted? How could anybody know it? If it cannot be corroborated, including who he actually interviewed and then came up with his conclusion, then it shouldn’t be in there.
Secondly, how can we be sure he (if it was he which I am not convinced that it is) is independent? Who paid for the investigation and who benefited from the investigation? The word *independent* is not verified. Therefore, that statement cannot be part of the narrative unless there is some proof that it is true.
Thirdly, there were more reports of child sex abuse outside of CLC so how does CLC get to speak for all of the churches since they claim not to be a denomination?
Therefore, I plan to contest the statement and have it removed from the narrative.
Dave MacKenzie wrote:
So you heard it through a third party. I, too have heard something through a third party which gives a very different view of what was said. I, being honest, would never add my comment to the Wiki narrative since it has not been proven. Then again, I believe in being honest. I am not so sure that is the case for the person who edited the narrative. I will,l for sure, give my proper name and my email address.
Once again, I shall contest it and shall ask for its removal if i do not remove it myself which I might. That would cause a bit of a dustup. I will continue to protest the statements right on up the chain of command at Wiki. This could be rather amusing since I will write posts about any sort of controversy.
Finally, Grant Layman’s statement is extremely important and unlike the SGM related person who put in uncorroborated statements, Grant’s statement and his relationship to CJ mahaney can b proven. I think it will add depth to the article And I bet you know that it would add some depth as well.
One thing I can’t stand is when facts are twisted or not corroborated. If I need ten reputable sources for a five-page paper in higher education you would think the same should be required of anyone editing an encyclopedia. I trust at least there is a note saying the page has issues? I also know even the military has been known to quote Wikipedia in their training, but don’t quote me. 😉
If new at editing in Wikipedia I would suggest starting first with an article that isn’t too controversial, but, in an area you know about (and doesn’t involve a conflict of interest) just to get a feel for things, an article on a town one lives in for instance. Also read the talk page for an article to get a feel for any controversies and look at the histories for both the article and the talk page. Note if you see something that isn’t supported by a cite, one can just edit and add {{Citation needed}} at the point a cite should be (one can also add a reason {{Citation needed|date=July 2015|reason=Xyz source contradicts this}}).
Now let’s see whether these links work
__
“What really ‘happened’ at PDI/SGM/SGC?”
huh?
Might wanna sêê the following for more details and personal testimony:
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/
https://scribd.com/sgmwikileaks
(sadface)
Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture.
No editing is gonna change dat.
These victims of church abusive actions and ‘deceptive’ practices, and coverup are real, their injuries, beyond belief.
***
Lord Jesus, Please bind the strong man and set da captives free! Amen!
Let Your children, who serve You faithfully day and night, rejoice!
Your friend,
Sopy
—
__
“I know so many of us have first needed to just somehow hang on and survive this spiritual abuse (some physical) in order not to be shipwrecked in our faith but I believe in time more and more of us will not only survive but move forward with each other’s help and ultimately our Father’s help through Jesus and the comfort of the Holy Spirit until we are actually thriving in life and look back at the evil and see that our God has worked it for good in our lives in the end…Thank God we now understand this ravenous wolf called “spiritual abusive churches” which Jesus warned us about so we can avoid them and when possible help others flee from them…” – Paul Kellen
—
Wikipedia does not deal well with articles on subjects that are of intense interest to a small group of cultists (so to speak), but unknown to the average person. For example, Scientology is unable to control the wiki article on them, because they’re famous / notorious, and people know to watch them. However, edits to the Fellowship of Friends article (it’s a Gurdjieff group) turned out to be coming overwhelmingly from addresses where the group was headquartered. Anybody who tried to post negative information about the group (such as allegations of sexual harassment on the part of its leader) would quickly be reverted. Similar behavior has been noticed from certain politicians and their wikis.
Less obvious is the situation of the Baha’i religion, whose articles attract interest mainly from the Baha’is themselves, who inevitably slant the material in a certain way even when they are acting in good faith. On the other hand, some critics allege a coordinated campaign to edit Wikipedia in a certain way, taking advantage of the obscurity of Baha’i subjects to outsiders. If so, Wikipedia has few defenses against this kind of behavior.
For a humorous, but telling, example on how to propagate the most outrageous nonsense whilst never actually lying, you can’t do much better than the DHMO hoax. Various urban legends exist about the extent to which people have been taken in by it; but in a nutshell, “DHMO” or Di-Hydrogen MonOxide, is water dressed up to sound like a dangerous chemical.
The “Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide” interweb page is good for a laugh – http://www.dhmo.org/facts. All of the statements on how dangerous water is are technically accurate.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
If something as innocuous as water can made into an insidious evil with smoke and mirrors, how much more can a thing that’s inherently bad be made good by just applying the right ‘facts’?
@ Zla’od:
Another excellent point. With religion (because of its highly subjective nature), it can get even worse and quickly devolve into the epic sea battles (to use a metaphor) between the British and Dutch navies in the 17th century.
This may be an unpopular opinion but when it comes to profoundly abusive churches I believe this is why more authorities must be involved and gross misconduct acted on through appropriate legal channels. I am just now looking over the Deebs’ excellent material. Editing these sites seems to require citing a third party legitimate source which is far easier when you are referencing public information such as court documents. No one can stop that.
So many in the Christian community go nuts over involving any authorities outside the church. My personal opinion is that some clergy act so corruptly and vilely that one must cease from seeing them as “clerics” in the “church” and start seeing them as the predators and/or criminals they are who are merely using a 501(c)3 as their conduit for nefarious behavior. If a robber dressed up and impersonated a police officer or armed security guard using a fake armored van to rob a bank we would never say “we don’t go after first responders because they are the good guys so everyone back off! Ya know they make mistakes/sin just like all of you do!” To the contrary, there is a GREATER penalty when bad guys impersonate good guys in the secular world, specifically so they can more easily and effectively prey on the innocent. Why would Christians do less to protect their most vulnerable? Where is the love and protection of Jesus Christ in that? Where is the common sense?
LT wrote:
Not unpopular at all LT. There is a growing movement of people who would like to see the 501(c3) codes revamped so that religious ‘non-profit’ organizations can no longer exempt themselves from the rules everybody else must abide by under the guise of ‘religious freedom’.
Muff Potter wrote:
I would like to see that. Transparency is the light that sanitizes. Churches professing faith in Jesus Christ should willingly embrace this for the good of Christendom as abusive church practices, such as paying millions to pastors, could then be disclosed. I understand why, historically, the government has been so hands off on churches. But in the current age, with these religio-businesses doing over a hundred million dollars of year, they have become havens for abuse. I’m not sure any man can avoid being seduced by such temptation. If they are not already, then unscrupulous types should be flocking to such an industry where hiring great bands and a clean comedian reap in, not only large tax free financial rewards, but also the insurance of zero government oversight. Money launderers and organized crime leaders would be foolish to not be taking advantage of this massive loophole.
Dave MacKenzie wrote:
Of all people here, perhaps the one (and only) thing I might be best qualified to do (other than Judge Fall or others in the legal profession who post here) is make a judgment on statements that are technically correct or following the letter of the rules for correctness but at the same time violate the spirit of correctness and are in effect lies through omission. We see this sort of behavior all the time in political campaigns, and when it’s used actively against another, it can be a civil tort (False Lights Publication) giving rise to legal liability. While the omissions in the Wikipedia article on SGM are not false lights regarding a particular other, they are definitely in that spirit.
In other words, they are essentially via omission. They are just the sort of stuff that the Bible never does and just the sort of stuff that the Bible warns us against.
Not impressed.
One idea, Deb and Dee, rather than try to find the SGM-ophiles on their own article on Wikipedia, I wonder if you can start an article on Wikipedia entitled “SGM Scandal” or “Sovereign Grace Scandal”, meticulously footnote and reference it, then just let it stand there for public information.
Not “find”, I meant “fight”.
@ Janet Varin:
Janet,
I’m currently attending an Evangelical Free church and was wondering what your experience was. I will not become a member because it has a covenant requirement, and thanks to TWW and Wade Burleson et al, I know that a covenant is a contractual commitment that isn’t Biblical.
Zla’od wrote:
Actually, the last I heard, Scientology IP addresses cannot edit Wikipedia articles. At the same time, Wikipedia banned a research professor at Carnegie Mellon University from editing articles where he was the undisputed expert on the subject–because the e-meter and Narconon were outside his academic expertise. (Ironically, he has his own Wikipedia article but it doesn’t mention his editing ban.) It reminds me of how multi-award winning American writer Philip Roth wrote a plaintive open letter to Wikipedia about a statement in his Wikipedia entry which he claimed was not true:
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia
So there is that.
@ mirele:
Not all Scientologists have Clearwater IP addresses. For all you know, *I* could be one. But those wiki articles are watched, so it would hardly matter what I posted.I assume that SGM is more like the Baha’is than the Scientologists, in that most people who are interested in the subject enough to contribute to its wiki article, belong to the group.
WP absolutely does not require editors (= posters) to have any expertise on anything. So I don’t know what the situation with the Carnegie Mellon professor could have been.
@ Law Prof:
On WP this would be called a POV fork (POV = point of view; fork here means 2 aerticles on the same subject, because their editors couldn’t cooperate), and is considered bad. Your article topic is clearly part of the subject matter of the SGM article,and should be integrated into it. If space is an issue, then a separate wiki article could be acceptable, but it would have to be mentioned on the main SGM article too.
@ Law Prof:
I think that is an excellent idea. Controversial articles will be hacked and redacted, though, so whoever does this is going to have to be willing to keep a close eye on it.
@ numo:
If you have that kind of time and interest, it would be more effective to apply it to the main article on SGM. Remember to give citations from “reliable sources” (newspapers and academic books qualify, blogposts generally do not) and for extra credit, discuss changes on the talk page first. That way, if there is a campaign to revert good edits, it will be easier to appeal to have those accounts blocked or something.
Remember, WP encourages people from rival points of view to overcome their differences and cooperate on an article text. One is expected to “assume good faith,” even when one suspects that this may not be the case.
@ Zla’od:
Hi, thanks, but I think I would rather not be involved in any of this. I am still affected (more than I’d thought) by my own experience at an abusive church to be at all comfortable dealing with SGM on that level.
I’ll note that a description of Sovereign Grace Churches current polity in a separate section would be useful and an overhaul of the history section to make it more readable. How is it organized? What are required beliefs that distinguish them (I note they seem to baptize only teens or older?)? Views if any on controversial issues such as gays, evolution, role of women/men, etc.. Be careful to properly cite. What is/was its relationship to Covenant Life Church? If you have reliable sources, but, don’t want to edit the main article, add a section to the talk page, give the sources, and state how you think they can be used. Someone else might take and use them to modify the main article.
Note also the wikipedia article on Covenant Life Church which overlaps with the Sovereign Grace Churches article
@ numo:
Quite understandable. In that case, a permanent ex-SGM website / forum might be the way to go, on analogy with other cult defectors’ groups. Then add a link to it from the wiki article.
numo wrote:
That is an issue. Having dealt with two extremely abusive and manipulative churches (one which was led by two leaders who’d come directly from the leadership of an SGM church) and another church with generally good members but led by a stealth NPD pastor, the idea of collaborating even online with people from SGM sounds about as pleasurable joining a boating party with ISIS.
@ Zla’od:
Unfortunately, there are real-life problems that don’t augur well re. this. Sadly. (Speaking of websites and such.)
Law Prof wrote:
That’s a good idea. I need to do some thinking.
Law Prof wrote:
Thank you for this. We must tell the truth-carefully.
@ Erp:
Thank you for that great suggestion.
@ Zla’od:
mirele knowsa *great* deal about Scientology, and about the long struggle to make the truth about the organization public.
Yoi are all Suppressive Persons!
😀
Ted wrote:
Which is why it’s also the go-to location for pipelining Disinformation and/or Propaganda.
I’ve seen this with another, specialized Wiki (WikiFur). A local fanboy “edited” his bio entry into a All Glory To Me puff piece, re-“editing” it every time it changed. Guy is fifty-something, still lives in his mother’s basement (literally), yet in bio always returns to Famous Author, Major Playa in Hollywood, and Most Interesting (and Fabulous) Man in the World.
mirele wrote:
WIKIPEDIA DEFINES REALITY.
Ted wrote:
Which is why it’s also the go-to location for pipelining Disinformation and/or Propaganda.
I’ve seen this with another, specialized Wiki (WikiFur). A local fanboy “edited” his bio entry into a All Glory To Me puff piece, re-“editing” it every time it changed. Guy is fifty-something, still lives in his mother’s basement (literally), yet in bio always returns to Famous Author, Major Playa in Hollywood, and Most Interesting (and Fabulous) Man in the World.Zla’od wrote:
Fair Game Law LRH now in effect, invoked from Flag and Gold Base.
I read the SGM Wikipedia entry some time ago. It was clear that it had been edited and “shaped” by pro SGM factions.
I hope some accurate corrections, additions and deletions can be made.
I am fairly confident that at some point SGM either hired or consulted with an Internet reputation management firm. Thus for a while, they filled their blog with lots of positive fluff pieces and took steps to clean up their online image. I am sure either Wikipedia was included in that or some SGM fan boys and girls edited Wikipedia because they could not stomach anything negative about their beloved being out there.
Somebody also needs to go to Wikipedia and post much more accurate information about the destructive, controlling nature of 9Marks/Mark Dever. It was way too nice and inaccurate.