Discussion Forum

Are there really people who believe Wikipedia has acurate information on Pagan Facts?

Anyone citing wiki as a true source on anything more serious than Ouija Boards is wasting everyone’s time. The information on Wiki is to a great extent is neither written or proofed by Pagans. In many instancies the Wiki “Facts” are written by religionists unfriendly to Pagan religions.

There are biased postings on Witchcraft, The Craft, The Lore, Magick, Thelma,
Golden Dawn, Santanism, Spells, incantations, Chants, Asatru, Druidism, Hermetic, Qabalah, Wicca, ETC.,

In checking Pagan subjects on Wikipedia you will find that religionists do the same kind of mangling of facts that have been done to Bibles down through the centuries…and they’ve got the majority and fanaticism to keep mangling.

17 Comments

  • Well, anything on Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt – before you go basing anything off it, I’d recommend checking other sources. As you said, anyone can edit it, so it’s probably worthwhile to poke into the versioning log to see who has been editting what before you trust it.

    That said, many of the entries aren’t half bad. I know the folks who wrote the CR entry for Wiki, for example, and as far as I know, what’s in there is spot-on to the original they wrote.

  • Actually, as a Wiccan, I find the Wikipedia writeup on my religion not too bad. Of course, I can’t vouch for the accuracy of many of the words within that writeup that are linked to different articles.

    Personally I prefer to point people toward Religioustolerance.org or Religionfacts.com.

  • Religion in general is skewed there.. They had a section under “original sin” for years labeled as the “Jewish” position on it, and frankly, since it not even a concept that Judaism believes in at all, well, you see where this is going.. They finally changed it somewhat to explain this, but not totally..

  • I don’t trust Wikipedia, at least I wouldn’t take its word for something without checking it out elsewere.

  • Wikipedia’s notoriously inaccurate. In fact I remember an interview with the guy who founded it (can’t remember his name) who said that people shouldn’t consider wikipedia “Source” for anything.

    It’s a lore manget and it will lean the direction the people writing/editing it lean.

    So to answer your question, yes there are people who do.

    But they shouldn’t 🙂

  • You can’t expect any religous topic to be treated impartially. The topic is too loaded.

    That’s why I don’t just pick out a religion and run with it. I speek to whoever’s up there (whoever answers the prayer). That’s really all I have to know.

    Out of several thousand religions, let’s face it, somebody’s guessing somewhere.

  • Thanks for the info. I knew that the wiki was not reliable but I didn’t know it was that bad. When I have questions concerning almost any belief, I know who on here that I would go to for the answers.

  • I did not read much of your details. I can answer that any time that I see one quote or post , Wicipedia, I don’t even read it. It should be known earth wide, that Wicipedia is not to be taken seriously. Even CNN has reported on the in accuracies of Wicipedia.

  • Wikipedia is a good starting place, linked all over the place to different topics you might not have thought to explore, but the “facts” found there should always be checked against some external source.

  • Anyone can post anything on Wickipedia…it should not be used as a learning tool…it is only people’s opinions and ideas

Leave a Comment