Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 25, 2013, 02:35:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
 
Author Topic: Wikipedia and Truth vs. Verifiability  (Read 723 times)
Su
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2012, 08:16:PM »

There also used to be a few Catholic wikis, but they seem to have disappeared.

Wikipedia is good for certain topics, less so for others.

It is an encyclopedia and suffers from the same weakness all encyclopedias do. It is somewhat funny to see people complain about Wikipedia. I dare them to go pick up a printed encyclopedia and find it superior.

But there is an encyclopedia for Catholic topics: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

It isn't a wiki, but given the topic, it wouldn't benefit from being a wiki.
Logged
DrBombay
Quintessential Heckler
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Undisclosed
Posts: 9,727



« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2012, 08:29:PM »

There also used to be a few Catholic wikis, but they seem to have disappeared.

Wikipedia is good for certain topics, less so for others.

It is an encyclopedia and suffers from the same weakness all encyclopedias do. It is somewhat funny to see people complain about Wikipedia. I dare them to go pick up a printed encyclopedia and find it superior.


Weren't you just complaining about Wikipedia?  Why yes, yes you were.  Funny indeed.
Logged

Sometimes the Crunchies are right....
Su
Guest
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2012, 08:42:PM »

There also used to be a few Catholic wikis, but they seem to have disappeared.

Wikipedia is good for certain topics, less so for others.

It is an encyclopedia and suffers from the same weakness all encyclopedias do. It is somewhat funny to see people complain about Wikipedia. I dare them to go pick up a printed encyclopedia and find it superior.


Weren't you just complaining about Wikipedia?  Why yes, yes you were.  Funny indeed.

Some simple minded people cannot comprehend that something can be imperfect, but still useful.

Understanding the limitations of a thing is required to use it effectively.
Logged
DrBombay
Quintessential Heckler
Member

Gender: Male
Location: Undisclosed
Posts: 9,727



« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2012, 08:52:PM »

There also used to be a few Catholic wikis, but they seem to have disappeared.

Wikipedia is good for certain topics, less so for others.

It is an encyclopedia and suffers from the same weakness all encyclopedias do. It is somewhat funny to see people complain about Wikipedia. I dare them to go pick up a printed encyclopedia and find it superior.


Weren't you just complaining about Wikipedia?  Why yes, yes you were.  Funny indeed.

Some simple minded people cannot comprehend that something can be imperfect, but still useful.

Understanding the limitations of a thing is required to use it effectively.

You'd be much less annoying if you dropped the passive-aggressive schtick and just called people idiots outright.
Logged

Sometimes the Crunchies are right....
Su
Guest
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2012, 09:21:PM »

You'd be much less annoying if you dropped the passive-aggressive schtick and just called people idiots outright.

That is a simplistic understanding of what I am saying.

Logged


Adelbrecht
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 253



« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2012, 09:33:AM »

Wikipedia is good for certain topics, less so for others.
It is an encyclopedia and suffers from the same weakness all encyclopedias do. It is somewhat funny to see people complain about Wikipedia. I dare them to go pick up a printed encyclopedia and find it superior.
Wikipedia is good enough for quite a lot of topics if you use it wisely: check the references, and cross check if you can. Wikipedia's big advantage is the easy accesibility and certain types of articles that are very exhaustive compared to regular general encyclopedias.

As a University Student, I can access the Encyclopedia Britannica online, but it's kinda tedious to access it. If the article is large, it's quite good, but many articles are fairly basic. It is however somewhat more reliable than Wikipedia, although I'd argue that most major topics covered by Britannica will probably be reliable enough on Wikipedia. The largest disadvantage of course is the cost.



But there is an encyclopedia for Catholic topics: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html

It isn't a wiki, but given the topic, it wouldn't benefit from being a wiki.
It's quite outdated, but still is a valuable source. It would benefit from a wikified format, if it were to be updated by scholars, and the information could be enriched with freely available images from Wikimedia Commons.
Logged
Phillipus Iacobus
Blue Fish
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,297


« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2012, 12:37:AM »

In history, there seems to be an emphasis of finding the best "understanding" considering our own personal, subjective viewpoints rather than trying to know the truth. When everything is post-modern and subjective, this gets quite annoying.

I like what Charles Coulombe said about our Faith and history:
Quote
For Catholics, history has an even higher purpose beside. For them, history is the unfolding of God’s Will in time, and the attempts of men either to conform themselves to or to resist that Will. As the great Dom Gueranger, author of the monumental Liturgical Year points out, “for the Christian there is no purely human History” since “man has been divinely called to the supernatural state. This state is his goal and the chronicles of human kind should therefore exhibit the traces of that supernatural life.” Thus the Catholic historian may rely upon the guidance provided by the Church which always goes before him as a column of light and divinely illuminates all his thoughts. The Christian knows that a close bond unites the Church and the Son of God made man; the Christian knows that the Church has the guarantee of Christ’s promise against all errors in her teaching and in the general conduct of Christian society, and that the Holy Spirit animates and leads the Church. It is in her, therefore, that he finds the rule for judging. The true Christian is not surprised by the weakness of churchmen or by
their temporal abuses, because he knows that God has decided to tolerate the weeds in His field until the harvest... But he knows where the direction, the spirit, and the divine instinct of the Church are manifested. He receives them, he accepts them, he professes them bravely and applies them in his narration of history. Therefore, he never betrays them, he never sacrifices them, he considers good what the Church judges as good and bad what the Church judges as bad. He does not care about the sarcasm or clamor of short-sighted cowards. Other historians will stubbornly observe only the political side of events, and so will descend to the pagan point of view. But the Christian historian will remain firm, because he has the initial certainty that he is not mistaken. [He knows that] Christ is at home in history; [that is why] he must not fear condemning the thousands of calumnies which have made history a huge conspiracy against truth... It is necessary to be prepared to fight; if one is not brave enough to do that, then that person should refrain from writing history. (Gueranger, The Christian Sense of History, pp. 17-18, 53-54)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC