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

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

For Wicca (nevertheless some might disagree) the straightforward guideline of the religion is to have an understand-how of your will, accountability thereof, and how that shall we you properly known your self, the international, and your place in all of it. Magic* is the expression of the want/accountability. to comprehend your self alongside the Wiccan direction, the prepare of magic is mandatory. Now, I completely agree which you on no account use it in alternative of mundane efforts - particularly the alternative, magic as a form of standard promise which you will then pass out and do all which you're meant to interior the mundane international, or which you have already executed all which you would be able to. it is not something that desires for use many times, and a few human beings are better than others at it, even nevertheless that's a means to strengthen. the 1st component a spell variations is the outlook of the caster. *i take advantage of the spelling "magic" because of the fact the extraneous "ok" on the top grew to become into added by using Crowley so as that his utilization of the be conscious magick might better extra healthful into the numberology he grew to become into working with. I have not any good or ill will in the direction of the spelling, merely discover it extraneous.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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 :)

Answer 7

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..

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

Pagan facts are not the only ones wrong on Wiki. Anyone can edit it.

Answer 10

Checking Wikipedia for anything is a joke. It is user edited.