NationStates Jolt Archive

There is often quite a bit of debate about whether or not these two texts are accurate or should be trusted. Which of them is more trustable and accurate, in your opinion: Wikipedia or the Bible?

I'll go with Wikipedia, by a longshot.

Wiki does get its info from the great imaginary friend in the sky. So wiki is more acurate.

Which is more accurate?
Wikipedia.

Which should be trusted?
Neither.

wiki. thats easy.

Wikipedia because even if people screw with it, others will fix it in under five minutes.

The Bible on the other hand...

Well, until the First Council of Nicaea, the Bible was a lot like Wikipedia.

wiki is an encylopedia (sp?), the bible is a storybook. guess which I'll choose.

The Bible, of course.

I mean, who doesn't believe God smote Sodom because it was full of homosexuals?

It matters what type of "truth" you are looking for. If you are looking for science then Wiki. If you are looking for an understanding of people, the Bible.

It matters what type of "truth" you are looking for. If you are looking for science then Wiki. If you are looking for an understanding of people, the Bible.

If you want basic facts and are prepared to do a little research to ensure they're right, look at Wiki - although it's open to abuse, I find 95% is pretty accurate and highly readable.

If are looking for an understanding of people, talk to people, not read a narrow prescription of what people should be doing according to one particular source.

If you are looking for what the Bible says, read the Bible.

At least you can edit wiki if it's wrong, the Bible is just wrong permanently.

The Bible, of course.

I mean, who doesn't believe God smote Sodom because it was full of homosexuals?

And then didn't smote Lot for screwing both his daughters

At least you can edit wiki if it's wrong, the Bible is just wrong permanently.

Good point - I think we should create a Wiki Bible.

Damn, someone' already taken the URL (www.wikibible.com)

At least you can edit wiki if it's wrong, the Bible is just wrong permanently.

No matter *how* many editings and re-writings they do.
For example ...

http://bible.cc/mark/11-20.htm
What was the last count again?

And then didn't smote Lot for screwing both his daughters

But comon, homosexuals are wrong because of anal sex, whether heterosexual sex, regardless of incest, is correct and Holy! Get with the program man! :P

And then didn't smote Lot for screwing both his daughters

Can't blame Him too much for that. I'da tagteamed 'em.
Still want to, for that matter.
*sifts sand*

Which is more accurate?
Wikipedia.

Which should be trusted?
Neither.

Let's not forget what Colbert has contributed to wiki ...

well, Colbert and legionne d'Colbert ...
and elephants.
http://www.shipbrook.com/onnotice/
:D

Everything you need to know about God and the Bible are contained in this amazing factual FAQ site.

The Official God FAQ (http://www.400monkeys.com/God/)

So you don't really need to even read the Bible, for it is long and there are many pages of someone begat someone else.

So you don't really need to even read the Bible, for it is long and there are many pages of someone begat someone else.

Hey, don't forget the coveting. That's important.
And, of course, the slaughter, the bloodthirstiness, and the occasional clever turn of phrase.

obviously neither can ever be ENTIRELY reliable, but the christian bible has had vested intrests corrupting it for centuries. more then a millinium.
wikipedia on the other hand, can be influenced (AND CORRECTED), or was to begin with, by almost anybody. it may be counter intuitive, and utterly ironic to those less familiar with how the world works, but that actually makes it the MORE reliable of the two.

whatever the scriptural source of inspiration (in ANY shaired belief), it is human hand that sets human ink to human paper. and nothing infallable walks this earth on two legs.

=^^=
.../\...

and nothing infallable walks this earth on two legs.

Thanks to entropy, it may indeed be that nothing infallable exists anywhere for very long, if at all.

There is often quite a bit of debate about whether or not these two texts are accurate or should be trusted. Which of them is more trustable and accurate, in your opinion: Wikipedia or the Bible?

I'll go with Wikipedia, by a longshot.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittania. What people fail to realize is that while yes, anyone can just add to it, most of the time wanton misinformation and/or vandalism is removed immediately. The community checks its facts and seeks to ensure that all information is accurate.

That's why it pisses me off when Stephen Colbert goes on another rant about Wikiality or what have you, because he's one of the worst offenders in preserving that misconception, regardless of why he does it.

There is often quite a bit of debate about whether or not these two texts are accurate or should be trusted. Which of them is more trustable and accurate, in your opinion: Wikipedia or the Bible?

I'll go with Wikipedia, by a longshot.

Wikipedia is, obviously, the more accurate of the two.

However, that's like asking somebody who doesn't like Italian food, "Which is better, Italian food, or dogshit?"

There is often quite a bit of debate about whether or not these two texts are accurate or should be trusted. Which of them is more trustable and accurate, in your opinion: Wikipedia or the Bible?

I'll go with Wikipedia, by a longshot.

It depends on some things:

What edition of the Bible? The Catholic Bible? The Mormons' Bible? The Jewish Bible? Someone else's Bible?

and: accurate about what? Catholic religion? Jewish religion? Italian literature? High-energy physics?

I'd credit the Catholic Bible about Catholic religion, the Jewish Bible (the Torah) about Jewish religion, and wikipedia about Italian literature and high-energy physics (and many other subjects).

Depends on the subject. The bible isn't the right book to read about helicopters in but it is the best source of information about Jesus.

You shouldn't quote Wikipedia in any serious papers even though it is accurate. It's just a good place to get an overview and start from. They do link to sources at the bottom of their articles. Check the sources too if you must be sure the info is accurate and quote the sources.

The main problem with the bible is that people who read it take one part out of context and think it's supposed to be a truth we should follow literally. The bible contains historical stories like the one about Lot that are just stories. Just because it says he fucked his daughters doesn't mean that was a good thing or that we should do the same. It also contains poetry thats mainly meant to be beautiful like psalms and song of songs. It also contains fictional stories with symbolic meaning like the one about the man who couldn't wait for his father to die so he demanded his part of the inheritance early to waste it all traveling and partying. He came home as a completely broke and broken disgrace yet his father threw a big party to celebrate. It didn't actually happen, it's just a symbol for that God always gets happy when we turn to him no matter where we have been or what we have done in the past.

So most of the bible shouldn't be taken too literally but some parts of it are still good stories or good advice.

Depends on the subject. The bible isn't the right book to read about helicopters in but it is the best source of information about Jesus.

You shouldn't quote Wikipedia in any serious papers even though it is accurate. It's just a good place to get an overview and start from. They do link to sources at the bottom of their articles. Check the sources too if you must be sure the info is accurate and quote the sources.

The main problem with the bible is that people who read it take one part out of context and think it's supposed to be a truth we should follow literally. The bible contains historical stories like the one about Lot that are just stories. Just because it says he fucked his daughters doesn't mean that was a good thing or that we should do the same. It also contains poetry thats mainly meant to be beautiful like psalms and song of songs. It also contains fictional stories with symbolic meaning like the one about the man who couldn't wait for his father to die so he demanded his part of the inheritance early to waste it all traveling and partying. He came home as a completely broke and broken disgrace yet his father threw a big party to celebrate. It didn't actually happen, it's just a symbol for that God always gets happy when we turn to him no matter where we have been or what we have done in the past.

So most of the bible shouldn't be taken too literally but some parts of it are still good stories or good advice.

I still don't get why God had to smite a city full of homosexuals, though.

The Bible is the word of Christ, the word of Christ is truth.

Wikipedia is rife with bias and completely inaccurate. Now Conservapedia is where it's at!

I need to take a shower now.

I find I can get one of those Gideon Bibles into the wastebin from the other side of the room - wikipedia has proved a problem until I get a laptop connected to the internet. So for throwing purposes the Bible has far more accuracy.

Considering you can find most of the bible on wikipeida, I'd have to say that there is no question it is more accurate, as it contains the bible.

"all who owned property or houses sold them and lay them at the feet of the apostles to be distributed to everyone according to his need." (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47)
Best biblical quote ever.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittania. What people fail to realize is that while yes, anyone can just add to it, most of the time wanton misinformation and/or vandalism is removed immediately. The community checks its facts and seeks to ensure that all information is accurate.

That's why it pisses me off when Stephen Colbert goes on another rant about Wikiality or what have you, because he's one of the worst offenders in preserving that misconception, regardless of why he does it.
Indeed. I hate having to defend wikipedia. People just don't get it.

doesnt the answer depend on what you mean by accurate?

As has been said- wiki gets updates. The bible's bullshit stays bullshit forever.

There's a debate?

The Wikipedia article on the Bible.

Seriously, the Bible wasn't written to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia wasn't created to be the base text of religion/s. So comparing the two is like... dare I say it? Yes. Comparing Apples to Oranges. (Or Dogshit to Catshit, if you prefer.)

For what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedic collection of information on scientific and historical facts.

The Bible is the collection of works written by men to convey the truth about God and religion. Are there certain things that could not be factually correct? Yes. Are they intended to be factually correct? No. Stating that the universe was created in exactly 144 hours (6 days, we don't count the 7th since God was resting) is akin to stating that the Strait of Gilbralter was actually remodeled by one particular super strong son of Zeus.

For what? Wikipedia is an encyclopedic collection of information on scientific and historical facts.

The Bible is the collection of works written by men to convey the truth about God and religion. Are there certain things that could not be factually correct? Yes. Are they intended to be factually correct? No. Stating that the universe was created in exactly 144 hours (6 days, we don't count the 7th since God was resting) is akin to stating that the Strait of Gilbralter was actually remodeled by one particular super strong son of Zeus.

We all know that most people here are going to say Wikipedia - and they're right.

God taking 144 hours, or rather, 6 complete Earth day cycles to create the stuff in the book of Genesis? Come on. Any God worthy of being considered God could whip that off in ten minutes without breaking a sweat. The Universe? Two hours tops. And designing the blueprints for everything that our Universe has? That wouldn't take six days if He hired the worst contractor in Heaven. Come on now - this is God we're talking about here, not Halliburton.

Now the better question is this - which one has more contradictions? Wikipedia or the Bible?

Now the better question is this - which one has more contradictions? Wikipedia or the Bible?

I would think that question is an even more obvious one. Not to mention, even if someone pointed out contradictions in wikipedia, anyone arguing with them could just go fix 'em.:D

Now the better question is this - which one has more contradictions? Wikipedia or the Bible?

The Bible.

This post is brought to you by "Short Answers to Rhetorical Questions Ltd."

I still don't get why God had to smite a city full of homosexuals, though.
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening... // ...all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. ... // ...We'll treat you worse then them." They kept putting pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
Yes of course their doom must have obviously been due to the homosexuality, I mean it couldn't possibly have been the attempted burglary, kidnapping and gang bang rape since there is clearly nothing wrong or sinful with those things. :rolleyes:

It does seem a bit harsh to nuke 2 cities even if rape was their idea of hospitality. On the bright side God did spare the righteous ones. Abraham did pray that God should spare the whole cities if there was 50 righteous people in them. Then he decreased the number until he prayed that the cities be spared if there was 10 righteous people but he didn't dare push it any further. The morale in this is that we should pray that God have mercy on the wicked like Abraham did but we should go even further then Abraham did. Sadly many Christians miss this detail and would instead say "Finally, I've been telling that scum they're going to hell for years!"
Best biblical quote ever.
OMG Jesus invented communism long before Marx did. I wish we had real American right wing kind of Christians who love to call everything they dislike communist here in Sweden, I'd love to debate this detail with them.:p

Yes of course their doom must have obviously been due to the homosexuality, I mean it couldn't possibly have been the attempted burglary, kidnapping and gang bang rape since there is clearly nothing wrong or sinful with those things. :rolleyes:

It does seem a bit harsh to nuke 2 cities even if rape was their idea of hospitality. On the bright side God did spare the righteous ones. Abraham did pray that God should spare the whole cities if there was 50 righteous people in them. Then he decreased the number until he prayed that the cities be spared if there was 10 righteous people but he didn't dare push it any further. The morale in this is that we should pray that God have mercy on the wicked like Abraham did but we should go even further then Abraham did. Sadly many Christians miss this detail and would instead say "Finally, I've been telling that scum they're going to hell for years!"

OMG Jesus invented communism long before Marx did. I wish we had real American right wing kind of Christians who love to call everything they dislike communist here in Sweden, I'd love to debate this detail with them.:p


I've heard this argument about the destruction of Sodom before and I agree with it. Methinks that god would be upset enough over his angels getting gang-raped (well, the Sodomites attempted to gang-rape them, didn't get to carry it out) that the gender of the angels or the fact that they were going to be gang raped anally wouldn't really matter so much, in comparison.

Gang-rape just seems to be a more serious crime than anal sex, so I'd say that taking the story of Sodom's destruction to be a condemnation of homosexuality I think is a misinterpretation.

Number of words that Wikipedia has devoted to describing every possible aspect of Shadow the Hedgehog's fictional existence: > 4000.
Number of words that the Bible has devoted to describing every possible aspect of Shadow the Hedgehog's existence: < 0

I believe the Bible has proven itself a clear winner in this case.

OMG Jesus invented communism long before Marx did. I wish we had real American right wing kind of Christians who love to call everything they dislike communist here in Sweden, I'd love to debate this detail with them.:p

that wasnt jesus that was the apostle's idea. the verses are from acts all of which takes place after jesus returns to heaven.

Which is more accurate?
Wikipedia.

Which should be trusted?
Neither.
*applauds* I (probably) couldn't have said it better myself...

What makes Wikipedia more reliable than the Bible? Both are compilations of writings by random people you do not know and never will meet. The only difference is the Bible was written 1500 years ago, Wikipedia changes every second.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittania. What people fail to realize is that while yes, anyone can just add to it, most of the time wanton misinformation and/or vandalism is removed immediately. The community checks its facts and seeks to ensure that all information is accurate.

That's why it pisses me off when Stephen Colbert goes on another rant about Wikiality or what have you, because he's one of the worst offenders in preserving that misconception, regardless of why he does it.

I completely disagree. While I would go to Wikipedia if I wanted to learn something myself, I would never use it as a research source like I would Encyclopedia Britannica. There is no guarantee that everything it says is true.

Is there a guarantee that any paper encyclopedia is true? No, but encyclopedias are written by academics. These people may be wrong about something, but if they are, chances are everyone else is, too.

I see Wikipedia as a noble endeavor to collect all human knowledge. I see Britannica as something to rely on for truth.

that wasnt jesus that was the apostle's idea. the verses are from acts all of which takes place after jesus returns to heaven.
How to organize everything to best help everyone seems like such a central issue I think Jesus must have talked to the apostles about it. But right now I can't find any quote where he talks about redistributing property according to need. So I don't have anything to support my assumption that the apostles got the idea from Jesus.

I completely disagree. While I would go to Wikipedia if I wanted to learn something myself, I would never use it as a research source like I would Encyclopedia Britannica. There is no guarantee that everything it says is true.
Yeah as I said, refer to the sources at the bottom of Wikipedia articles instead of the articles themselves. But I wouldn't use Encyclopedia Britannica (or the Swedish equivalent Nationalencyclopedin) as my only source either. Mostly because such a huge amount of text on paper tends to be hopelessly out of date on any area in rapid progress by the time they put everything together and are done printing it.

Yeah as I said, refer to the sources at the bottom of Wikipedia articles instead of the articles themselves. But I wouldn't use Encyclopedia Britannica (or the Swedish equivalent Nationalencyclopedin) as my only source either. Mostly because such a huge amount of text on paper tends to be hopelessly out of date on any area in rapid progress by the time they put everything together and are done printing it.
Good point. But I would probably include encyclopedia articles in a bibliography. I wouldn't do that with Wikipedia.

I completely disagree. While I would go to Wikipedia if I wanted to learn something myself, I would never use it as a research source like I would Encyclopedia Britannica. There is no guarantee that everything it says is true.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you really shouldn't use an encyclopedia as a research source anyways.

Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. And you really shouldn't use an encyclopedia as a research source anyways.

No, it is not. I am aware of the study done by Nature, but it did not find Wikipedia to be as accurate as EB (it had 33% more errors). There is a critique (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf) of the journal's study (from, surprisingly, EB) that covers other flaws.

As for using an encyclopedia as a research source...
I would never rely solely on encyclopedias for information, especially for something that changes. However, there is nothing wrong with using facts garnered from them.

No, it is not. I am aware of the study done by Nature, but it did not find Wikipedia to be as accurate as EB (it had 33% more errors).
Then you're talking about a completely different study than the one I'm talking about.

As for using an encyclopedia as a research source...
I would never rely solely on encyclopedias for information, especially for something that changes. However, there is nothing wrong with using facts garnered from them.
Yes. There is. They aren't primary sources. They are not necessarily written by people with the required grounding in the subject. Encyclopedias are useful for a quick overview. They are entirely worthless for anything more in depth.

There is often quite a bit of debate about whether or not these two texts are accurate or should be trusted. Which of them is more trustable and accurate, in your opinion: Wikipedia or the Bible?

I'll go with Wikipedia, by a longshot.

I'm sorry Sel, but it's a false comparison as neither is attempting to be the same thing.

One is (or tries to be) an encyclopedia of human knowledge; the other is a religious text. Only a fundamentalist bible literalist might attempt to draw a direct analogy between the two levels of information. Otherwise it's a bit like asking whether Tuesday is longer than a piece of string.

Otherwise it's a bit like asking whether Tuesday is longer than a piece of string.

Nice analogy. I'm going to try to find a way to use that today.

As for the Wikipedia study: which one are you referring to? Could you give a link?

Wiki, naturally. At least Wiki mentions the bible, but I don't recall* the bible mentioning wikipedia.
















*It might, I've never read it.

Well it doesn't really have to be a whole religious vs. non-religious debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written in the 21st century, albeit it is user-editable so it isn't a valid source on official papers and manuscripts but it can be a great tool. The Bible was written how long ago when science still couldn't explain what lightning was or what an earthquake was. Simply put, it was written in a time when knowledge and literacy were VERY limited.

Number of words that Wikipedia has devoted to describing every possible aspect of Shadow the Hedgehog's fictional existence: > 4000.
Number of words that the Bible has devoted to describing every possible aspect of Shadow the Hedgehog's existence: < 0

I believe the Bible has proven itself a clear winner in this case.

To compound your case, it's also a bit lopsided regarding Spiny Norman.
:(

There's a debate?

There's a lot of staircase wit, really.

That's why it pisses me off when Stephen Colbert goes on another rant about Wikiality or what have you, because he's one of the worst offenders in preserving that misconception, regardless of why he does it.
You can take him. Aim for the left wrist, or dress up like Jane Fonda and occupy his lap for a minute or two. :p
http://www.dnronline.com/rocktown/photos/colbert_fonda_1179166330.jpg

As for the Wikipedia study: which one are you referring to? Could you give a link?
Don't have the link. Don't even remember what it was in, but I doubt it was Nature. I don't like Nature.

I don't like Nature.

Here's where someone adds,
"Nature clearly doesn't like you either."
;)

j/k

There's Cliff's Notes (abstracts) from Nature that are helpful on occasion.
*nods*

But I would probably include encyclopedia articles in a bibliography.

I would too, if, for some strange reason, I actually wanted to fail the assignment/project.

Wikipedia is great for finding links/references to original research, primary, and secondary sources (sources that carry academic authority). Printed Encyclopedias are great for door stops and paperweights; the lack of hyper-linking makes them good for little else. I would never use either in a paper, article, or any other serious work of research.

I do use links to Wikipedia here in the forum all the time, as a source of convenient summaries or references and links. But never in an authoritative "because Wikipedia says so" sort of way. No encyclopedia carries such authority. Exactly because any idiot can write an encyclopedia; peer review is not a necessary part of the process.

Wikipedia is unreliable due to inaccuracies. In general, I trust it because it's PROBABLY right.

The Bible, well, I believe that it is of direct divine origine. However, some of it is metaphoric, and it is very hard to understand.

Exactly because any idiot can write an encyclopedia; peer review is not a necessary part of the process.

No, they can't. I suppose I could make up my own volumes of the Big Books O' Truth and write whatever I want, but one such as the Encyclopedia Britannica is slightly more professional (although you're right, peer review is not necessarily part of the process).

Now, I definitely would never want to use an encyclopedia as my main source. But let's say I'm writing an essay on, I don't know, lemmings. I would first read the encyclopedia article on lemmings, just to get a rough idea of what they were. Then, I would look for more specific articles about lemmings. Eventually, let's assume that for some reason I need to know something about industry in Switzerland. I would consult an encyclopedia for that, and cite that as a source. If this article is going to be peer reviewed, the reviewers do not want to see that I gathered much of my information about lemmings from an encyclopedia. However, I doubt that they would mind if my information about Swiss industry came from one.

Wikipedia is unreliable due to inaccuracies. In general, I trust it because it's PROBABLY right.

The Bible, well, I believe that it is of direct divine origine. However, some of it is metaphoric, and it is very hard to understand.
Lol, so much for 'supreme intelligence' if the guy contradicts himself so much... Most of it is just a mish-mash of pagan folklore, judaic oral tradition and Roman propaganda.

The Bible.

Unlike Wikipedia, Pepsi can't edit it to make themselves look better.

But comon, homosexuals are wrong because of anal sex, whether heterosexual sex, regardless of incest, is correct and Holy! Get with the program man! :P

Yeah, and when the crowd came to the door demanding to know the angels, Lot offered the crowd his daughters instead. If this was a mob of gay (men), what could Lot have imagined they'd have wanted with the daughters? To fix their hair???

And, we all know that heterosexuals never engage in anal sex, right?