I was browsing the "Youth With A Mission" article on Wikipedia today and didn't find it very easy to read, or much like an encyclopedia article at all.
I know that Wikipedia articles dealing with religious organizations are sometimes disorganized and bland due to conflicting opinions and controversy, but there is still a lot more room in this article for information that is relevant and accurate. There is even a request on the discussion page for an expert in YWAM history to help out with the article.
When I go to a Wikipedia article, I expect to be brought up to speed on a subject that I may know nothing about (like what is AJAX, Silverlight, or even the YMCA). My guess is that many parents expect the same thing when they go online looking for an explanation of what YWAM is before sending their 18 year old daughter off to a DTS in Siberia. Wikipedia is becoming one of those resources that people use and trust, shouldn't the information found there be more relevant?
So what do you think? Can we benefit YWAM by making some improvements to the Wikipedia article?
Comments
Good discussion point!
Thanks Nathan for bringing this up!
There has been quite some skepticsm about Wikipedia from many and I agree we need to be proactive rather than reactive.
Some hate the whole concept, others feel that the ones being written about should not input as they are not in themselves 'nuetral'.
Wikipedia is not unlike YWAM, being (seemingly) free in structure and expression. Very hard to control but needs active engagement to maintain quality.
Maybe we all need to make weekly visits to the wikis we know to both build and maintain good quality.
What do you guys think?
/mike
Good question
Dear Nathan,
I think you have made an important comment; the Wikipedia is increasingly considered authoritative yet the YWAM article on it is somewhat of a battle ground at the moment for differing opinions.
The problem is not that we could benefit YWAM by improving the article; we could. Unfortunately that is not the purpose of the Wikipedia! It is also against the rules and generally bad form to edit articles on your own organisation or yourself. Wikipedia strives for a "Neutral Point of View" and whilst we can correct vandalism and obvious errors it is not our place to write the article.
I have been saddened by the way others have used the article to wage wars and I have made my (small) changes to the article. You can read my comments on the Talk page. The Talk page is the best page to engage in debate with people editing the article. I would always recommend that you create a user and log in with that user to make comments. Joining the Wikipedian YWAMer's group would also be good. It is important you identify who you are and write and act with integrity.
I would like to suggest that YWAM issues a public statement about the Wikipedia article and points to where the official information about us can be found. There also seems to be strong need for credible sources (in the academic sense) that can be used to support or defend YWAM. Investing time in research here would be profitable. Sadly, I don't have that time.
Good post. Kevin
Wikipedia bylaws, etc.
I'll confirm what Kevin said, that the official rules for editing in Wikipedia are that representatives of an organization shouldn't edit that organization's article(s). If I remember correctly, it is recommended that those representatives instead interact with other editors via the discussion page to help correct any errors (and our article has many!).
I personally love Wikipedia, as it is a source of a great quantity of good information, plus some bad information. There are however a great many people who disagree with the concept, Mr. Cunningham being among them. I agree that when people with malicious intent intentionally edit articles for the sake of defaming others, Wikipedia should take a stronger stand in such issues. I however think that the majority of the unease concerning the site is that most people do not really understand what Wikipedia is. Yes, it is an encyclopedia, but primarily it is the world's largest experiment in massively collaborative writing. It should not be used without knowing what the editorial guidelines are, how to find errors, etc. For example, one policy is that an author cannot use original work, but must site sources. Therefore, well written articles have many links to quality outside sources. When you see the famous {citation needed}, you know to take that bit with a grain of salt. The discussion page is a great place to find out potential biases, controversies, etc. Many articles even have a grading system attached, which is professionally reviewed.
And the #1 rule of Wikipedia is: never consult it in regard to highly controversial topics!