I would not even want to edit religious topics. They are usually open to interpretation and can be fought over forever. I can just imagine a topic on the "the one true God". You would change it to Allah, someone else would change it to Jesus, an Atheist would claim there is none, and back and forth that one would go. I cannot be sure if that's what you ended up in a dispute over, or not, but it's not a clear example of Wiki being a bad source of basic information. Whenever I need it to show others of something that I remember happening it's what I recalled being true. Biggest problem I found is it being incomplete, but otherwise it's still much better than nothing.

My mentioning your not asking for more information is simply good practice. It's hard to be helpful if you don't know what it is the person wants to do. For all you know it could be something that you wrote that they want to delete.

I have nothing to defend.. everything I have corrected was properly cited from illustrious and recognized sources!.. though, I later came to accept, that it was a waste of my time.. Since not everyone out there has the most noble of intentions! and I believe I have adequately certified that from various sources!
Anyone who is decent and wished to acquaint and engage his audience, will at some point figure out what is trash and of no great value... and what has been labored upon for verity and will withstand the test of time long after such sites have been closed down!

peace!

For instance, I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_hip_screw
It looks like a stupid page, yet it's important for medical students who study orthopedics to know Garden's classification and DHS .. yet the pics were removed due to copyright? although I selected the right copyright options after a while

Anyway, have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_L._Moore
It's about Keith Moore, the one who witnessed that prophet Muhammed is the messenger of Allah (That's a video for him saying so) .. in such article, how could they provide this funny link:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryology.htm and they describe it as a site claims errors in Quran .. well, it's too much! 1st it's Not a scientific site .. 2nd it's called bible.ca means it's not scientific again .. 3rd they have absurd articles which can be considered stupid/funny .. they are talking about daughters of God in Islam?? how on earth could someone cite such a site? I think they only should cite it for humor! and it's even offending to use it as humor.

The page I wanted to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_...quest_of_Egypt
Formerly (18 August) they wrote: gradual forced conversions to Islam .. it was even without a citation! .. now, someone edited it and provided the citation to be: the gradual conversions to Islam .. as you notice, one word could turn the meaning into something else!

It looks like this debate could go on forever! Some people consider a source like Dr. Kent Hovind to be "properly cited from illustrious and recognized sources!" but the Wiki community would know that what he said is probably just unsupportable junk he fabricated in his own mind. But I'll believe that you had better references than that.

Like I said, Wiki is not perfect, but it often comes in very handy. It's not my only source of information. And in time it will improve. I see no reason to trash it.

That is an excellent thing to add! Hopefully it will be made even better.

Yes, I recognise the source! It is only humourous to consider them a reliable source of science. It's like I mentioned earlier to PurestAmbrosia. Religious topics can go back and forth forever.

Here's how Wiki handles it. I do have to say that providing both sides of the issue is not a bad idea. There are other ways this information being claimed was unknowable at the time could have been known. You might disagree with them, but they have a right to challenge the conclusions. Best to see both sides than let one side write what they want.

That's another religion charged topic that could be in dispute for ages to come. But if you can cite verifiable manuscripts written in that period that would prove it either way then it would be hard for anyone to challenge.

I see plenty--and have linked to plenty and continue to see plenty wrong-- will take more than 'I averred its eternal verities by my word which is law' to convince us that it is anything but just that-- trash!

And again I welcome you to use it.. I have no quarrels with you.. I have stated my reasons as to why I don't, and why I advise anyone serious enough about their work not to! I've presented articles.. You have come and declared some covert objectives. I am not quite sure for what intent?--I hardly think a testament to signify massive approval. Or that people will really go by either objectives.. on some level it is insulting to people's intelligence!

Anyhow.. I get tired of debating back and forth to what seems to me a point of view rather than a fact-- and I see this played successively on various topics.. sometimes a person should just know when it is time to quit!

peace!

WikiPedia has an excellent entry on Evolution. Seriously! It's one of the best discussions on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



P.S. I couldn't resist that one!

My point is that some (notice I said "some") of their entries are very good, even if you think they are trash.

Anyway, I'm done arguing. But if you want me to post another good entry that makes Wiki look good then let me know.

I agree, but only when you provide a reasonable site .. how does it make sense when I access a site about the bible talking about scientific issues in Islam and even doesn't provide proper scientific data in this issue nor in other issues
This makes me wonder, shall I create a personal site and write whatever I want and cite it in wikipedia in many topics?

well, we do have the evidence already:
Quran (2:256) There is no compulsion and coercion in regard to religion.
Also, we can use live evidences in Indonesia (did any army went their and forced them to convert to Islam?) .. that word "forced" was put not for a religious issue, but rather for a political issue

I just did a little investigating. Their story holds water. Here's a book that describes the human embryo, notice the date of the author:

http://alexandria-respectlife.org/embryogenesis.aspx

I could not find the text of the book, but the title is specific enough that we can assume that it includes what is found in the Quran. In this case there is credible evidence to back up their claims. To be fair, it must be included. But not all of their material passes review, some of it has no credible evidence to back it up.

You would need better evidence than a scriptural passage. Good ones would be numerous diaries of people who converted explaining why they did so, letters from people explaining the situation, and other eye witness accounts. Without them, the actual events are anyone's guess. And yes, religious issues are often used for political purposes. It's very annoying. Normally all sides of a religious issue do that.

I personally like wikipedia. Sure its not a scholarly source, but its a great introduction to a subject I may next to no knowledge about. I also use it to get a feel for certain books/movies/games I am thinking of buying and then go to amazon.com to see the reviews, prices etc.

I think that although its not as credibile as a book, there isnt man options for e-debates especially to open forums. Lets face it, if I wrote a 12pg article and cited some scholarly papers (ones I use tend to be around 15-100pgs) ppl will most likely ignore it or just make a single comment and not bother reading it. Its happened before and its incredibly irritating. I perfer then to use wikipedia (after reading the articles and comparing it to the info I have) as a layman's sumup of the pts I am trying to make. In that way anyone can follow along even if the info is a bit basic.

That aside, I see folks using numerous questionable sites to promote their viewpoint. As Science101 mentioned, this is typical of creationists and political extemists. Same goes with quoting material from psedo- Dr.s. Typically folks on an open forum wont bother to investigate beyond what has been presented. At least with wiki, everyone can follow along and not be lost by the language specific to a particular subject and trying to discern who is a legitamite scholar in a particular subject and who is just full of BS.

Late breaking news from www.conspiracytheory.com

In a CIA sponsored coup, wikipedia was overthrown by Encyclopedia Britannica.

The spokes person from Britannica said they expected to have all the errors removed wikipedia within 6 weeks and then it should become a trusted sight.

I think it's not a problem to know there's a placenta .. but did anyone ever wrote the steps of embryonic formation correctly? if there's someone, Dr. Moor wouldn't have said this Quran is from God ..
Quran 23:14 Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Have a look at congealed blood, did anyone expect this?

That's really easy
For this particular Article, can a recording of the optic church be enough when they say 80:200 Christians are converting to Islam every day?
or posting videos of new Muslim converts? individuals and families of course.

That's what the title of the book suggests, and the link says.

Chances are, he might not have known about it.

I have studied embryology enough to know the basics. Hate to say it, but that is not accurate. One sperm cell enters the egg, dissolves, releasing its 23 chromosomes into the egg that also has 23 to make a full set of 46 chromosomes which makes a viable cell with the ability to divide into many more cells. The cell divides into a free-floating mass called a blastocyst as shown below (four of them are shown).



There is no blood in it. This blastocyst implants itself like a seed planted into the ground, then later grows blood vessels like roots to share the blood of the mother for oxygen and nutrients. It's not a blood clot, or made of sperm, it's a mass of cells that gets its nutrients from the egg cell they develop inside. Like a chicken egg, there is yolk inside, but no hard shell because it's not needed.

Bones are formed last. Cells that will divide to become bone find a comfortable place in the mass of cells but there is no bone formation until there are arms, legs, head, etc..

The Quran would at least have to explain what I just did for it to be a convincing description of a developing embryo. But there is no mention of sperm implantation, number of chromosomes in sperm and egg, or other important things one needs to know to understand the basics of embryology.

What is happening now or a statement from a religious leader would not be evidence due to their often saying things for political purposes. It would have to be from the time period in question and directly address why they are converting without the possibility that facts are not included. That's why you would need something like diaries of people who converted to find out if they were truly converting because they wanted to. It's very possible that they were being pressured to do so. Didn't they have to pay a special tax if they did not convert? Someone who could not afford that tax or other punishment would still be forced to convert against their will.

About the clot issue
Even the third meaning isn't wrong