Talk:Main Page/Archive 1
Contents
Featured article on the front page
Hi Dr. Grove,
What do you think of having a featured article in the front page? I think it is a good idea to project one important article on to the front page that keeps the content in the front page more interesting and updated and also helps in highlighting some of the articles.
-Prab
- Hi Prab. I think the featured article section in the front page is a great idea.
- Hi,
Thanks for the message and for the interest in working on this wiki. Please check your email for further details. Thanks.
-Prab
- Hi,
Offer of inclusion of a Wikibook "Christianity"
Hello,
A couple of days ago I set up a wikibook for Christianity under wikipedia at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Christianity
I was browsing today to see if any search engines know about it, and I stumbled across this wiki site when searching yahoo. It looks to me that you've only recently set this up. It seems that a couple of people (apart from me) have started contributing to the wikibook I set up - it's still very small however. I'm wondering if you think I should move my articles over into your wiki and redirect anyone who browses my wiki to yours. Or perhaps the wikibook I've started doesn't quite fit into what you had envisaged for this wiki, in which case, I won't make any changes.
I'm not particularly familiar with communicating in wiki, so I hope you find this message. Could you let me know if I should move my articles into this wiki site or not; let me know via my email, you'll find my email address at http://www.users.on.net/~graham_grove/contact.htm
I've written a brief summary of why I set up the wikibook "Christianity" at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/About_this_wikibook%2C_%22Christianity%22
Thanks
Graham Grove
Jaunary 15 2005
- Graham
To declare an interest - I am an atheist - but I am not here to vandalise, far from it!
Why am I here then?
Though an atheist I find Christianity of great interest, as the most influential single idea of the last 2,000 years. I acknowledge the debt of all modern thinkers to the work of Christian theologists and philosophers.
Apart from contributing an article on atheism, and possibly one on arguments for the existence of God, I have a certain amount of knowledge of Christianity and can contribute to historical articles, though not on doctrinal matters such as the trinity, which passeth my (if not all) understanding. That is, I can DESCRIBE such matters but not from within, and not with the understanding that comes from faith.
I am not sure what form you intend this "wikipedia" to take. Your articles are in the 1st person. Whilst this is appropriate for a faith based largely on revalation and personal experience of God, I imagined an encylopedia of Christianity to be more like, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, giving a more objective, 3rd person view (but still having a definite pro-Christian point of view). Of course a Christian encyclopedia will have to accomodate a wide variety of points of view so will have to, when addressing controversial issues (transubstantiation, the trinity, immaculate conception) present rival views extremely carefully. Now this could be done by having 1st person articles by those with different views - or a 3rd person article describing the rival views. --Exile 07:30, 3 Feb 2005 (PST)
- Hi Exile,
I just read through your articles on atheism. Good work. Thanks for contributing. My vision of ChristianWiki is not for it to be a replica of wikipedia. I've also looked befeore at the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I don't believe that WikiChristian should follow a similar format either. For faith based issues, everyone has different opinions, so every-one should be able to write about their beliefs and opinions (1st person articles as you say). Like you say, it's also good that people write articles describing differing views. (Of course, the problem is there is always someone who is unhappy with how a particular opinion is being portrayed. But I hope instead of a person overwriting or changing another person's article [unless it is clearly trying to incite anger or is obviously factually incorrect], that the person just writes another alternative article on the same topic). I hope you don't mind, but I moved your articles into a sub-location so that other people can write articles on the same topic, without having to change yours.
- Hi Exile,
- OK. I see what your aim is now. In this context my article may not have been appropriate as it was more in the vein of wikipedia, trying (if not succeeding) to present an objective rather than personal view. I may be able to provide a contribution to an "existence of God" section, looking at the various arguments (ontological, intelligent design and so on). Not sure I could contribute much elsewhere as so much of Christianity is dependent on the "axiom" of the existence of a God who loves humanity. Atheists do debate such things as the historicity of Jesus etc but such a point of view probably doesn't belong here. --Exile 08:49, 4 Feb 2005 (PST)
- Exile, I'm not sure that third person objective articles would be out of place here. From what I can see there is a bit of both...and I think that is good, to have both personal experience articles, as well as perhaps a main article (or at least an article somewhere) that is more objective, inclusive, etc, etc...Just my thoughts. --Cpark 10:47, 4 Feb 2005 (PST)
Again: Featured Article?
Hey all, I like the idea of having a featured article, but since so many of our articles are still in the development stages perhaps having a "featured article" at the moment is a bit premature. What thoughts does everyone else have on this?
- Hi all. I've removed the "Website of the week" and the "Collaboration of the week" from the main page because they haven't changed for a month or so. I guess there isn't enough critical mass at the moment for the "of the week" variety add-ons. Graham
MediaWiki 1.5.4 is available
Just a note to the website administrator, as of this comment, MediaWiki 1.5.4 is available. I would highly recommend the upgrade, especially since the site is still running on 1.3.9. Have a merry Christmas! --Ymmotrojam 03:23, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
THUS -> If you do not believe, if you do not accept Jesus as your ticket to Salvation, you will not have eternal life.
Changes
Hi Prab. I noticed you changed the main page back to an old version, but I wasn't quite sure why. I changed in back to the most recent version - it is pretty similar to the older version except that it is more concise and better structured I think. --Muser 13:47, 7 Jan 2006 (EST)
New Logo
The previous logo, a sunflower, looked rather pagan to me. So I was pleasantly surprised to see a more relevant logo. Nevertheless, I would have considered it more appropriate had the Holy Bible be shown as an open' rather than a closed book... 05:24, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
WikiChristian in addition to Wikipedia Christian articles?
I have previously expressed that I consider it a mistake to have a separate WikiChristian. Logically this calls for the setting up of WikiJudaism, WikiIslam etc (I have not checked, maybe work on them is already under way). It seems to me to go against the aim of the founder of Wikipedia which I understand is to have one centralised encyclopedic source for all knowledge. At present the Christian articles in Wikipedia have sub-chapters presenting divergent teachings of various Christian denominations as well as non-Christian religions on the same subject. This is one of Wikipedia's finest achievements. Or is going to be, I hope, once it is all finished. Right now I am by no means always happy with the quality of what I see on my occasional visits to Wikipedia; but I commend the format and appreciate the enormous effort that goes into bringing the material together in this way, and protecting it subsequently, and have high hopes for the final result.
Furthermore, to be practical, many a qualified contributor will not have the time to contribute to two sources on the same subjects and then to watch over them what someone less qualified perhaps makes of them. This is a problem already in Wikipedia, for example, when there is one article on a book, another on its author, a third on his fan club, to generalise the issue. Since Wikipedia insists that the articles need to be self-contained, so to speak, because they may be freely quoted elsewhere where the cross-referencing does not work, this means that already a contributor says much the same in more than one place. Now, to do the same in a separate WikiChristian? Will it not lower the standard? I have done some useful brushing up of some material where I know what I am saying and then had a tough time repairing subsequent edits by others whose do-gooding was not matched by an equal amount of specialist knowledge. I most certainly would not want to go through the same process in two encyclopedias. Life is too short; and I do have a life, and very much so. In fact, having burnt much midnight oil and used up vast quantities of elbow grease contributing sound edits and then endlessly defending them, especially against editors with a different agenda, this modus operandi finally caused me to give up the idea of contributing articles or even just major edits to Wikipedia. Occasionally, over a sandwich or cup of coffee, I still pay a brief visit to Wikipedia and either am appalled by the result of some big-headed ignorance or bias that I find, or delighted at efforts attributable to brave soldiering on; but I no longer think it feasible for me to try to help to pull the cart out of the mud, if that's where it is at that moment of my visit. (If I am alone with this reaction, then I would like to hear the secret of where others find the necessary time.) I suggest that the present Wikipedia articles on Christian subjects show that, with suitable sub-headings, even the intended aim of WikiChristian can be incorporated. And that of Judaism, Islam, and indeed any religion that feels they have something to contribute, e.g. Hinduism on the Trinity (Trimurti). But let all Wiki efforts be inclusive rather than divisive. The great point of Wikipedia is that the contributors are asked to agree to disagree (NPOV) so that its readers can make up their own mind. Dividing the efforts means placing the intended effectiveness of Wikipedia in jeopardy. Rally round Wikipedia to achieve its founder's aim! 05:24, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
- I think the issue of NPOV on Wikipedia is a contentious one for editors of religious based articles. Christians do have a point of view that is not shared by all. To present a subject from a Christian point of view is exactly what this wiki does, without having to cater to the ideological/semantic concerns of those who have a differing POV outside of Christianity. Wikipedia has its own set of goals and concerns that are not really related to the goals and concerns of WikiChristian. WikiChristian will host articles that would never even be considered by Wikipedia. Additionally it will categorise articles in ways that are more relevant to Christian content. I strongly doubt that the existence of WikiChristian is in anyway a threat to the Wikipedia nor will it place in jeopardy the religious based articles on Wikipedia. In terms of comparing the scale of Wikipedia to the scale of WikiChristian, we are talking about comparing a mountain to a mole hill. Wikipedia is a huge and complex endeavour, with thousands of editors. WikiChristian by comparison is a minnow amongst wikis. There really is no comparison to be made. --Mustaphile 08:01, 16 Jan 2006 (EST)
