306:: Yes. There are often conflicts between believers and non-believers, for lack of better terms, and occasionally these make it up to WikiProject Religion, though most (I think) are resolved on a lower level. I've found that a good way of getting around conflicts is to ignore the ad-hominems that are often thrown around ("you're just saying that because you're a ..."), find the best neutral source you can, and then try to make the article reflect the source's point of view. In matters of religion and belief, this can involve side-stepping the unanswerable questions of who's right and wrong, and just say what people believe. ("Muslims believe this, Christians say that, Atheists believe this.") Religious belief shouldn't be treated as
254:: Yes, but unfortunately not many. Differing perspectives can always be an issue with collaboratively written articles. This is especially true with religious topics. Although, I'd say the most significant impediment is a lack of regular editors contributing rather than an over-abundance. The wisdom of numbers tend to check strong POVs. This is not to say the WikiProject doesn't benefit from many good contributors, but there are currently 130 names on the member roles, ~6000 religion-tagged articles, and over 10000 pages in WP Religion's scope. Many articles simply never come close to GAN and FAC level, let alone grapple with the process.
323:: The answer to the first question is that many of the smaller religious groups which have editors who are passionately interested in them are covered fairly well. For some of the smaller religions which aren't as appealing to Westerners, or which might have, basically, disappeared over time, in a lot of cases, they aren't covered very well at all. This would include a lot of the Native American religious traditions, some of the Central Asian traditions, and many or maybe even most of the traditional religions which have over time faced diminishing numbers through colonization and other matters.
340:: There is an incredible amount of overlap between the two, as most myths are basically, in some way, religious in nature. One way to resolve any questions regarding which project(s) deal with which article(s) is to determine whether the reference sources, and other reliable sources, deal with a given topic as mythological, religious, or both. If either project can demonstrate that reference sources or other sources in its field clearly and substantially deal with the content, then there really isn't a lot of reason for another group to not welcome their involvement.
390:: I very, very much wish there were, but right now I don't know of any. There is at least a few religious WikiProjects and work groups which deal with interreligious topics, like the Bible, religious texts, theology, and interfaith matters, but they haven't in a lot of cases gotten as much attention. If anyone thought they knew of a way to help develop such collaborations, please let me and the other members of the groups know and maybe we can work on some way to get such collaborations going.
272:(very minor role). I'd say one of the harder parts was finding the fine line of NPOV that would satisfy editors/readers who view the article's subject as either fiction/fraud or absolute truth. I remember a GA review failing because the article didn't fit the reviewer's particular point of view (it wasn't polemic enough). That said, my personal experience with the GA review process has been good, probably because I was lucky enough to get some really top-notch reviewers when I nominated.
463:
121:
290:, for instance, which, depending on the sources you consult, are either terms used more or less uniquely by one religious group, like maybe Christianity in this case, or which are, maybe incorrectly, maybe not, also used at least occasionally by other groups for somewhat similar phenomena. Such difficult to resolve questions are probably in at least some cases among the reasons such articles don't get as much active attention and improvement as they probably deserve.
111:
412:, who, so far as I have seen, is included as a subtopic of an article on the Herodian dynasty in encyclopedic sources as often as not, and, in most if not all cases, is still the subject of the overwhelming amount of material in that article on the dynasty. But, particularly for newcomers, I think maybe getting your feet wet with some of the poorly developed or missing material discussed in such lists would be a good place to start.
300:, religion is the very embodiment of POV. When an individual sees an article contradicting their perspective on a subject close to their heart, it can be distressing. However, most disputes come from misunderstandings which can be resolved with intelligent and analytical discussion. Often such disputes reveal issues to all sides that each weren't adequately considering and the subject articles tend to improve as a result.
37:
131:
91:
369:: Atheism is counted by at least one reference book as a "secular faith," and has been recognized by some governments as a religion, so yeah, to the extent that "religion" sources deal with irreligion, we try to help out there a little as well. Regarding how well those topics are covered, unfortunately, I have to say I don't really necessarily know. I have managed to get together some lists, like
141:
217:: I joined the Religion project because as a member, even if not the most active member, of basically all the other religion-based WikiProjects, it became clear to me that there was still a lot of encyclopedic content which we did not (and still do not) have here, and that, probably to noone's surprise, there also wasn't a group which clearly and effectively existed to deal with such content.
94:
101:
346:: There is a great deal of overlap. If a mythology is a sacred narrative or collection traditional stories, then all religions include mythologies as integral constituents of what they are. However, many people feel uneasy referring to stories from their respective religions as "mythology" for fear that it will be interoperated as indicating a lack of factual integrity.
418:: I would say WP Religion's most urgent needs are the same as most other WikiProjects. Increased contribution and inter-collaboration. Most articles can be brought to a B or GA level of quality with a few days of solid work. New contributors can help by finding neglected articles, improving them with material from reliable academic sources &
408:
overview/reference works, which we don't yet have to be developed or improved. Also, many of those lists include lists of subarticles, which, depending on the amount of material in them, might qualify either as separate articles here, or as significant sections of existing articles. One such example is
30:
WikiProject
Religion: This week, the Signpost delved into the vast and complex areas of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that make up religion. WikiProject Religion has been around since 2005 and has a complex scope, in that it only takes articles that deal with religion in a non-sectarian
277:
When we conducted a series of interviews with the WikiProjects covering
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we saw that all of these projects dealt to some extent with conflicts over the point of view expressed in articles. Do these conflicts ever bubble up to WikiProject Religion? What are the best
407:
which list the topics covered in at least one reference book, and which probably, in many or most cases, can rather clearly qualify as notable enough for discussion here. At this point, probably our most urgent needs are for some of the basic content discussed in those lists, and in other topical
225:: As with Knowledge in general, I saw a large amount of well written informative content, but it was (and is) incomplete. I joined the WikiProject to work with other editors interested in improving Knowledge's religion articles. Yes, but that varies and I focus on one narrow subfield at a time.
528:
363:: It does handle things like atheism, as atheism is one side of the religious spectrum. The thing that get handed more are what individual editors have a grater passion for. So in the case of WikiProject Religion that tends to be the articles related to the Aramaic faith traditions.
373:, which indicate the articles, subarticles, and relative length of content for some of the religion projects, but there aren't really that I know of any similar reference sources on "irreligion," which can make it a bit harder to find out what all should be covered here.
114:
404:
209:: My love of learning, and my desire to bring my knowledge and understanding of the part of the religious would that I have had the pleasure of getting to know (the Unitarian Universalist world) to others.
176:), along with any articles that do not have a dedicated daughter project. There are 56 items of featured material under the project's scope, along with two A-class and 112 good articles. We interviewed
134:
104:
144:
286:: Oh, yeah. I have a feeling that one of the reasons the Religion project was created was to help deal with such matters, actually. There are a lot of topics in the broad field of religion, like
543:
77:
517:
450:
441:
315:
How well are smaller religions covered by
Knowledge? If a religion does not have a dedicated WikiProject, where do discussions and collaborations typically take place?
124:
497:
512:
370:
576:
507:
502:
433:
487:
432:
Stay tuned for next week's article, which will deal with an entirely different-language
Wikimedia project. Until then, find your favorite candidate in the
480:
238:
Have you contributed to any of the project's
Featured or Good Articles? What challenges do editors face when bringing an article about religion to the
474:
56:
45:
233:: It seemed like a good place to collaborate. I'm also a member of the LDS WikiProject, and probably the Christianity Wikiproject (I think..)
641:
548:
168:
has been around since 2005 and has a complex scope, in that it only takes articles that deal with religion in a non-sectarian sense (like
564:
555:
21:
616:
588:
532:
611:
606:
563:
I have not had a chance to read this wikiproject report yet (I am behind on a lot of things), but just happened to see that
601:
428:: I'd say more contributors who are willing to dig in and do the hard research necessary to bring stuff to GA quality.
329:
296:: Of course they do. Unlike other areas where we can depend extensively on empirical evidence and other sorts of
199:
What motivated you to join WikiProject
Religion? Do you also participate in any specific religion's WikiProject?
71:
164:
delved into the vast and complex areas of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that make up religion.
596:
462:
50:
36:
17:
382:
collaborations that could take place on
Knowledge to improve articles relevant to multiple faiths?
572:
622:
419:
8:
422:(as applicable), and familiarizing themselves with Knowledge's house style and standards.
403:: Like I said above, many of the religion WikiProjects have already a page like those in
269:
165:
568:
539:
379:
307:
221:
213:
185:
181:
409:
395:
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
229:
189:
635:
243:
239:
205:
177:
154:
31:
sense, along with any articles that do not have a dedicated daughter project.
265:
352:
173:
287:
261:
169:
371:
328:
What relationship does WikiProject
Religion have with
405:
Category: WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles
278:
ways to calm editors and resolve contentious issues?
553:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
567:is currently also a candidate for wiki-adminship X
355:? How well are these topics covered by Knowledge?
633:
332:? Is there any overlap in the projects' scopes?
152:
351:Does WikiProject Religion handle forms of
556:
14:
634:
55:
29:
268:to GA. I also did the GA review for
642:Knowledge Signpost archives 2013-07
27:
461:
310:or fact, but somewhere in between.
57:
35:
28:
653:
538:These comments are automatically
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
549:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
524:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
589:delivered to your talk page
10:
658:
577:14:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
565:one of the interviewees
546:. To follow comments,
466:
454:"WikiProject report" â
264:to GA, and helped get
40:
465:
330:WikiProject Mythology
39:
542:from this article's
446:"WikiProject report"
420:newspapers of record
166:WikiProject Religion
72:WikiProject Religion
533:Discuss this story
518:Arbitration report
493:WikiProject report
467:
69:WikiProject report
46:â Back to Contents
41:
557:purging the cache
498:Discussion report
51:View Latest Issue
649:
625:
584:Want the latest
560:
558:
552:
531:
513:Featured content
485:
477:
470:
453:
445:
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
657:
656:
652:
651:
650:
648:
647:
646:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
621:
619:
614:
609:
604:
599:
592:
581:
580:
562:
554:
547:
536:
535:
529:+ Add a comment
527:
523:
522:
521:
478:
473:
471:
468:
457:
456:
451:
448:
443:
410:Herod the Great
160:This week, the
158:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
655:
645:
644:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
595:
594:
593:
583:
582:
579:
537:
534:
526:
525:
520:
515:
510:
508:Traffic report
505:
503:News and notes
500:
495:
490:
484:
472:
460:
459:
458:
449:
440:
439:
438:
430:
429:
423:
413:
397:
396:
392:
391:
384:
383:
378:Are there any
375:
374:
364:
357:
356:
348:
347:
341:
334:
333:
325:
324:
317:
316:
312:
311:
301:
291:
280:
279:
274:
273:
255:
248:
247:
235:
234:
226:
218:
210:
201:
200:
195:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
654:
643:
640:
639:
637:
624:
618:
613:
608:
603:
598:
590:
587:
578:
574:
570:
566:
559:
550:
545:
541:
530:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
476:
469:In this issue
464:
455:
447:
437:
435:
427:
424:
421:
417:
414:
411:
406:
402:
399:
398:
394:
393:
389:
386:
385:
381:
377:
376:
372:
368:
365:
362:
359:
358:
354:
350:
349:
345:
342:
339:
336:
335:
331:
327:
326:
322:
319:
318:
314:
313:
309:
305:
302:
299:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
281:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:: Yes, I got
259:
256:
253:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
236:
232:
231:
227:
224:
223:
219:
216:
215:
211:
208:
207:
203:
202:
198:
197:
196:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
585:
569:Ottawahitech
492:
488:In the media
481:all comments
475:24 July 2013
431:
425:
415:
400:
387:
366:
361:Devin Murphy
360:
343:
337:
320:
303:
297:
293:
283:
266:Joseph Smith
257:
251:
228:
220:
212:
206:Devin Murphy
204:
194:
178:Devin Murphy
161:
159:
58:24 July 2013
623:Suggestions
591:each month?
540:transcluded
401:John Carter
388:John Carter
367:John Carter
338:John Carter
321:John Carter
284:John Carter
270:BahĂĄ'u'llĂĄh
214:John Carter
182:John Carter
380:interfaith
353:irreligion
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2013-07-24
617:Subscribe
544:talk page
426:Adjwilley
304:Adjwilley
258:Adjwilley
230:Adjwilley
190:Adjwilley
636:Category
612:Newsroom
607:Archives
586:Signpost
444:Previous
246:process?
174:theology
162:Signpost
155:Mabeenot
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
434:archive
288:Baptism
262:Mormons
115:Twitter
416:Sowlos
344:Sowlos
308:fringe
294:Sowlos
252:Sowlos
222:Sowlos
188:, and
186:Sowlos
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
602:About
298:facts
16:<
597:Home
573:talk
452:Next
145:Digg
244:GAN
242:or
240:FAC
172:or
170:God
153:By
80:â
638::
575:)
442:â
436:.
192:.
184:,
180:,
571:(
561:.
551:.
483:)
479:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
