Who all is out there?

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

I'm curious as to how many people out there are going to be working on religion articles. I'm interested in about twenty or thirty different religions, but would be most drawn to NRM's and Western esoteric subjects.

A concern: In many cases, religious followers try to pack fora like this with their own believers, and then write the article the way they want it. In some cases (Scientology) other people are on to this, while in other cases, the religion is obscure enough that basically only their own members are interested.

On Wikipedia, the result is basically a free-for-all on articles like "Jesus" (whom everybody seems to have an opinion about), absolute quiesscence on articles like "Burkhanism" which nobody cares about, but articles like "Kapila" get written by a bunch of Hare Krishna devotees who have a very skewed view of the subject. How is CZ's editorial structure going to affect this?

(Is there a religion editor, anyway? Or several editors?)

[Zachary Pruckowski]

As it stands, there are currently no religious editors (we only have 130 total).  We obviously need to work on that, and we're hopefully going to be getting a nice influx of people when we go public.  Make sure you've joined [[Category:Religion_Authors]], since we at least have 3 people there.

One of the ideas we had earlier in the CZ development process (one that hasn't been talked about a lot) is the idea that we're going to put multiple PoVs on a page, provided that each has a strong grounding in expert opinion and in fact.  For instance, I think the Jesus article could be written first with some general details everyone could agree on, and then we'll let the people with different points of view have a bit of space to say "Catholics believe in x" and then "Baptists believe in y".  We're not going to let people on the fringes ("Jesus lives in my peach tree") have their say though, because we want to address only major PoVs.

[James Hare]

As Wikipedia does it, each viewpoint gets coverage in proportion to the length of the article. Majority viewpoints are covered in detail and notable minorities get a mention.

[Larry Sanger]

Zach, there is at least one religion editor, as I recall, and maybe more than one, but we haven't tagged all the editors' user pages.  Obviously, this will change when we start doing some more recruitment--in January.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

Zach, there is at least one religion editor, as I recall, and maybe more than one, but we haven't tagged all the editors' user pages.  Obviously, this will change when we start doing some more recruitment--in January.

Ah.  My bad.  I thought we did that when we activated the accounts.

[David Goodman]

As it stands, there are currently no religious editors (we only have 130 total).  We obviously need to work on that, and we're hopefully going to be getting a nice influx of people when we go public.  Make sure you've joined [[Category:Religion_Authors]], since we at least have 3 people there.

One of the ideas we had earlier in the CZ development process (one that hasn't been talked about a lot) is the idea that we're going to put multiple PoVs on a page, provided that each has a strong grounding in expert opinion and in fact.  For instance, I think the Jesus article could be written first with some general details everyone could agree on, and then we'll let the people with different points of view have a bit of space to say "Catholics believe in x" and then "Baptists believe in y".  We're not going to let people on the fringes ("Jesus lives in my peach tree") have their say though, because we want to address only major PoVs.

We will however have to allow for Jewish and Muslim views, and take this sort of responsibility more seriously than the custom in WP. In WP, views get represented in these articles only if there happens to be an editor who cares about them.

[MichaelTowns]

I'm hoping we'll include some Mormon POV as well. 

[gren]

I am 'out there' although I have made no edits yet.  I have a decent amount of knowledge about Islam--but it is by no means exhaustive on any subject.  I was waiting to watch another editor start working on Islam-related pages and maybe work of of his or her example.  In any case, I do exist and check in periodically.

[Peter Kirby]

I am a student of Religious Studies at the California State University, Fullerton.  I am dissatisfied with Wikipedia, and boy, is there a lot of work to do!

Mostly my focus is on Christian history.

regards,
Peter Kirby

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Hi everybody, and thanks for replying.

What level of expertise is an "editor" intended to have? For example, should the "Jesus" article be edited by

(a) a collection of experts in Jesus Studies, Christian and Islamic history, art and literature, popular culture, and so on?
(b) anybody with a speciality in some aspect of Jesus or Christianity?
(c) anybody with a degree in religious studies, regardless of field?

On Wikipedia I found myself writing on an embarrassingly wide array of religions (Christianity, Taoism, Satanism, Yoga, Subud, Baha'i, Burkhanism, I-Kuan Tao...) A danger is that if I (and people like me) do the same thing here, and submit their work to an editor who is equally amateurish, the result will not necessarily improve on Wikipedia. Of course we could always hope for a real expert to pop by later, that seems to happen a lot for philosophy.

Check out "Baha'i religion" if you're interested (or even if you're not, if you're the editor!). I still have a bunch of notes / links to add to the text.  It's looong--are we still bound to the old limits? Wikipedia "solved" the problem by dividing it into about a hundred (really) Baha'i-related articles, few of them good.

Again, I am concerned that the Baha'is will eventually try to get their people in as editors here. I've learned that they now regard their Wikipedia articles as a major PR concern.

EDIT: PS. Here's an immediate, practical example. I wrote nearly all of Wikipedia's article on "Burkhanism" and naturally think it's okay. ("Good enough for jazz," anyway.) So what will the process be for CZ? I suppose our fabled new religion editor will have a look at it, but chances are he/she won't know anything about the subject. The regular Burkhanism scholars are likely to either be too busy to get involved, or not fluent in English, though some might agree to serve as "referees" (if we're using that system). So, how would anyone know whether what I wrote on Burkhanism is good enough for CZ? (And multiply by hundreds of other obscure topics in religion.)

[Mike3]

As it stands, there are currently no religious editors (we only have 130 total).  We obviously need to work on that, and we're hopefully going to be getting a nice influx of people when we go public.  Make sure you've joined [[Category:Religion_Authors]], since we at least have 3 people there.

One of the ideas we had earlier in the CZ development process (one that hasn't been talked about a lot) is the idea that we're going to put multiple PoVs on a page, provided that each has a strong grounding in expert opinion and in fact.  For instance, I think the Jesus article could be written first with some general details everyone could agree on, and then we'll let the people with different points of view have a bit of space to say "Catholics believe in x" and then "Baptists believe in y".  We're not going to let people on the fringes ("Jesus lives in my peach tree") have their say though, because we want to address only major PoVs.

Well not even Wikipedia would allow a viewpoint that fringe. How would you determine the notability of a viewpoint or topic for inclusion, anyway? What about views less fringe than that? Even if they have, say several large detailed published articles in a reputable source of some sort would they still not be notable enough?

Addendum (1/25/2007): I'd really appreciate a response. What constitutes a "major" (sounds like a synonym for "notable") POV, and could less-major POVs be included in separate articles like on WP?

[Mike3]

Hi everybody, and thanks for replying.

What level of expertise is an "editor" intended to have? For example, should the "Jesus" article be edited by

(a) a collection of experts in Jesus Studies, Christian and Islamic history, art and literature, popular culture, and so on?
(b) anybody with a speciality in some aspect of Jesus or Christianity?
(c) anybody with a degree in religious studies, regardless of field?

On Wikipedia I found myself writing on an embarrassingly wide array of religions (Christianity, Taoism, Satanism, Yoga, Subud, Baha'i, Burkhanism, I-Kuan Tao...) A danger is that if I (and people like me) do the same thing here, and submit their work to an editor who is equally amateurish, the result will not necessarily improve on Wikipedia. Of course we could always hope for a real expert to pop by later, that seems to happen a lot for philosophy.

Check out "Baha'i religion" if you're interested (or even if you're not, if you're the editor!). I still have a bunch of notes / links to add to the text.  It's looong--are we still bound to the old limits? Wikipedia "solved" the problem by dividing it into about a hundred (really) Baha'i-related articles, few of them good.

Again, I am concerned that the Baha'is will eventually try to get their people in as editors here. I've learned that they now regard their Wikipedia articles as a major PR concern.

EDIT: PS. Here's an immediate, practical example. I wrote nearly all of Wikipedia's article on "Burkhanism" and naturally think it's okay. ("Good enough for jazz," anyway.) So what will the process be for CZ? I suppose our fabled new religion editor will have a look at it, but chances are he/she won't know anything about the subject. The regular Burkhanism scholars are likely to either be too busy to get involved, or not fluent in English, though some might agree to serve as "referees" (if we're using that system). So, how would anyone know whether what I wrote on Burkhanism is good enough for CZ? (And multiply by hundreds of other obscure topics in religion.)

And how would one maintain true neutrality in the face of their tendency to have pro-<Their Religion> biases, anyway? Just like how mainstream scientists have pro-mainstream biases.

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

A UFO article shouldn't be too hard. Wikipedia's is actually pretty good in terms of presenting facts, though the article badly needs an editor. (I mean an actual editor, not a writer.) The subject is not so much the strange things seen in the skies, or the little green (now gray) men themselves, as the talk that goes on about all that. A decade-by-decade history covering pro-UFO claims, as well as skeptical criticisms (perhaps with Ufological rebuttals of same), would be ideal.

With Jesus, not everybody's opinion is equal. For that matter, not everybody's religion is equal. I'd divide it like this: (a) historical Jesus / Jesus Studies, (b) Jesus of Christianity (esp. the larger and/or older denominations), (c) Jesus the prophet of Islam, and (d) artistic and literary depictions of Jesus. I do believe it is possible to be even-handed about theologically sensitive subjects, so that (for example) a well-informed Baptist editor ought to still eb able to see that the Catholics are important, and represent their perspectives accurately.

With Wikipedia, there was a tendency for people to add (after Christian views, Muslim views, etc.) stuff like "Yo-ist views of Jesus." Which is fine in an article about Yo-ism (it's an open-source internet religion) but doesn't deserve space in the Jesus article. What about Satanic views of Jesus? (Their opinions are diverse and individually unimportant.) Hindu views? (Hard to select representative opinions.) Baha'i views? (Not important enough, though they always like to get their name in there.) Mormon views? (I'd give them a couple of lines.) New Age views? (I added a paragraph on this, but could go either way.)   

[Mike3]

A UFO article shouldn't be too hard. Wikipedia's is actually pretty good in terms of presenting facts, though the article badly needs an editor. (I mean an actual editor, not a writer.) The subject is not so much the strange things seen in the skies, or the little green (now gray) men themselves, as the talk that goes on about all that. A decade-by-decade history covering pro-UFO claims, as well as skeptical criticisms (perhaps with Ufological rebuttals of same), would be ideal.

With Jesus, not everybody's opinion is equal. For that matter, not everybody's religion is equal. I'd divide it like this: (a) historical Jesus / Jesus Studies, (b) Jesus of Christianity (esp. the larger and/or older denominations), (c) Jesus the prophet of Islam, and (d) artistic and literary depictions of Jesus. I do believe it is possible to be even-handed about theologically sensitive subjects, so that (for example) a well-informed Baptist editor ought to still eb able to see that the Catholics are important, and represent their perspectives accurately.

With Wikipedia, there was a tendency for people to add (after Christian views, Muslim views, etc.) stuff like "Yo-ist views of Jesus." Which is fine in an article about Yo-ism (it's an open-source internet religion) but doesn't deserve space in the Jesus article. What about Satanic views of Jesus? (Their opinions are diverse and individually unimportant.) Hindu views? (Hard to select representative opinions.) Baha'i views? (Not important enough, though they always like to get their name in there.) Mormon views? (I'd give them a couple of lines.) New Age views? (I added a paragraph on this, but could go either way.)   

Oh, in other words the UFO article should focus more about the debate on the subject. What exactly would you see as the problems with Wikipedia's UFO article anyway? Is there a UFO article on this Citizendium even now, anyway? And by an "actual editor" I assume you mean a "Citizendium Editor", right? And furthermore, could views on Jesus of religions like Hinduism, Mormonism, Bahaism, New Age-Ism, etc. be included on the respective articles in them, if it is important to those religions? If they can go on something as obscure as Yoism, whatever the heck that is, why can't the views of those much more known religions on Jesus be on their articles (for example, the non-Christian religions Mormonism and Bahaism have Jesus as _very_ important in them so their views on him should definitely be included in their articles.)?

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Not debate per se, just UFO-talk (analogous to God-talk). What were people saying about UFO's in the 1950's, the 1960's, etc? The main problem with Wikipedia's UFO article (the last I looked) was that it just rambled on and on. Lots of good information on it, though.

By "a real editor" I mean, the sort of person who performs the traditional duties associated with editors (prior to Wikipedia, which made "editors" basically the same as "writers".) Where's the person capable of cutting an article in half, if need be? (I assume that there are always going to be limits on human patience, if not computer memory.) Or throwing out the whole article as mediocre? (Not the UFO one.)

What information would be most useful to someone looking up "Jesus"? Various things, but surely not Yoist theology, however much they might like Jesus. (It's sure hard to trim away the fat when the fat's opinion has to be taken into account!)

P.S. On second reading, I think you actually propose to put discussions of "Mormon views of Jesus" in the Mormon article, and so on with the other religions. Um, sure--I can't imagine anybody saying no to that. For the main Jesus article, as well as "Christianity", the text should balance Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant coverage, with passing attention given to "oddball" groups that illustrate (or are an exception to) some important point.