Should TheoWiki merge into Wikipedia?

[Peter Kirby]

You can see the question posed here (http://www.theowiki.com/index.php/Merge_with_Wikipedia) and here (http://www.christianorigins.com/2005/08/merge-theowiki-into-wikipedia.html) and comment at those links or on this forum.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

[Rick Sumner]

Another potential negative is the risk of commercialization, which I'm sure you wouldn't wish to see (and I certainly wouldn't). Though, despite occasional rumblings, the risk is probably minimal. As long as Google keeps offering support its competitors will keep following suit. And Wikipedia is exactly the type of venture Google is likely to support.

All in all, it's probably the best route to go--lest it becomes an isolated remnant. Apoloigies for my own lack of participation in recent months--I've recently been married, so 'net time has been fighting a losing competition with spending time with my new wife.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

[Peter Kirby]

Married? Rick, that's great! Congratulations!

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[tommorris]

" Some articles might not be strictly "Neutral Point of View" and may not survive the Wikipedia review process."

Yes, the whole 'God is real' thing isn't particularly neutral. This is pretty much true for theology in general.

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, the whole 'God is real' thing isn't particularly neutral. This is pretty much true for theology in general.
Fortunately, that's not a tenet of Theowiki.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Chris Weimer]

Peter, isn't this the second person who claimed you were a theist trying to convert us heathens? My, my!

[Peter Kirby]

Since I've become an atheist, I've been accused of sock puppetry three times and have been mistaken for a theist more times than I've counted. Even though I've strived to keep the same account name for all venues, Peter Kirby. I wonder what my profile says...yep, switched to atheism in '97.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Chris Weimer]

For Pete's sake! ;)

maybe it's the interest in Christian studies that people automatically suspect you, though I've gotten mostly "atheist" or "satanist" when I entice Christians to the field.

[kiwimac]

As I said at Theowiki, the two sites are not really comparable. One is for a far more diverse audience than the other, it can therefore afford to be far less in-depth than Theowiki.

Kiwimac

[Peter Kirby]

Unfortunately, in practice, the equivalent Wikipedia articles are already present and usually in more depth already than the Theowiki articles. One problem is really that Theowiki is too broad. Attempting to cover everything concerning all the world's religions requires a 30-volume encyclopedia in itself. In addition to supporting Wikipedia, I would like to throw my support behind more specialist projects that are more likely to attract scholars and get finished (or "provisionally complete"), such as an Open Access Bible Dictionary. There is already talk about such an effort going back several months in the blogosphere (see my most recent Christian Origins (http://www.chistianorigins.com/) entry). That would be under a Creative Commons license. Theowiki, however, as it stands, is redundant. Believe me, I am the last one who wanted to find that out, as I put a lot of effort into building the site. The domain name and directory structure could still prove useful (see the "entrepot idea"--Theowiki as a gateway to Wikipedia for religion and Bible scholars and enthusiasts).

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Rick Sumner]

Married?

Yeppers. July 2nd. Which works out well--Canada Day is the 1st, so it's easy to remember ;)

Rick, that's great! Congratulations!

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Much thanks :)

Regards,
Rick Sumner