wikipedia

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:14 #44016

I noticed that the Wikipedia information on Jediism is very scant and insufficient, I think someone should add more information. I still am not able to do it well (my writing is chaotic, my English is my third language only, and I don't trust google translate entirely :), so I ask (only humbly asking the question) if someone will be willing to take over this task in the interest of the community?

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:41 #44017

If people want to know more about us, they can find information on this site. We don't have any affiliation with Wikipedia, I believe.

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 02:51 #44018

  • Br. John
  • Br. John's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 523
The article on Jediism at Wikipedia is horrible. In theory anyone can edit it but navigating through all their incredible rules is somewhat more difficult than levitating a car with The Force.

So many people have attempted to make it a good article. For awhile, not too long back, it was getting better.

Now it's almost worse than having no article at all.

I've come to realize that until there are actual published books about Jediism written by real Jedi we going to get nowhere with Wikipedia. Once there are references to point too we'll have a fighting chance.

Go to the article and look at how the page was at various times in the past and you'll see what I mean.
Founder of The Order

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 16:25 #44033

  • ren
  • ren's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 4418
We need to check the rules on primary sources, as they make more sense than secondary ones on religion articles. (in fact other religion articles use primary sources a lot).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Pri...and_tertiary_sources

Could be good to check with wikiproject religion and NRMs as to what their policies are, if they give a green light, admins shouldn't complain and we would be able to easily revert any edits which dont comply with the policies (and therefore ruin the article).

I'd like to point out that technically, discussing the editing of articles outside wikipedia is against the rules.

Re: wikipedia 31 Oct 2011 18:09 #44034

  • Jestor
  • Jestor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Councillor
  • Bishop
  • ID: 3682
We are not "discussing editing", other than to say it needs done....

But you can't tell me other people don't do it... lol...
Rite: PureLand
Master: Master Jasper_Ward
Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know, Viskhard, DanWerts, Elizabeth, Edan

"Together, the teacher, and the taught, make the lesson." -- Eckart Tolle

Dan: "I have enough teachers."
Socrates: "Oh do you now? Whether you have a proper teacher or not, depends on what you want to learn."

Re: wikipedia 01 Nov 2011 04:08 #44044

  • ren
  • ren's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 4418
I don't care about the rule, what I care about is not being caught as it would be highly counterproductive.

Just a reminder that if you add a link to totjo on that wiki page, you should first make sure this thread doesn't appear in the latest posts...
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • invitation to totjo (Last post by Brenna)
    • ;) Im not anyone's padawan as you may have noticed from my rank bar. And if you read my reply without making assumptions, you'll notice that I said it is my opinion. What I truly believe. Sarcasm was neither implied nor intended. I'm sorry if you read it that way. It is after all, not my call to make. I'm simply asking questions, sharing my thoughts. Though it seems that you'd rather I didn't. My apologies.
    • Father knocks out sons abuser. (Last post by RyuJin)
    • I read about this a few days ago....it happened here in florida...stand your ground law state...he's lucky dad didn't have a gun... he's also lucky dad didn't take his "gun"...I don't know how long after he lost consciousness it would be before I stopped...I imagine I'd be pretty feral if I came home and discovered that happening to my child(if I ever have any)
    • Still Around (Last post by scott777ab)
    • Quote: Hi Scott, good to see you're still around. Quote: I now try to keep most of my opinions to myself. Why's that? Why not? But to give a better answer. I just do not find it productive to argue anymore. What I believe is what I believe, no one is going to change that but me; it is pointless for me to argue a point trying to change someone else. If someone wants to know what I believe about something they can ask me, but I am not going to just blab my mouth no more. I have better things to do.
    • Everything is Made of Energy Stuff (Last post by Adder)
    • Quote: So... if energy is conscious and aware (whatever the heck that means because with the ill, nay, sick non-definition of energy it could be literally anything and one might expect that consciousness and awareness are buzz words of the same nature), and we are an example of that, then wouldn't rocks be an example of energy being not conscious nor aware (unless the ill, nay sick non-definitions of conscious and aware are such as to allow for conscious and aware rocks, i suppose)? If we are arguing from examples, surely that must go both ways, and conversely, in order for it to only go one way the argument must be one that wouldn't rely on examples. If looking for useful definitions, an example might be 'conscious' being self aware, and 'aware' being aware of outside of self. The 'structure' of a rock is simple compared to an animal, and its rate, quantity and variety of change is, as a result, at a different temporal frame. By virtue of its simplicity that rock can last a million years, by virtue of our complexity we collapse near 100. The problem might be expecting some truth from a practise, when the practise is not about seeking truth primarily but improving the experience of reality to have a better and more rich truth. Funny thing is we are not really aware of what is outside of self, we are aware of our self interacting with outside which we interpret as outside! But for practical reasons it makes sense to split mental processing into different areas. One example would be to use a three tiered level of; * space realm - temporal, spirit * mind realm - corporeal representation, spatial * abstract realm - mental, emotional While its all the same system of awareness, it probably uses different circuitry in the brain. Some people might have an ability to integrate visual processing (like in dreams) to different senses to work with such concepts. I dont think anyone is trying to 'define' reality by doing this sort of thing, rather have a greater experience of it or try to refine the experience for some nature of benefit. I agree though we must stay firmly anchored in the science of reality, and for me Jediism does heavily incorporate science and scientific discovery to shape how we can better experience reality.
    • What are your opinions about euthanasia? (Last post by Adder)
    • My thoughts are it should be only allowed to people who have a terminal disease which is progressing, and has evident associated symptoms impacting quality of life. I know living is terminal too, but living is not a diseased state of living lol, hmmm. I don't think anyone should be forced to experience a painful terminal collapse of the body if that is what is happening to them. If someone does not fit my classification, and really wants to die, then they will find a way. Unfortunately for them, a solution to their manic depression, chronic pain etc might be around the corner, so if its not progressed and terminal, then all efforts IMO should be on survival at any cost. I have stuff in my medicine cabinet which can blow my flame out, so its not like it's impossible to do it. The issue isn't who should be allowed to end their own life, its about at what point can the medical establishment end someones life for them. It needs to also make sure it cannot be abused from within the medical establishment by staff working in grey areas of ethics or the shadows around the law. These are just my thoughts though, its a personal thing for the family who usually know the person best. Perhaps it needs to include close friends if possible who aren't beneficiary's to any monies or property to avoid manipulation, or long term care... so staff can make determinations about that persons character and falling quality of life - as oppossed to moods, mental state or psychological conditions. The dangerzone for this topic is the psychological side - when is a person 'capable' of making such a decision. Here there is a high profile story at the moment which has seen; Quote: "On 23 July 2014 the Australian Medical Board voted to use emergency powers to suspend his practitioner's license immediately, on the grounds that he presents "a serious risk to public health and safety". Dr Nitschke said he would appeal the suspension, which he claimed was "politically motivated"." because; Quote: "Perth man Nigel Brayley, 45, died in May this year after taking the euthanasia drug Nembutal, which he illegally imported. In emails obtained by the ABC, Mr Brayley admitted to Dr Nitschke he was not "supporting a terminal medical illness", but said he was "suffering". Now Dr Nitschke is being accused of moving into uncharted territory by agreeing to assist Mr Brayley despite knowing he was not terminally ill." source
    • Live Service - Saturday 26th July at 2000 UTC (Last post by MCSH)
    • I'll be conducting a live service on Saturday 26th July at 2000 UTC. The sermon part of this live service would be available as a normal sermon for everyone to read. To find out what this time would be on your timezone click here.
    • Cognitive Dissonance - Your Thoughts (Last post by Rickie The Grey)
    • Well it seems to me knowing yourself: likes, dislikes, desires and expectations would be helpfull? Then knowing your limits while working to expand them would keep dissonance to a minimum? I think it's all about: living, learning and becoming a better person. Don't get hung up on your flaws and keep on keeping on.
    • Words Mean Things. (Last post by Jestor)
    • Quote: In type, you should strive to be more clear, if anything, as there is not context of voice inflection, body language, etc. In type, it much more easy to misunderstand something, hence, to be as clear as possible and non subjective with your words will open more doors then close them. Of course... But if I think I'm clear, and as clear as I can be, and still not getting through, it can't be helped... And, an individual should realize that not everyone is going to understand what someone else is saying so further questioning should be done...:) Quote: It goes against the argument of subjectivity really. Such as this... Would you explain? This is just another point where people get separated... The "prickly" people, and the "goo" people.... :lol:....
    • Another XKCD- Answers (Last post by Vusuki)
    • Not sure where to put this- so thought I'd just add it here. Just a bit of a fun poke at star wars www.xkcd.com/1397/ Don't turn it on.
    • Unacceptable Casualties of War (Last post by Deepseablue)
    • Quote: Czech Airlines were not flying from Seoul to Prague above Ukraine. Only above Russia. We have arrived safely in Prague. Good for you! I wouldn't have wanted to be anyone anywhere near Ukraine in the days after the "crash."
    • Well, I thought I would make a few suggestions... (Last post by Proteus)
    • The shoutbox was a 3rd party code which ren was managing when he was admin but took it down after the site's update due to some kind of compatibility or functional issues and never finished fixing it back up. Whatever its condition was when he left, I forgot, but I can check and see if there's anything we can do about it.

There are 218 visitors, 4 guests and 20 members online (one is in chat): Br. John, Adder, Brian, Desolous, Psyddhattha, Luthien, MJ Hannigan, scott777ab, Brenna, Buvan, Llama Su, Archon, Kamizu, zeronycon, wesleycook74, jasonwilkins, benedictveritas, Jamie Stick, SMullinax, KalSterner, TambelSadera, porkapon763, rosewood67.

Follow Us