3 ms·

"Perhaps you could share why you think Wikipedia is wrong? " Sharia is a topic of highly emotional argument right now, with lots of bigotry, ignorance, and fea

"Perhaps you could share why you think Wikipedia is wrong? " Sharia is a topic of highly emotional argument right now, with lots of bigotry, ignorance, and fear-mongering. That's enough reason to suspect Wikipedia might be wrong. Wikipedia is terrible on anything like that. On things nobody much cares about, like the history of the Marvel villain MODOK, it's great.

jacoblyles 16y ago
There is such a big difference between the claim that Sharia means six very non-controversial universal values (which the original poster claims) and that Sharia is a system of law based on Islamic beliefs as refined and interpreted by Muslim holy men, that I believe we ought to be able to determine which statement is closer to the truth regardless of interfering emotion. I suspect the original poster is being disingenuous by portraying Sharia law as such a bland and harmless thing.
kragen 16y ago
Actually, my experience is that Wikipedia is excellent on subjects like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology. It's generally uncontroversial topics with little interest among Wikipedia readers that have poor-quality articles; see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhus_coriaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhus_coriaria.
- piguy314 16y ago
  Wikipedia has an excellent political system that decides disputes on the basis of the quality of the arguments rather than voting or autocratic declarations. For this reason and the fact that one of wikipedia's 5 pillars is a neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) I would tend to think that their articles on controversial topics are much like controversial laws after they have been extensively litigated: settled and accurate.

jacoblyles 16y ago

There is such a big difference between the claim that Sharia means six very non-controversial universal values (which the original poster claims) and that Sharia is a system of law based on Islamic beliefs as refined and interpreted by Muslim holy men, that I believe we ought to be able to determine which statement is closer to the truth regardless of interfering emotion. I suspect the original poster is being disingenuous by portraying Sharia law as such a bland and harmless thing.

kragen 16y ago

Actually, my experience is that Wikipedia is excellent on subjects like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology. It's generally uncontroversial topics with little interest among Wikipedia readers that have poor-quality articles; see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhus_coriaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhus_coriaria.

piguy314 16y ago
Wikipedia has an excellent political system that decides disputes on the basis of the quality of the arguments rather than voting or autocratic declarations. For this reason and the fact that one of wikipedia's 5 pillars is a neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) I would tend to think that their articles on controversial topics are much like controversial laws after they have been extensively litigated: settled and accurate.