In class one of the things we talked about was the fact that Wikipedia was an essential part to our society. I think this is very true. It is interesting how a society that has so many conflicts and differences can come together to create such a massive collection of knowledge. It is such a powerful tool that it has even been blocked in some countries. I think this just goes to show how much the people could do if they work together. Not that we didn’t know this already…
I think this is just a small step toward uniting everybody in one united community instead of this society we live in now. We worry about world poverty and hunger and homelessness and disease, but I think the truth is if we were all as worried about it as we say we are then there would be no problem. These things would not be an issue. So what is holding us back?
I have heard it estimated that the 25-30% of Earth’s population is Christian. Even if this estimate is a little off, shouldn’t that alone make a huge difference? My question is what are we doing with our life, our time, our money? Are we using it to further the Kingdom or our own intentions? If we can all rally together and hold each other accountable for keeping a website right and proper I think we can help a hurting nation. What if Wikipedia had been a site for helping feed the hungry? Can’t we still do that? We could use these major websites like Yahoo and Google and Wikipedia and promote even one worthy cause. The problem is even if we do this, ultimately it is up to each individual to contribute.
My goal isn’t to condemn, maybe convict a little, but isn’t that our job as Christians? Shouldn’t we hold each other accountable?
Could it be that Wikipedia is the Tower of Babel for today? Maybe it doesn’t blatantly defy God, but if it isn’t promoting His agenda, then maybe that is just as bad. Could it be?
There is no doubt it is a good resource, but maybe it could be better. Maybe it could be a resource of life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know of Wikipedia, yet I do not know what it has to offer. In one of my prior college classes, we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for the paper we were doing.
ReplyDeleteSince you have pointed out what a good source Wikipedia can be, I will review the web site , to see what it has to offer.
Any source that can help me research for literature, is greatly appreciated. I will began to look for historical background in Wikipedia and see where it takes me to. It sounds like I look for words that I do not know the meaning of. Great Info, Thanks!
The story for the Tower of Babel narrates the hallmark of Christianity that separates it from other regions, being that efforts to personally reach God are childish and futile, how could imperfection ever be perfect; God has to come to us. The goal of the story is not to demoralize the act of collaboration in any way. That being said the only resemblance between Wikipedia and the Tower of Babel is the unity of mankind and I hardly think that in all instances unity if futile. (i.e. marriage) You also state, “maybe is doesn’t blatantly defy God, but if it isn’t promoting his agenda, then maybe that is just as bad.” Saying that if something does not directly benefit God’s kingdom then it is evil is a very misinformed argument. That’s equivalent to saying that everyone that’s not directly your friend is your enemy. There are not just two opposite poles in this equation. Furthermore the bible promotes the acquisition of knowledge, and praises wise men, one example being the story of Solomon. So how can an institution design to house information so one can better their mind and understanding on God’s creations be antichristian. Could it be that Wikipedia is against God? Not Quite.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is very important that we hold each other accountable as fellow Christians. I think too often we simply don't say anything because we don't want to upset anybody. This, however, helps no one and it can hinder the growth of God's kingdom.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Zack's comment:
ReplyDeleteYou are right, not all instances of unity are futile. I definitely did not intend to make it sound like that. All I meant was why can't we come together for an even greater cause: like furthering the kingdom. We have all of these giant websites (myspace, facebook, twitter, wikipiedia, google, etc...) but none of them are engaging the users for a greater cause. Wikipedia is a gathering place for many different people and they all, for the most part, are working together. Is wikipedia "evil"? No. Is it against God? No. But it is not promoting the kingdom, which is not a good thing. All I meant was, yes, Wikipedia is a great resource for our age, but it, along with other sites, could be better.
There are websites that promote the kingdom of God directly. Why are they not as popular as your previously mentioned list, for that sole reason, they are promoting the kingdom of God directly. I have no interest in Islam. Are there websites that promote this religion? Yes. How many have I ever visited? Zero. For the same reason Christian sites do not have an affinity for accumulating as much traffic as secular ones. You said yourself that 25-30% of the world’s population is Christian. Excluding a chuck of this population that live in areas like rural China with little exposure to Christianity and no hope of accessing the internet I’ll make an assumption in your favor. Let’s say all the world’s population has access to this medium based on the argument above wouldn’t that logically mean Christian websites have a natural 65-70% reduction in traffic as compared to secular sites like Wikipedia. The conversion to Christianity largely falls on the people themselves, if they have any need for religion in their mind, a Christian website will not be hard to find. If Christians are to have any stake in preexisting mainstream websites the most they can hope for is paying for an advertisement on the side bar, or a collection of Pro-God face book groups. In addition, just because praise and worship music doesn’t start playing when you access Wikipedia’s home page does not mean it’s not furthering the kingdom. Take the Great Commission for example, how are unlearned people supposed to witness to intellectuals? That’s a joke. These websites are tools that can help Christians in various matters; no modifications are likely or necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think we are arguing for the same thing now:
ReplyDeleteI think Wikipedia is a great resource for Christians and non-Christians alike. And you are probably right, we can't hope for much more than an advertisement on the sidebar. We shouldn't even hope for that because it isn't a blatant Christian advertisement that turns people to Christianity.
My point is simply that Wikipedia is proof that humans can work together, from all different socioeconomic backgrounds and religions. If we can come together to make a page about Miley Cyrus or Dalmation dogs, why is it so hard to unite to unite to end human trafficking or homlessness or any other world issue.
The part that I mentioned about Christianity was merely stating that there are a large number of Christians in the world, and as a Christian we do/should try to help others, and if even just Christians united, even if you exclude those that are in the category that needs help, there should be enough to help this out more than is already being done. The truth is most Christians who have the resources to do so aren't helping out.
Wikipedia is a good site for knowledge, and knowledge is important too. We don't need to make a Christian website to help a world cause, just coming together with a common goal and being active participants would do the job. We have seen we can unite, now we just need to do so for a purpose greater than ourselves.
Hello! I'd just like to say that I found your blog after googling "wikipedia is the tower of Babel" - it was the only result! I'm surprised that you and I are the only people to have had this thought (or at least to have phrased it in exactly those words and published it online).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that we risk offending god and incurring his wrath, however. Personally I always read the tower of Babel story as a theodicy attempting to justify the existence of international conflict through a kind of original sin, not as a suggestion that God regards international cooperation on grand projects as bad. And just Jesus redeems us from the original sin of Adam and Eve, in the Book of Acts we see the Holy Spirit giving the Apostles the power to speak in all the languages of the world, thus absolving the "original sin" of Babel. So I think theologically we are off the hook there - we needn't worry about creating a new Babel, just as we needn't worry about possessing the knowledge of Good and Evil. Rather, after Christ's redeeming sacrifice, both the knowledge of morality and the gift of the spirit that allows us to co-oporate with people of different cultures can be used for good!
And remember, while honoring God was the our highest goal before the redemption, in the post-Jesus world St Paul tells us: "if I have all faith to move mountains, but have not (charitable) love, I am nothing". Think of all the good wikipedia does for the world: it democratizes education, so anyone can learn about medical science and be inspired to save peoples' lives, anyone can learn about crisis situations in the world and be inspired to help, anyone can learn about charitable organizations and be inspired to join them.
If wikipedia seems to be doing more good than religion, so much so that it seems to threaten heaven like the tower of babel, then maybe religion should get its act together.