Any Wikipedia contributors here?

The "Bible software and publishing" space is inadequately covered on Wikipedia.

After HarperCollins Christian Publishing announced they were buying Olive Tree, I did some online research. There was a good amount of coverage in industry press and blogs, but the Wikipedia article on Olive Tree still doesn't reflect this (or any changes at all since December, 2012!).

It got me looking around the Wikipedia articles in our space, which served as a great reminder about how wrong Wikipedia can be, :-), and how the much-vaunted crowd-sourced-editing only works when there's a crowd. (Which is all the more reason to do your Bible study with Logos, not Wikipedia!)

It's probably bad form for me to go edit the Olive Tree article... or especially the Logos Bible Software article... but I thought I'd suggest it here in case any of you would like to contribute to the collective wisdom on Bible software, Christian publishing, etc. using published sources.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kent

It's probably bad form for me to go edit the Olive Tree article...

Do it Bob.[:P]

There are those out there whose hobby it is to edit Wikipedia pages. I would never use it as a source for anything except a quick look up that leads to other more reliable sources.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594677#Comment_594677

It's probably bad form for me to go edit the Olive Tree article...

Do it Bob.

As a long time periodic Wiki editor, I can emphatically confirm that it would be exceedingly bad form for Logos owner or present employee to edit the Olive Tree or related articles on Wikipedia, but there's nothing to stop us Logos users from doing so.

David Paul

I used to piddle around in Wikipedia, but when I finally found an article in which I had sufficient interest and which needed some improving, I was suddenly reminded what it was like to be on the playground during 4th grade recess. The article was "Quartodecimans" and there was a knock-down, drag-out brawl going on between someone who (in error and delusion) considered himself to be a quartodeciman, and a higher-up moderator who insisted that nothing other than the historical hatchet job perpetrated by confirmed antagonists to the movement was to be allowed entré. I haven't done much besides correct punctuation and spelling errors since.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/594681#Comment_594681

I got into it with a guy over the hot pepper page.

They kept insisting the "bhut jolokia" was the hottest, then later the moruga scorpion, when even the people that did the testing had distanced themselves from this.

Finally we settled on deleting the paragraph and re-wriiting it that there were a number of particularly hot peppers, and at best there is a lot of controversy RE which pepper is hottest.

This was my first and last experience with editing a wiki page. Lets just say it was somewhat less than positive.