Wikipedia, Bible Study, and the SBL

Wikipedia is getting better as time goes by. True, its learning curve remains steep when it comes to the presentation of biblical and related literature. For a variety of reasons, which need not detain us here, this is understandable.

According to a recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 8% of online Americans consult Wikipedia on a typical day. That is huge. 50% of college-degree holding internet users report that they turn to the site for their research needs.

Considering how many people use Wikipedia, the stakes are high. Scholars may look down their noses at online research all they want. Whether they like it or not, the future is online, and for many, the future is already here.

I am going to sing the praises of Wikipedia for a paragraph or two. Then I will point out some shortcomings, and suggest a way or two the SBL might help matters out.

My remarks are anecdotal, but, I trust, of interest nonetheless.

Since news reports of the discovery of the Nabu-sharussu-ukin tablet began to appear, there has been a flurry of online discussion about the tablet, and how it relates to Jeremiah 39:3. For starters, go here, here, here, here, here, and here. The comment sections in the links provided, I would emphasize, are worth perusal.

Very quickly, a Wikipedia entry went up, with the heading “Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet.” It has been updated and improved several times in the span of a few days. The interesting thing is how it is being improved: by interactive discussion with bibliobloggers. Check out the comments section here. That is pretty cool.

This blogger, besides being trained in fields related to the find, and thus able to blog about it in a semi-intelligent manner, is also a pastor.

In preparation for this morning’s sermon, I went online to research the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), one of the passages prescribed in the lectionary for this Sunday. Lo and behold, Wikipedia has a relevant entry. I found it via an excellent resource, www.textweek.com. 

The Wikipedia entry might be criticized from a number of points of view, but I found it useful. It jogged my memory with regard to the hypothesis that at the time of Jesus, it may have been common for raconteurs to tell stories with three characters, to wit: a priest, a Levite, and an ordinary Israelite. I had heard Shemaryahu Talmon present the thesis in a lecture years ago. According to the thesis, Jesus told the parable with the three expected characters. Later, the church replaced the figure of the “Good Ordinary Israelite” with the figure of the “Good Samaritan.”

I don’t buy the thesis. I think it more likely that Jesus did the substituting from the get go. It would have made for a provocative tale precisely in Jesus’ context. And so I preached this morning, telling my parishioners that, just as they like to hear and tell stories about a priest, a rabbi, and a Protestant minister, in Jesus’ day, people liked to hear and tell stories about a priest, a Levite, and an ordinary Israelite. Jesus did a number on his audience by introducing the figure of the Good Samaritan in place of the figure of the Ordinary Israelite.

My point is simple: it was helpful to find a description of the thesis, discover how old it is, and who first proposed it, from the Wikipedia entry.

How might Wikipedia’s presentation of biblical and related literature be improved? Let me count the ways. Coverage is spotty and sometimes amateurish. Links are not always top-notch. Bibliographies often seem slanted.

But, as I said before, improvement over time is noticeable.

Wikipedia does not adhere to the shameful practice of much scholarship in the humanities, whereby essays published decades ago are republished unchanged with nary a nod to developments in the field since original publication.

Wikipedia is a community effort. It is up to scholars to stop griping, roll up their electronic sleeves, and improve it themselves.

How might the Society of Biblical Literature aid in the process of improvement? One idea comes immediately to mind. In the case of the Nabu-sharrussu-ukin Tablet, the Wikipedia article links to news reports from reputable sources (true, I would have chosen reportage of a different kind; see link above). This is understandable.

SBL needs to start its own online peer-reviewed news service. A number of its members blog already, and are used to working in real time, an absolutely necessary feature of a news service. They and others might be tapped to spearhead the project.

It’s time to get with the program, or be consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.

UPDATE: Doug Chaplin chimes in, and references an earlier challenge by the excellent Mark Goodacre, who helpfully intervenes again.

Comments

[Shawn]

Good post, I agree that online scholarship is the future, but I have often wondered with Wikipedia, how do we regulate its use in a class setting and in undergrad papers. My temptation is to tell students not to use it because some are not yet able to sift through what is helpful and what is not. What would be or has been your approach in this regard?

[JohnFH]

I think undergrads should be encouraged to use Wikipedia.

I would assign an entry relevant to the course to each student, invite them to do research on its basis but also, and especially, lay bare the entry's biases and limitations based on independent research.

I would also require students to go through the process of contributing to the entry's improvement, and report on the aftermath.

Shawn, you have a great blog, and I wish you well in your studies.

[Suzanne]

John,

I have been following Junia in Wikipedia and noticed a few months ago that a very accurate description of the problems that Linda Belleville found in the Wallace and Burer article was posted. However, I note that that has recently been removed and the impression now left is that Epp is tedious and Wallace is accurate. It's too bad but I am afraid that Wikipedia will always be vulnerable to having disagreeable but accurate facts edited out.

The only links are to the Wallace and Burer article which is undefended against Belleville's and my questions.

[G.M. Grena]

You said you "would have chosen reportage of a different kind; see link above". If you're referring to the Telegraph.co.uk link, it's dead. Or were you referring to the blog links?

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

Everything we do, as scholars and human beings, is conditioned by vulnerability to disagreeable but accurate facts being edited out.

The difference with Wikipedia is that the gory process is there in full view.

But the example you cite is disturbing.

It might be wise, when a Wikipedia entry turns out well, to archive it somewhere before the thought police arrive and change things for the worse.

As Rabbi Tarfon said ...

[James McGrath]

I think the key is for students to learn to seek confirmation of claims on Wikipedia. It is a convenient place to start, but must be used with caution. I hope some of my students learned that the contributors can be anyone when I made them contribute to an online textbook on the Gospel of John on WikiBooks! :)

The other thing we can do to help, of course, is contribute to the articles in our areas of expertise.

[JohnFH]

G. M. Grena is right: the Telegraph.co.uk link is now dead. It wasn't when I posted it a few hours ago. How frustrating!

The link included a translation of the tablet and a photograph of it, which is why it was so helpful.

[Suzanne]

John,

It is much better than you think. Everything on wikipedia is archived in the history. This is the deleted paragraph which is there in the history.

All three have interacted, corrected, and refuted the Burer and Wallace article and hypothesis. Bauckham has shown that Psalms of Solomon 2:6 is not a parallel to Romans 16.7. He has also shown that it is not even relevant to the Romans 16.7. Further, Burer and Wallace cite Lucian in a footnote. The citation is in error (which both Bauckham and Belleville point out). Belleville finds the citation and corrects it. It is episamoi with en and the dative. Further, it is personal and inclusive. Most telling is that it is a perfect parallel with Romans 16.7. (Epps, p. 76). Hence, the weight of their argument actually ends up proving the exact opposite of their hypothesis. They miss this in their conclusions. So it appears that not only was Junia a female, but she was prominent AMONG the Apostles. Such an argument would diminish the veracity of the contentions laid forth by Pope [[John Paul II]] in the Apostolic letter ''[[Ordinatio Sacerdotalis]]''.

Of course, it probably should have been edited a bit to sound not quite so triumphant, but the facts about Pss. Sol. and Lucian are true, and have been deleted, but remain in the history. Hmm.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

you just upped my appreciation for Wikipedia.

[Iyov]

You left the final "l" out of your Telegraph link; it ends in .xml, not .xm

[Suzanne]

It is useful to be aware of how wikipedia works. I have used the history feature at the top of the article to trace postings, as well as the discussion, etc. for some time. The discussions can be interesting. It does have some pluses for sure.

I usually try to quote a link but occasionally now I find something in wikipedia that is only available elsewhere in a book, that is, offline. I admit that lately I have found an increase in accuracy overall.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Iyov. I've fixed the Telegraph link.

I'm taking down the post with the article in pdf format, plus the comment on it by Hector Avalos, which I nonetheless recommend for its intrinsic interest. The wikipedia entry now includes the link as well.

[Chuck Jones]

Here you'll find a very interesting presentation on wikipedia and the process of an article's revision over time:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/umlaut.html

We have started a new group in facebook for bloggers writing on the ancient world. Any among you who fit this category are welcome to join:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2428998475

As for regulating the use of wikipedia, I'm not sure I would. I am certain that I would not allow it to be cited in a student's paper any more than I would allow a citation of any other encyclopedia.