Jim West, Playboy, and Wikipedia

It’s a good thing I don’t know the first thing about doing graphics.

In reply to Wikipedia, Bible Study, and the SBL, Jim West makes a comparison between Wikipedia and porn sites. He also suggests that making scholarly contributions to Wikipedia is a waste of time.

Well, there’s always Playboy - or more to the point, given Jim’s presumed gender, Playgirl. (On a matter as important as gender, it’s important not to make questionable assumptions.)

Bracketing out questions of theological propriety, in the interests of, let us say, the unfettered pursuit of the naked truth, it’s about time a biblioblogger bared it all. For the person with the right build, I hear there’s good money to be made.

Not like Wikipedia, that evil communist plot.

On a more serious note, Chuck Jones of ABZU fame invites us to join the ideal group to go about improving Wikipedia’s entries relating to the ancient world. He also links to an explanation of the Wikipedia process.

Comments

[Jim]

John! Imagine my shock at seeing the post title!!!! That is the first, and most likely the last time those terms will ever be found conjoined.

But it did make me chuckle. Yeah verily, even out loud!

;-)

[Nehemias]

"On a more serious note, Chuck Jones of ABZU fame invites us to join the ideal group to go about improving Wikipedia’s entries relating to the ancient world".

Well, It's sounds pretty good to me, because some articles in wikipedia do need a scholarly revision.
Some of the most bizarre entries:

Nazareth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

"Some historians have argued that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day" (...)
"The critical question now under scholarly debate is when in the Roman period Nazareth came into existence, that is, whether settlement there began before or after 70 AD (the First Jewish War)"

And Tacitus on Jesus (Annals 15:44)

"Some have suggested that this passage could be a later addition by Christian scribes[1]. This is supported by the fact that no early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero."
"The secular historian Suetonius also mentions Christians being harmed during this period by Nero, but there is no connection made with the fire and the reliability of the passage is also questioned"

Nehemias

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

I think you got that backwards, John. Playboy has the pictures of women in it, Playgirl has the pictures of men. That is, unless you actually intend to propose something about Jim's gender that is, um, rather scandalous, his being married with children, and whatnot.

[John Hobbins]

Hey Kevin,

it depends on whether one appears in, or accesses, a site of one kind or the other. But I think we better drop the argument right there. Thanks for the refresher course.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

Oh, I get it now. This Earth thing you call humor is difficult!

[Chuck Jones]

An interesting tool to unfold some of the connections in Wikipedia is the new(ish) WikiMindMap. Have a look at my demonstration of it at http://persepolistablets.blogspot.com/2007/07/mapping-persepolis-in-wikis.html