tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6877063.post8154818056502819437..comments2023-10-27T02:21:24.958-05:00Comments on Liberal Faith Development: Who Speaks for Unitarian Universalism on the Web?Steve Caldwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333184436301854794noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6877063.post-70349008273804516812007-04-08T20:33:00.000-05:002007-04-08T20:33:00.000-05:00I removed UUPA from the wikipedia list just now......I removed UUPA from the wikipedia list just now...and updated the link to the uua.org Affiliates list while I was at it. <BR/><BR/>According to the edit history, UUPA was added to the wikipedia list on Feb 11, 2007, less than two months ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6877063.post-51858158430262745862007-04-08T18:18:00.000-05:002007-04-08T18:18:00.000-05:00It's an interestion question, but just for refernc...It's an interestion question, but just for refernce, the first Google links that come up for <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Catholicism&spell=1" REL="nofollow">Catholicism</A>, <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Judaism&btnG=Google+Search" REL="nofollow">Judaism</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Islam&btnG=Google+Search" REL="nofollow">Islam</A> are also Wikipedia.<BR/><BR/>I don't think there needs to be worry of 'other people' speaking up for UUism online. As long as the UUA continues to speak for its member congregations, it's doing its job.<BR/><BR/>And if Wikipedia is wrong (about the polyamory affiliation, for example) it can be fixed - even by you, if you're so inclined. Anyone who trusts the word of Wikipedia over a primary source needs to learn the folly in that. Unfortunately, it's impossible for anyone to teach that lesson to the tens of millions of Wikipedia users out there, so we just have to do the best we can.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6877063.post-61252100405108348622007-04-08T12:36:00.000-05:002007-04-08T12:36:00.000-05:00One factual point: If the wikipedia article claims...One factual point: If the wikipedia article claims that UUPA is an independent affiliate organization, it's wrong. The group has not been given that status by the UUA Board.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6877063.post-89025580632391190572007-04-08T11:49:00.000-05:002007-04-08T11:49:00.000-05:00Steve, the answer is obvious: nobody. Now discussi...Steve, the answer is obvious: nobody. Now discussion on UU topics, self-definition, "hot buttons", or any other subject you may want to discuss, is outside the control not only of UUA Headquarters or UU World and "a few periodicals", but out of control of congregations as well.<BR/><BR/>But this is not a matter to worry about. Actually most editors of UU articles in Wikipedia are UUs themselves (I happen to be one of them, although certainly not among the most active ones). Other religions may have more trouble. Just look at the Baha'i Faith articles in Wikipedia and how "Internet-based dissent" is giving voice to many who had been silenced and ignored by the official media until now.<BR/><BR/>The old world of information control is over, and now it is up to us to navigate in the ocean of data that will surely overflow us all in the coming years.Jaume de Marcos Andreuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335914984366835391noreply@blogger.com