Topic: Invitation to join OrthodoxWiki

[asdamick]

Any who read are invited to peruse and to join OrthodoxWiki, the community-edited online Orthodox Christian encycloepdia.  (For those familiar with Wikipedia, it's essentially the same deal, but Orthodox.)  We've already added more than 1,600 articles, and the number grows daily.  There's plenty of work to do, whether you'd prefer simply to edit articles for grammar and spelling or whether you'd like to write detailed historical information.  For some examples of the kind of work that has been done (at least by me), feel free to take a look at my OrthodoxWiki userinfo.

Thank you for your attention.

[Sloga]

nice site, I'll be sure to spread the word. 

[ozgeorge]

(For those familiar with Wikipedia, it's essentially the same deal, but Orthodox.)

I suppose that depends on your definition of "Orthodox."

[asdamick]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "Orthodox."

The definition generally used on OrthodoxWiki is defined as the "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias."  You can read about it here.

[ozgeorge]

The definition generally used on OrthodoxWiki is defined as the "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias."  You can read about it here.

I know, however, if you look up "Dioscorus"- one will not find any "mainstream Chalcedonian bias"- not even a discussion.
I think that "Orthodoxwiki" is simply becoming a forum for particular groups to put forth their POV rather than a source of information. The Wikipedia idea has some merits, but if scholars, theologians, and most important in the case of Orthodoxy, the Episcopacy, do not contribute, then we can make no claims to "Orthodoxy" in the articles.
I am a member of Orthodoxwiki, but do not contribute for this reason- and I certainly wouldn't use it as a primary source.

[asdamick]

I know, however, if you look up "Dioscorus"- one will not find any "mainstream Chalcedonian bias"- not even a discussion.

That's essentially because it hasn't been gotten around to yet.  You are welcome to help.  Regarding the issues surrounding Chalcedon, most of our Chalcedonian contributors as yet have not chosen to work on those topics as much as have our non-Chalcedonian contributors.  We do try to make sure that the latter's work is clearly labelled as such, though.  Additionally, we are preparing to move the non-encyclopedic contributed articles to another site.

I think that "Orthodoxwiki" is simply becoming a forum for particular groups to put forth their POV rather than a source of information. The Wikipedia idea has some merits, but if scholars, theologians, and most important in the case of Orthodoxy, the Episcopacy, do not contribute, then we can make no claims to "Orthodoxy" in the articles.
I am a member of Orthodoxwiki, but do not contribute for this reason- and I certainly wouldn't use it as a primary source.

You are quite correct that it's not a primary source.  Since it mainly summarizes other folks' research, it's usually a tertiary source.  We also do have scholars, theologians, clergy, and even bishops who contribute.  (One each from the patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch that I know of offhand.)  Of course, most bishops probably don't really spend a lot of time on the Internet.

I notice that you're from Australia.  You may find it interesting to examine or help with some of the articles in our always expanding section dedicated to Orthodoxy in Australia or perhaps those for Australasia in general or New Zealand.  I haven't worked extensively on those myself, but I have put a lot more into articles pertaining to my own country, the United States.

In any event, it's something of an irony to criticize and therefore not contribute.  One would think you'd criticize and help to make the wiki better by means of your contributions.  As to whether it is a good source of information, all are invited to judge for themselves, and especially if they see something lacking, to improve it.  Thanks for your criticisms and contributions so far!

[ozgeorge]

I notice that you're from Australia.  You may find it interesting to examine or help with some of the articles in our always expanding section dedicated to Orthodoxy in Australia or perhaps those for Australasia in general or New Zealand.  I haven't worked extensively on those myself, but I have put a lot more into articles pertaining to my own country, the United States.

Thanks, I will. (Great sales pitch btw! )

In any event, it's something of an irony to criticize and therefore not contribute.  One would think you'd criticize and help to make the wiki better by means of your contributions.  As to whether it is a good source of information, all are invited to judge for themselves, and especially if they see something lacking, to improve it.  Thanks for your criticisms and contributions so far!

Absolutely, I think people should judge for themselves. But the problem I have is not the current content, but the concept of Wiki. So if I don't contribute, it's not because I think it can be improved, but because I think it can't.
The reality is that the next generation seems to believe that if it's online, it must be true, and I can see that they are going to treat all Wiki's as primary sources.

[EkhristosAnesti]

asdamick,

The way I see it, the Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian problem that exists at the website in question wouldn't exist if it were simply titled: "EasternOrthodoxwiki.com". When you (and i'm speaking generally here) attempt to promote your particular bias as being equivalent with the unqualified "Orthodox" in a public forum, you're just inviting problems.

As it may frustrate ozgeorge to see a pro-non-Chalcedonian article on St Dioscoros, it frustrates me that such an article gets "clearly labelled", whereas a pro-Chalcedonian article on Leo of Rome is left untouched. We both lay claim to the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and neither group wants to see "the Orthodox Church" being misrepresented.

[asdamick]

Thanks, I will. (Great sales pitch btw! )
Absolutely, I think people should judge for themselves. But the problem I have is not the current content, but the concept of Wiki. So if I don't contribute, it's not because I think it can be improved, but because I think it can't.

My own view is that a wiki is a remarkably appropriate sort of medium for a Church which regards the whole body of the faithful as contributing to the guardianship of the faith.  And like in the Church's life in general, our most frequent and public contributors tend to be clergy.

Oversight is much stricter for OrthodoxWiki than for Wikipedia, and we tend to be much more draconian on vandals (no second chances).  We also do not permit unregistered editing.  Additionally, a number of autogenic "Orthodox" groups have tried to get their stuff onto the wiki, but it gets deleted as per our policy.  (We regard the non-Chalcedonians as a special case.)

Anyway, of course if you don't wish to contribute, you are welcome nevertheless to criticize, though we'd like it better if you turned your criticisms into contributions.

[asdamick]

asdamick,

The way I see it, the Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian problem that exists at the website in question wouldn't exist if it were simply titled: "EasternOrthodoxwiki.com". When you (and i'm speaking generally here) attempt to promote your particular bias as being equivalent with the unqualified "Orthodox" in a public forum, you're just inviting problems.

As it may frustrate ozgeorge to see a pro-non-Chalcedonian article on St Dioscoros, it frustrates me that such an article gets "clearly labelled", whereas a pro-Chalcedonian article on Leo of Rome is left untouched. We both lay claim to the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and neither group wants to see "the Orthodox Church" being misrepresented.

Our bias is clearly labelled in the website.  (See the above link.)  When the wiki was inaugurated almost two years ago, we determined that we did not wish it to be exclusively Chalcedonian, despite its owner and main contributors being Chalcedonian, but we wanted it to reflect to the degree that it is possible that there is at least a dialogue occurring between our two bodies.  Yet at the same time, it is impossible to be completely neutral in these matters, so we chose a "bias" model rather than one of exclusivity or utter neutrality.

In any event, the name is what it is.  (One can hardly blame Rome for calling its own website "The Holy See.")  It reflects our self-understanding.  We welcome your participation, however, and we have generally had a very good experience in working with the non-Chalcedonian contributors that we've had.

[Starlight]

I always enjoyed reading OrthodoxWiki. I have found a lot of precise and advanced information there.

[ozgeorge]

When the wiki was inaugurated almost two years ago, we determined that we did not wish it to be exclusively Chalcedonian, despite its owner and main contributors being Chalcedonian, but we wanted it to reflect to the degree that it is possible that there is at least a dialogue occurring between our two bodies.

Father,
I absolutely respect that. But as experience on this forum has shown me, one cannot at present have "open dialogue" over the internet between the Non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians without it descending into chaos and tit-for-tat debates in which all information gets lost. All that we will get is a series of contradictory "articles" which are labelled as one or other group's "POV". To avoid this, people (like myself) will not contribute so as not to cause offense at a time when the Churches are attempting to heal divisions. With the result that the information remains unedited.
While I can accept the policies of this forum and the Orthodoxwiki forum, I think they may actually, in a sense, retard dialogue between Non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians. Until both groups can work out among themselves exactly what their position is towards one another, and how they will approach one another, I think that placing them in a public "arena" with the "public" acting as referee is the the "diplomatic" equivalent of a cockfight- and this may prove to do more damage than good.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Our bias is clearly labelled in the website.  (See the above link.)

I understand this, but I doubt that 95% of those who have engaged with this website are even aware of the existence of that page. I myself have read a number of articles on orthodoxwiki and was unaware of that disclaimer until you provided the link to it. I do not mean to imply that you are responsible on your part for whether or not users bother to investigate the nature of the overriding bias of that site, but only to observe what practically occurs: the average user sees an article on "orthodoxwiki" and just automatically assumes it to be representative of the unqualified "Orthodox Church".

we determined that we did not wish it to be exclusively Chalcedonian

I understand this. It's a similar project that the administrators of this website have attempted to undertake with this forum. Though I respect and appreciate the genuineness behind the motivation and purpose of this goal, I am disheartened by the practical outcome of it. The way I see it, such projects, and the way they are handled, often result in inadvertently casting a condascending light upon the OO Church as a second-class Church to the EO Church, whose doctrines and historical viewpoints need to be taken with extra caution.

In any event, the name is what it is.  (One can hardly blame Rome for calling its own website "The Holy See.")

I don't think I would have the right to complain about how anyone chooses to name their own personal website, but wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral online encyclopedia, and as such, that neutrality is to be reflected in the very name itself. I just don't think it's the appropriate forum for one to be promoting their self-understanding without proper qualification. I am only expressing my thoughts on the matter.

I think you will understand where i'm coming from, with a little empathy. I mean how would you feel if a non-Chalcedonian owner created an orthodoxywiki.com cautioning readers to be wary of the neutrality of an article by exclusive virtue of it being pro-Chalcedonian. I doubt you'd be very impressed, and I doubt that a disclaimer page similar to the one that exists on orthodoxwiki will make you feel any better about it.

We welcome your participation, however, and we have generally had a very good experience in working with the non-Chalcedonian contributors that we've had.

I've probably stepped on (more like stampeded upon) many toes on this forum in particular. I doubt you would appreciate my participation, nor do I desire to spark any fire over there as I have done here. My views on the whole Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian issue have evolved dramatically over the past couple of years, ultimately shaped by the perceived treatment of my Church, both intentional and unintentional, and the negative effects that such treatment potentially created.

Furthermore, my take on certain matters will undoubtedly incur the "watch out!" tag, and I don't want to have that stigma attached to what I believe to be genuine scholarship based on reason, facts and history.

======================================================================================

Again, I stress that I am not imputing any intentions or agendas on behalf of the owners/contributors of orthodoxwikipedia.com, and if I am inclined to impute any, they would be of an honest, genuine, and respectful nature. So please do not interpret my take on this matter as an attack of any sort.

[ozgeorge]

EA,
I never thought I'd live to see the day where you and I actually agreed on something...
Should I be worried?

[GiC]

EA,
I never thought I'd live to see the day where you and I actually agreed on something...
Should I be worried?

What is truly frightening is that I just worked up the nerve to agree with EA on this matter, then I scrolled down and saw you already had, thus making this twice as hard. But here it goes, I actually completely agree with EA on this matter.

Everyone here knows that I have been more than polemic on the debates over Chalcedon and that I hold the council of Chalcedon about as high in regard as it can be held. But I don't claim objectivity in my posts by any stretch of the imagination. If a site is going to claim to be objective and even encyclopedic, that is to say being more than a message board or editorial board, it should live up to the standards of objectivity and that means neutrality (which is possible, it just takes a lot more work than editorials).

I really don't see why a distinction would need to be made between an artical written by a Chalcedonian and a Non-Chalcedonian, or even by an Orthodox Christian and a Roman Catholic, or between one of an Orthodox Christian and an Atheist. If the information is factual, historical, and objective without any bias towards personal opinion then it is a good article regardless of who wrote it. But if it is not factual or unhistorical or subjective, betraying the author's bias, then it is a poor article that should be discarded or at least revised, regardless of whether the author is an Atheist, Roman Catholic, Non-Chalcedonian, or Faithful Orthodox Christian. Now I will concede that historical facts can be presented in a biased manner (I could make a long list of allied atrocities and violations of the Geneva Convention during WWII that would leave a reader who is uninformed about the era believing that the Allies were the ruthless and evil agressors without my ever having to say so), but the solution to this problem, provided the facts were presented without opinion, isn't to discard the article or to put a warning label on it, but rather to include the facts from the other side of the issue, let the reader make up their own mind...that's what objectivity is about.

I do disagree with ozgeorge who said that wiki can't work (at least in the context we are discussing), I believe it can; but it will require administrators that are fully devoted to the idea of objectivity and neutrality and will not allow any personal beliefs or religious convictions, not matter how strong or justified, get in their way. However, from my admittedly very limited experience with orthodoxwiki, I don't see that happening.

[asdamick]

While I can accept the policies of this forum and the Orthodoxwiki forum...

Just to clarify:  OrthodoxWiki is not a forum.  It's an encyclopedia.  It's not a site for serious dialogue, but it does reflect that dialogue is taking place.

[asdamick]

I don't think I would have the right to complain about how anyone chooses to name their own personal website, but wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral online encyclopedia, and as such, that neutrality is to be reflected in the very name itself. I just don't think it's the appropriate forum for one to be promoting their self-understanding without proper qualification. I am only expressing my thoughts on the matter.

What you say about Wikipedia is true.  OrthodoxWiki, however, while using the same software, is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the MediaWiki Foundation in any way.  While our own variety of neutrality is related to Wikipedia's, it is not identical, nor is it intended to be.

Wikis are not all Wikipedia.  The wiki software does not in itself necessitate neutrality.  It's just an editing engine for a website, designed to enable editing by multiple users.  So it does not bring with it a particular philosophy.  For OrthodoxWiki, we've fashioned our own, and it's generally worked for us, especially because our administrative team is dedicated to their task.  We have more disagreements about whether to use the word "of" or "in" than we do about questions of real substance.  Generally, those questions are just a matter of documenting what is already generally accepted and accessible information.  The vast majority of our content is on completely uncontroversial information.


Anyway, the point of the thread was just to extend an ongoing invitation.  No one need feel compelled to answer it, though more than 1000 folks have.

[ozgeorge]

I do disagree with ozgeorge who said that wiki can't work

As I said, I see some merit in the concept of wiki, but perhaps I take a somewhat cynical view, in that I think Napoleon was right that "history is a lie agreed upon". Orthodoxwiki most certainly won't work if it's definition of Orthodoxy is a "Chalcedonian bias"- firstly beacuse the definition of "Orthodox" is left nebulous by this, and simply seems to mean people whose priests marry, grow beards, dress funny and venerate icons; and secondly, neutrality is impossible if you start with any premise of a "bias".

Just to clarify:  OrthodoxWiki is not a forum.  It's an encyclopedia.  It's not a site for serious dialogue, but it does reflect that dialogue is taking place.

Father,
I meant "forum" in the same sense that a soapbox can be a forum.

[FrJohn]

Greetings all,

Dcn. Andrew sent me a link to this thread. After reading through it, I'd like a make a couple of comments. (I'm the founder and head honcho of OrthodoxWiki.)

First, I'm grateful that you all aren't making this into a personal attack. It's too easy to go that direction on forums without really knowing what is going on in people's minds. Similarly, I'm grateful that mnay of you have been really thinking about the concept of a wiki and how it should (or should not) be related to Orthodoxy.

I'm happy with just about everything Dcn. Andrew has said. We have found the Chalcedonian-non-Chalcedonian fault line to be one of the more contentious, or at least one of the most emotional, issues on the wiki. I'd like to extend his invitation, not just to contribute, but to help us think through concretely how we might deal with this in a better manner. I'm not sure labelleling things as "non-Chalcedonian" is best, because as someone said, the very act of marking denotes it as "other." It seems to me that encylopedia articles should strive to represent every side of the issue fairly. For the moment, we also have a number of "contributed articles" on the wiki - we plan to move these to another site over the summer in order to keep the encyclopedia-focus of OrthodoxWiki sharp, but I think for the time being many of these are properly labelled since they don't conform to our own NPOV policy.

The difficulty with trying to be objective or neutral is that such objectivity is always a myth. This is why we adopted a different  version of NPOV (neutral point of view) than Wikipedia's, which does not admit the primacy of revelation, as received by the Holy Orthodox Church. We don't think it would be appropriate to qualify the theological claims of Orthodoxy. This is similar to the problem of pluralism as worked out in the public sphere. Secularism too easily becomes a system with it's own value structure (based on individual rights and autonomy). OrthodoxWiki is designed for our own community, so that we can have a rich discussion freely acknowledging the supra-rational bases of our beliefs. We felt that we needed to make a bias explicit for these reasons.

One exception I would take to Dcn. Andrew's words is that I do hope it will be a place for serious dialogue -- in a way which is difficult for a forum. I mean that I hope by challenging people to encounter history and voice their perspectives in an encylopedic style -- documenting who said what where. and why -- the dialogue would at least been deepened and frivolous arguments discarded. My hope is that real areas of disagreement would be clarified and referenced.

It may be true that many visitors are not aware of this, however, it's linked in the welcome message our sysops leave for every new user, and we talk about it all the time - often very directly in cases where people post things which are inappropriate. Others seem to intuitively "get" what the project is about.

Anyway, if any of you have concrete and workable suggestions for how we can make it better, please do let us know!

Yours in Christ, on this blessed Feast-day,

Fr. John

[ozgeorge]

Father bless,

This is why we adopted a different  version of NPOV (neutral point of view) than Wikipedia's, which does not admit the primacy of revelation, as received by the Holy Orthodox Church. We don't think it would be appropriate to qualify the theological claims of Orthodoxy........
.....Anyway, if any of you have concrete and workable suggestions for how we can make it better, please do let us know!

I think the problem is the way in which you have defined what "Orthodoxy" is for the purposes of Orthodoxwiki, and this definition does not correspond to the "revelation received by the Holy Orthodox Church". In fact, the definition of Orthodoxy you have chosen is "divided against itself" since it includes teachings which both accept and reject four of the Seven Oecumenical Councils. The Only way that such a definition of Orthodoxy is sustainable is if you limit it to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the first three Oecumenical Councils).
So my suggestion is that you are going to have to make some hard (and possibly unpopular) decisions as to how you are going to define "Orthodoxy" for Orthodoxwiki.

[GiC]

The difficulty with trying to be objective or neutral is that such objectivity is always a myth. This is why we adopted a differentÂÂ  version of NPOV (neutral point of view) than Wikipedia's, which does not admit the primacy of revelation, as received by the Holy Orthodox Church. We don't think it would be appropriate to qualify the theological claims of Orthodoxy. This is similar to the problem of pluralism as worked out in the public sphere. Secularism too easily becomes a system with it's own value structure (based on individual rights and autonomy). OrthodoxWiki is designed for our own community, so that we can have a rich discussion freely acknowledging the supra-rational bases of our beliefs. We felt that we needed to make a bias explicit for these reasons.

While you are certainly free to provide whatever rules and guidelines you desire for your site, calling it encyclopedic while maintaining a deliberate bias is simply dishonest. Encyclopedias don't make value judgements, they simply present facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. When Encyclopedias fail, they most often fail by giving only one part of the story and generally this is out of ignorance; one of the strengths of wikipedia is that when someone sees an imbalance due to ignorance it can be corrected. Specifically on the issue of Chalcedon it sounds like you have the luxury of having representatives from both sides so, in theory, you should be able to work out an article that is mutually acceptable to each side, this would be an article that could be regarded as neutral. Unfortunately with other disputes in Christianity, e.g. Arianism, you might not have this luxury having to work extra hard to see the issue from their perspective in order to be objective. (btw, your article on Arianism is certainly not objective, a discussion of the context of the dispute and how Arianism was a reaction to Sabellianism would be appropriate, as well as such things like mentioning that the Arians rejected Nicea because it was viewed as a Sabellian Council).

Now with that said, you seem to be putting forth a good effort, but objectivity is a difficult (though worthy) goal to obtain, which will, at times, require you to put aside your beliefs in order to ensure that opposing beliefs receive equal and fair treatment.

[GiC]

Father bless,I think the problem is the way in which you have defined what "Orthodoxy" is for the purposes of Orthodoxwiki, and this definition does not correspond to the "revelation received by the Holy Orthodox Church". In fact, the definition of Orthodoxy you have chosen is "divided against itself" since it includes teachings which both accept and reject four of the Seven Oecumenical Councils. The Only way that such a definition of Orthodoxy is sustainable is if you limit it to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the first three Oecumenical Councils).
So my suggestion is that you are going to have to make some hard (and possibly unpopular) decisions as to how you are going to define "Orthodoxy" for Orthodoxwiki.

The thing is that if it is an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any controversial defining involved, while 'orthodoxwiki' may somewhat restrict the scope of the site (an article on general relativity would probably not be appropriate, though could be if someone could tie it into theology), but for any given topic the articles could still be objective, presenting both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox views equally.

[ozgeorge]

The thing is that if it is an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any controversial defining involved, while 'orthodoxwiki' may somewhat restrict the scope of the site (an article on general relativity would probably not be appropriate, though could be if someone could tie it into theology), but for any given topic the articles could still be objective, presenting both Orthodox and Non-Orthodox views equally.

I see what you are saying, but if we are going to determine the relevancy of articles for Orthodoxwiki according to their relevancy to Orthodoxy, we still have to define what Orthodoxy is.

[asdamick]

I see what you are saying, but if we are going to determine the relevancy of articles for Orthodoxwiki according to their relevancy to Orthodoxy, we still have to define what Orthodoxy is.

I'm utterly fascinated by how complex this topic can apparently be in detached conversation and yet how relatively uncomplicated it has been in active, experiential practice. 

[FrJohn]

I appreciate Dcn. Andrew's sense of humor here.

...calling it encyclopedic while maintaining a deliberate bias is simply dishonest. Encyclopedias don't make value judgements, they simply present facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. When Encyclopedias fail, they most often fail by giving only one part of the story and generally this is out of ignorance; one of the strengths of wikipedia is that when someone sees an imbalance due to ignorance it can be corrected. Specifically on the issue of Chalcedon it sounds like you have the luxury of having representatives from both sides so, in theory, you should be able to work out an article that is mutually acceptable to each side, this would be an article that could be regarded as neutral. Unfortunately with other disputes in Christianity, e.g. Arianism, you might not have this luxury having to work extra hard to see the issue from their perspective in order to be objective. (btw, your article on Arianism is certainly not objective, a discussion of the context of the dispute and how Arianism was a reaction to Sabellianism would be appropriate, as well as such things like mentioning that the Arians rejected Nicea because it was viewed as a Sabellian Council).

A couple things in response to this post. First, I think just the opposite about encylcopedias. If you aren't explicit about a bias, you're being dishonest. No encylopedia is utterly free of bias. Note how controversial the first encyclopedia was in France BTW.

I hope that the strength of wikipedia you mention will also be a strength of OrthodoxWiki, and I hope this is in fact what will happen vis a vis the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox issues. Also, in fact, the article on Arianism would be stronger if you at least included those comments on the Talk page.

Of course, there will be some bias latent in however we define Orthodoxy. We've chosen to go with a pretty broad and simple "Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias" for this reason. Like Dcn Andrew said, we need to land somewhere, even if we don't wish to be exclusive. And I should say that, if anything, I think our personal attitudes are pretty pro-non-Chalcedonian, but we do want any legitimate criticisms of this position to be heard as well.

Thanks,

Fr. John

[Robert]

Surely we respect the rules and regulations set forth by Orthowiki....as such we'd also expect you to respect our rules here on this forum.

Administrator approval is required prior to posting advertisments.  Thank you.