Dear Loong -

Wikipedia is notorious for having people change content. Students have been known to go in, edit an article to hold their point of view, then submit a paper referring to the Wikipedia page which now holds their content.

Yes certainly other people then will often catch the change and go in and fix it. But Wikipedia is HUGE. It would be impossible for people to watch every page every second of every day.

And yes I have made changes on Wikipedia. It's not hard at all.

Wikipedia is a good starting point. But it should never be the final word. One should always go to more directly written sources to get the final word.

To Lisa,

Then if you have done that, tell me who owns the truth?
Oh and what should be the final word?What sources are you talking about? All human written.
I myself have written 2 books ,does that mean that my books
would be a better reference,since you cannot change the content?
Mein Kamf was written by a man ,yet is it good reference?

Like I wrote in my other post,you take the truth where you consider it to be.Even if it does not exist in itself,but only in the beleiver's mind.

With respect
loong

Dear Loong -

First, I would posit that there is no one truth.

However, if I am searching for a more accurate answer, I would not use a group-source, unverifiable entity like Wikipedia.

If I wanted to learn more about how wine is made I would go to a winery. I would sit with the winemaker, watch him make the wine, and learn from him.

If I only had access to a book, I would research to find a winemaker I trusted, and I would read what he had written.

But in addition I would never go with just one source. I would then read other books, by other trusted, respected winemakers, and learn from the consensus of their views.

Dear Lisa ,

You write:First, I would posit that there is no one truth.

I beleive you are redirecting the subject here. The affirmation of
your 2 editors was that Wiki cannot be trusted and does not possess the truth .Other books do. What other books?
You speak of a winemaker,how many wineries say they have the best wines? Which one would you choose,knowing what I have just written?
With respect

loong

Dear Loong -

I apologize if you feel the subject was changed. From my point of view it is the exact same subject, with the same issue at hand. That is, the topic is how we judge who to trust when learning new information.

The editors said they do not trust Wikipedia as having accurate information and that a book written by a respected author can be better trusted. I do agree with them.

So then you are now asking how to know WHICH books to trust, and that is exactly what I was presenting. I have many ways to determine which winemakers I would trust more than others. Every person will have their own criteria in making that decision.

So for my particular point of view on how to choose books on winemaking, first I would make sure the winemaker had been making wine for at least twenty years. I would make sure the wines he had created had received world-wide attention and had been praised for their high quality by a variety of reviewers. I would make sure that he or she personally wrote the book and did not entrust that to a ghost-writer. There would be other criteria as well. And then I would choose at least four books that met these criteria, from people in different regions, from different backgrounds, to make sure that any individual bias was accounted for. That is how I would begin my quest.

Great information, Lisa. Thank you.

The point I was making is that not everything on Wikipedia is true or 100% accurate, and details can be changed by anyone at any time, so I usually check other sources "besides" Wikipedia for information that I seek. I want various views from several well thought out sources in order to make up my mind about how true some information is. It has nothing to do with whether an author is male or female. Evidently others feel the same about Wikipedia because teachers are telling kids not to use it as a resource these days.

At one time that may have been all we had for online resources, and a lot of what is found on Wikipedia is still very good. But now we do have other options and it is always good to check other sources.

I think we have really gone off topic here, but some good points have been made.

To Debbie,no one else,please,

In your last post,you wrote :

Wikipedia is still very good. But now we do have other options and it is always good to check other sources.

So Spiritually speaking name me ,if you please 3 to5 sure sources on spirituality.

This being the spirituality corner.

Respecting you

loong

Spirituality is personal to each individual. There are many books, online articles, blogs, even videos on the subject. I have written articles on what I believe spirituality is, but again, these are my views, which may or may not be what you believe. Many others have written their views down in books, blogs, and articles. Some things I agree with, some things I do not.

Spirituality can be drawn from holy books as well such as the Bible and the Koran, but it may mean nothing to you as a Buddhist. The point is, there are resources abundant, but each person has to decide for themselves what makes sense to them and what it is they believe.

On the Spirituality site there is a section on reviews where several books have already been reviewed by a previous editor. Perhaps that would be a good place to start if you are looking for some reading material. If a book seems interesting to you then perhaps it would be a worthwhile read.

Hi Debbie, great article. I know these words 'religious' and 'spiritual' can mean very different things to different people. For some people, spirituality has to exist within an organized religion, while for others it most definitely does not. I have been on both sides of that fence, and no longer associate myself solely with one religion, including Buddhism, mostly because I found so many common truths and practices across different religions, when I dove into studying the mystic arms of each. I draw on many different practices and resources in my own journey, and so even though I would say Buddhism is still my primary reference point, I don't choose to label myself as 'Buddhist' any longer. So in that sense, you could say I am spiritual but not religious.

Looong - just a side note on Wikipedia. For Buddhism, I often find it a very good resource, but there are sometimes 'gaps' int what is covered, because it is all volunteer. So I always check other sites like Buddhanet or AccesstoInsight, as well as my library of books, etc. for other views. So I don't think anyone is saying Wikipedia is bad, just that it's slippery as a sole resource, because of the volunteer editing thing. Usually, problems are caught pretty quickly, but sometimes it can be a few days.

Just for my own benefit, are you Lisa S/Loong arguing, or are enjoying debate? I never know the difference and I am hoping this discussion is enjoyable for you both. Hoping.

Where i grew up, in my household, this would be a pretty unpleasant conversation with everyone feeling uncomfortable and that they have to defend their POV.

I hate thinking of conversations where there are winners and losers.

So I would feel a lot better if i know this was just enjoyable sparring.