Wikipedia Follies-Anonymous Dissident

I’ve learned that Anonymous Dissident, who removed my links from the French and German articles on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, is 12 approximately 14 years old.  Wow, that’s pretty cool Wikipedia!  A 12 approximately 14 year old is able to eliminate a link to this site which is being published by people with PhDs.  Now I’m sure that Anonymous Dissident is very mature for the age of 12 approximately 14, but it does lower the status of Wikipedia considerably when scholars can’t even add a little insignificant link to your so-called encyclopedia.

The French article in question (you will have to find it yourself because I will not be linking to Wikipedia anymore), includes a external link to Le Champ du Midrash.  Anonymous Dissident has insufficient ability to discern between what is a scholarly site for the study of the Acts of Paul and a site that obviously not at the same level.  What Le Champ du Midrash presents a “texte du travail” for the Acts of Paul and Thecla is actually a translation excerpt of Ps. Basil of Seleucia’s Life of St. Thecla, a fifth century text (at least the part that I checked).  Well, it would be nice if Le Champ du Midrash would inform its readers of that little bit of trivia, instead of providing the French of what is supposed to be a second-century text.  Very shoddy indeed.

I read once that blogs are, “The uninformed writing to the ill-informed.”  The people in the Wikipedia hierarchy don’t seem to be able to tell what is credible and what is not.  Yet Wikipedia is given high priority in just about every google search ever done on any subject.


4 Responses to Wikipedia Follies-Anonymous Dissident

  1. Anonymous Dissident says:

    The action I took in removing links to this site was not the result of the ill-discretion of a twelve year old (who is now approximately two years older than posited by this entry — while you may possess PhDs, you’ve neglected to review your sources and their dates of publishing properly here), but rather one prescribed by Wikipedia policy. See [this link] for more, with particular attention to the recommendation for blogs in the “links to be avoided” section. Posts like this one, which does not concern anything remotely educational or pertinent to an encyclopedia, lead me to believe that this blog does not meet the criterion thereat explicated.

  2. […] Follies: Response to Anonymous Dissident Anonymous Dissident wrote a very kind and pertinent reply to my complaint that he had taken down the links to Acta Pauli that I put in articles in the French […]

  3. […] Wikipedia Follies: Actes de Paul et Thècle For Anonymous Dissident (who removed my link to Acta Pauli from the article herein critiqued) […]

  4. […] Pour Anonymous Dissident (qui a enlevé mon lien vers Acta Pauli de l’article ci-après critiqué) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: