Librarian says 'Just say no to Wikipedia' Options

Librarian: 'Just say no to Wikipedia'
The Express Times, PA -6 minutes ago
BY LYNN OLANOFF Linda O'Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs. The Great Meadows Middle School ...


View the article

Linda O'Connor, a school librarian, puts up a sign saying 'Just Say No to Wikipedia' over school computers at the library. Students and teachers have found major inaccuracies on topics such as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Vietnam war on the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.

View the article

Huzzah! Praise be to the librarian! Praise be to her!

Huzzah! Praise be to the librarian! Praise be to her!

I'm glad that someone else has seen the analogy that I've been drawing between Wikipedia and drug abuse.

Jonny

Linda O'Connor, a school librarian, puts up a sign saying 'Just Say No to Wikipedia' over school computers at the library. Students and teachers have found major inaccuracies on topics such as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Vietnam war on the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.

Not to mention Martin Luther, who according to Wikipedia, was more or less responsible for Nazi anti-semitism.

A complete fallacy.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 18th November 2007, 10:57am

Not to mention Martin Luther, who according to Wikipedia, was more or less responsible for Nazi anti-semitism.

A complete fallacy.

Indeed, and as an admirer of Martin Luther I am appalled by some of what WP claims. This is what a respected Jewish source says:

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Kristallnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career....We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-Semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseudo-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...er_on_Jews.html

Martin Luther was a nasty anti-Semite in a way that few of his colleagues or immediate disciples were. That is not to say that he is any more to blame for anti-Semitism centuries after his death than were the many, many loyal Catholics who were (and are) anti-Semites. I fail to understand the motivation for this.

Martin Luther was a nasty anti-Semite in a way that few of his colleagues or immediate disciples were.

Some of Luther's nastiest writings suggested they be burned, which was used by the Nazis 400 years later. Yet,

• Luther was a nasty man, who attacked viciously in writing, anyone who disagreed with him.
• Luther translated the Bible from Latin to German (a first) by translating it to the local language, he brought the text to the common person, promoting literacy, and and making knowledge available to the common person. To this day, the Catholic Church does not advocate direct reading of the Bible, as they prefer that the interpretations of the saints (etc) be read, but not the Bible, proper.
• Luther fought church corruption. The RC church was bleeding the poor of Germany to pay for St. Paul's Cathedral. Luther loosened the strangehold that the corrupt RC church had on the continent. He risked his life for such principles, and that was admirable.
• Per the Jews, he wrote some horrible things. But it wasnt so cut and dried as all that. Initially, he reached out to them (and he wrote about that too), then when they didn't respond as he liked (presumably converting), he wrote the nastiest of his writings on Jews. Luther did the same thing to many of his reformer compatriots (Calvin, being one example), when they failed to agree with him. He attacked them viciously in print, though not as violently. But Jews back then were easy targets, sadly.
• Luther was a cantankerous and unpleasant person. Most of the Reformers were cantankerous, dogmatic and nasty personalities (including Calvin), but Luther was notably virulent and unpredictable among them.
• Luther never killed anyone, which is more than you can say for Calvin. Calvin burned people at the stake, and many other torturous practices , which Luther never undertook. Where is that emphasis in Wikipedia? They could at least make Calvin look as bad, re: real blood on his hands.
• Anti-semitism was pretty common back then. Sad, but true. Jews were commonly spoken of as animals or worse, even by church leaders of the RC church. Luther didnt start that. He didnt improve it either. His religion was a major force in Germany,and 400 years later, when it did what it did to the Jewish people (holocaust) and other target groups, Luther's virulent writings against the Jews were used to prop up, justify, and excuse the Nazi policies.
• Still, Luther didn't invent anti-semitism. He certainly didn't participate in the holocaust. He did write words that were disgustingly used to justify extermination (horrible that he wrote such things). But he wrote other strange things. But it was 400 years prior to the holocaust. One cannot possibly expect 1536 writings to have had such grave bearing on 1936 events.

Personaly, I'd be more interested in a coherent article on the roots of German/European antisemitism that pulled up, or suggested some real origins of the phenomenon, (sociological, historical, etc.) rather than blaming Luther, so singularly, for what already existed in his time.

A more nuanced presentation would do more to combat future racial stereotypes and abuse, by providing education and insight. Blaming one man does little in that direction.

That is not to say that he is any more to blame for anti-Semitism centuries after his death than were the many, many loyal Catholics who were (and are) anti-Semites. I fail to understand the motivation for this.

Because it is simplistic and people like easy answers. Germany is mostly Lutheran, Germany was Nazi, Luther wrote anti-semitic things, hence ....

But Hitler came from predominantly Catholic Austria, where towns still exist which today, where people think HItler was just swell. (Austria never was dumped with guilt as was Germany, oddly). Catholic Poland was notably anti-semitic (pograms, etc). So the entire Luther fixation misses something very important.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Sun 18th November 2007, 3:43pm

the Catholic Church does not advocate direct reading of the Bible, as they prefer that the interpretations of the saints (etc) be read, but not the Bible, proper.

Bullshit. "interpretations of the saints read"? You mean the saints who wrote the new testament in the Bible?

I was at a catholic mass funeral last week. Other than the incessant kneeling and standing, and a priest who had no business in the God business running the show, the only words I heard were directly from the christian bible, and a few songs and prayers that Protestants and Catholics alike know.

I've had this discussion dozens of times over the years and find an amazing amount of ignorance of cathocism from protestants, or judaism from christians, of islam from both, and on and on with other religions.

One thing I find most amusing is when Christians go off on Mormonism, describing with mouths agape the incredibility of the events that began it - as if a carpenter troublemaker's rising from the dead is any less credible to jewish folks. My buddhist and hindu encounters offer similar (very polite) takes on monotheistic religions.

I'm no Essjay, but I'm pretty confident from my life-long sleuthing methods that Catholicism doesn't deter their followers from reading the bibles and just take some latter day saints' word for it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Whatever makes peoples lives better and stops them from killing each other is kosher.

And yes, that was SlimVirgin, Mantanmoreland and his sockshow, who I see pulled the Nazi routine on MLK's bio.

I am still pissed about seeing the same thing done to TS Eliot's biography. Way, way, way too much of that bio is spent on it.

Meanwhile they all run around in a tizzy over some Italian lawyer who's threatening Jimbo with lawyer things just for repeating what the entire free world reliable source press has already reported.

The lesson? Complain about your bio on a legal letter head and everything you did bad in life can get whitewashed.

Ol T.S. and MLK don't have that luxury.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Mon 19th November 2007, 3:20am

Martin Luther was a nasty anti-Semite in a way that few of his colleagues or immediate disciples were. That is not to say that he is any more to blame for anti-Semitism centuries after his death than were the many, many loyal Catholics who were (and are) anti-Semites. I fail to understand the motivation for this.

Europe itself was anti-semitic then. The whole damn continent. And most of it still is. There's a difference in not accepting the religiously different and going Nazi on them though.

People who are religious don't usually care much for other religions. American Baptists can't even tolerate other Protestants, not too mention Catholics, who they hiliarously confuse with Jews.

POV warriors running rough-shod through WP to paint every biography whose protagonist was even once accused of antisemitism in any way by any obscure punk with a grudge and access to a university press is out-of-hand.

Now Slimmy's just back to PETA POV'ing. Cuz we all love puppies. Nevermind that most of the shots that put her in the low childhood mortality bracket exist because of animal testing.

Isn't it strange how a librarian saying no to WP has now turned into a debate about Martin Luther's anti-semiticism?

Luther was a very blunt man, from what I've seen on a documentary about him. He drew pictures of the Pope fornicating with the Devil and all that (the Catholics returned the favor, of course). I'm not surprised that he may have said what many theologians and people thought back then. Pogroms were in vogue at that time period. It was wrong by our perspective, but that was the way people thought then. If you did show sympathy to Jews at that time, you were an eccentric at the best and a heretic at the worst. Why historically speaking have Jews always been treated like crap for much of their history, I'll never know (if it weren't for them, Christians and Muslims wouldn't be here today arguing that the Jews are wrong. Irony!)

I can't respect Luther's anti-semiticism, but I can respect his principles on religion which created the Protestant churches. Of course, my bias is that I am a Protestant and therefore thankful that Luther took that stand at Worms.

Yes, my COI is showing. Don't ban me, Durova.

P.S. I have respect for Catholics and Jews. Don't excommunicate me, Luther.

People who are religious don't usually care much for other religions. American Baptists can't even tolerate other Protestants, not too mention Catholics, who they hiliarously confuse with Jews.

Librarian: 'Just say no to Wikipedia'
The Express Times, PA -6 minutes ago
BY LYNN OLANOFF Linda O'Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs. The Great Meadows Middle School ...


View the article

Who is this librarian and how can we get her to join WR? Photo welcome. We can use more photos of cute librarians with Tina Fey specs and the courage to speak the Wikitruth, and less Pam Anderson plastic JzG Twin Destroyers on W-R.

W-R'ians are more highly evolved when it comes to discerning the sexiness of librarians, whether they are into elbow bondage or not. Sexy banhammer still encouraged though. I'd bet a fiver that Jonny Cache has conquered many a librarians' heart with extensive footnoting.