As we all know, the Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that can be (theoretically) edited by anyone, guided by the principle of delivering reliable, balanced, unbiased information. However, for much time I was under impression that the English Wikipedia is dominated by anti-Christian/anti- Catholic bias.
Nevertheless, I tried to add a minor edit in the article Relics associated with Jesus. The lead goes currently:
A number of relics associated with Jesus have been claimed and displayed throughout the history of Christianity. Some people believe in the authenticity of some relics; others doubt the authenticity of various items. For instance, the sixteenth-century Catholic theologian Erasmus wrote sarcastically about the proliferation of relics, and the number of buildings that could have been constructed from the wood claimed to be from the cross used in the Crucifixion of Christ. Similarly, while experts debate whether Christ was crucified with three or with four nails, at least thirty Holy Nails continue to be venerated as relics across Europe.
I, being anonymous user with IP, tried to add the following note on the end, to have it more balanced:
On the other hand, the authors Górny and Rosikoń state that in case of some relics "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition."
Citing Górny& Rosikoń prologue to their Witnesses of Mystery, pg. 7. You can see my version here.
Unfortunately, as I expected, there came some brainless admin, nicknamed Dougweller, and reverted my edits, under the pretext that the book is not “reliable source”. After several reverts, and this regrettable discussion with him and his buddies, they blocked the article, and removed the “improper” content. The argument of force was stronger than the force of the arguments.
Sadly, this is not the single example on the Wikipedia. Just see the article on Jesus section ‘Relics_associated_with_Jesus’:
The total destruction that ensued the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD made the survival of items from first century Judea very rare and almost no direct records survive about the history of Judaism from the last part of the first century through the second century.[j] Margaret M. Mitchell writes that although Eusebius reports (Ecclesiastical History III 5.3) that the early Christians left Jerusalem for Pella just before Jerusalem was subjected to the final lock down, we must accept that no first hand Christian items from the early Jerusalem Church have reached us. However, throughout the history of Christianity a number of relics attributed to Jesus have been claimed, although doubt has been cast on them, e.g. the 16th-century Catholic theologian Erasmus wrote sarcastically about the proliferation of relics and the number of buildings that could have been constructed from the wood claimed to be from the cross used in the Crucifixion. Similarly, while experts debate whether Jesus was crucified with three nails or with four, at least thirty holy nails continue to be venerated as relics across Europe. Some relics, such as purported remnants of the Crown of Thorns, receive only a modest number of pilgrims, while the Shroud of Turin (which is associated with an approved Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus), have received millions, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Modern scholarship strongly doubts the authenticity of all relics attributed to
Jesus.[383 –reference to Joe Nickell’s book ‘Relics of the Christ’]
The purpose of this section is obvious –to show readers that no authentic relics of Christ can exist.
Now see the lead of the article on the Shroud:
The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino) is a length of linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, despite radiocarbon dating placing its origins in the Medieval period. The image is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The negative image was first observed in 1898, on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy.
In 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of how the image was produced. In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390. Since 2005, at least four scholarly articles have been published in various sources stating that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole Shroud. The people who performed the dating process, a former scientist who studied the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP, a textile expert who handled the shroud during its 2002 restoration process and a carbon-dating expert who examined a surviving portion of the original radiocarbon sample have all individually confirmed that the radiocarbon sample was part of the original cloth, and was not part of any later repair. (boldings mine)
What is most important, besides the basic information? To assure readers FOUR TIMES (“people who performed the dating process,” “a former scientist who studied the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP” –this is reference to John Jackson, who nevertheless believes the Shroud is from the 1st century, “a textile expert who handled the shroud during its 2002 restoration process”- Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg, who also believe the Shroud to be genuine, and a carbon-dating expert who examined a surviving portion of the original radiocarbon sample – reference to T.A. Jull) that the carbon-dating is right. That’s the most important message here.
And so on. I could give more examples, how the Wikipedia works. It is not for my nerves. But the problem is that who has Wikipedia, has the power, as it is today the basic source of information for millions around the globe. So we cannot give up, and let the skeptics/militant atheists/other folks with hostile agenda rampage over there. As long as we do not take matters into our own hands we will be considered as flat-earthers by large part of the brainwashed population.