In the last 60 days, the Wikipedia article on the shroud was viewed some 56,000 times.
Pages in this blog were viewed 161,000 times by at least 48,000 visitors.
Yes, I know that is apples and oranges.
Religion News Service (RNS) has an interesting story about Wikipedia editing wars:
The problem confronting many Wikipedia editors is that religion elicits passion — and often, more than a little vitriol as believers and critics spar over facts, sources and context. For “Wikipedians” like Willey, trying to put a lid on the online hate speech that can be endemic to Wikipedia entries is a key part of their job.
Religion is among several of the top 100 altered topics on Wikipedia, according to a recent list published by Five Thirty Eight. Former President George W. Bush is the most contested entry, but Jesus (No. 5) and the Catholic Church (No. 7) fall closely behind.
For instance, a graphic for the RNS story tells us that the Wikipedia article about Jesus has been revised 26, 580 times; about the Catholic Church, 23,884 times; about Christianity, 17,273 times.
That made me wonder: How many times has the Wikipedia article on the shroud been revised? According to Wikipedia statistics for the page it has been revised 4,235 times since 2002 (click graph to enlarge).
This page is a mess:
image analysis :
“Shroud researcher Colin Berry has observed that the scorch marks and holes in the shroud also produced clear 3D images under the VP8 analysis.[148] He deduced from this that the shroud image was produced by light scorching, and has produced 3D images from scorches using appropriate software.[149]”
bas-relief:
“it has been suggested that the bas-relief could also be heated and used to scorch an image onto the cloth. However researcher Thibault Heimburger performed some experiments with the scorching of linen, and found that a scorch mark is only produced by direct contact with the hot object – thus producing an all-or-nothing discoloration with no graduation of color as is found in the shroud.[191]”
And about Maillard reaction:
“the image resolution and the uniform coloration of the linen resolution seem to be incompatible with a mechanism involving diffusion.[197]”
197: Fanti et alii, Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality, Journal of Imaging Science and Technology—July/August 2010—Volume 54, Issue 4, p. 040201-6
Discussed here, no comment.
It looks like “Bouvard et Pécuchet” are writing this article, mixing apples and oranges without even noticing.