Laura asked in a comment whether in the light of recent conversations anyone had read the Wikipedia entry on Emerging Church... my answer was no... Now I guess no EC types need to go there to find out about the EC... but others must do... so, firstly the article starts with a reasonable look at the values and characteristics... but it goes downhill from there... the worst bit is that there is a plethora of links to critical articles and books, but pretty much nothing to any positive articles and the absence of the books we all know and love (well mostly) is incredible... so here's the plea... if you are a contributing member PLEASE go and edit the article... and at least add some decent books... someone somewhere (try the Skinny) must have done a decent book list... in fact I'm pretty sure I've read and linked to some in the not too distant past!
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church
well that's no good. emergentvillage has a good book list.
Posted by: Makeesha | 25/07/2006 at 20:52
Mark
You might like to note that for some time Aaron Flores in California (he is a viblogger and warmly identifies himself with Emerging Church projects) tried to take editorial responsibility for the wikipedia article. Aaron wrote his master's thesis about Emerging Churches on the Internet. I recall that he quit looking after the article owing to the steady stream of editorial arguments made by others on the "talk" tabbed section that lies behind the main article. He did remark on this on his blog during 2005, and I recall that TSK did draw attention to the problem when Aaron tossed in the towel.
The "neutrality" of an article can quikly become a point of contention on wiki generally when strongly opinionated contributors who hold opposing views begin an e-version of a gladiatorial contest.
While this should not daunt some responsible contributors from improving on the article's content, bibliography and web-links, it is best to be forewarned of probable "conflict" that will ensue with any editing of the article.
Blessings
Posted by: philjohnson | 26/07/2006 at 01:06