Some dummy/creep put together this wikipedia entry for evil.

Now its written in a slightly slick way, so some of you might not "see" this, but this entire article is completely
warped. The largest part of the article is broken down into three sections. The first is "Is Evil Universal?" the
next is "Is Evil a useful term?" and the last is "Is Evil good?".

The purpose of these sections seems to be to (in the first case) sems to say "Evil only exists in some cultures
its not a universal term". The next section is saying "Hey, maybe Evil shouldn't
even be a word now." And now the big one, "Is Evil good?" Wow. Notice how the preceding two sections lead up
to the kicker.

This reads like a brochure FOR evil.

The rest of the article is almost incoherent, and seems completely thrown together.

I don't know who came up with this joke, but its a little scary. The entry has been like thhis for about a year now
and it needs to be completely bulldozed so a normal entry can be put there, I can't believe no one has noticed and
changed it!

What do you all think?

[en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2010 09:11AM by brucebanner.

Well, I think you are right.

I did not read the whole thing but what jumped out and grabbed me was the word "correct".

Hmmmm.....

How about that? A maoist new-ager, maybe?

I think it's fine. I've done a lot of Wikipedia editing and I also know what is required for a page to be added; it goes through a pretty rigorous testing by many volunteer editors. If it doesn't meet requirements it is quickly deleted or highly edited. Every subject is required to be presented objectively and without bias, which it seems to me this one is. Even the word "evil" has to be presented without bias against it. The article includes all viewpoints, not only bad or only good.

Of course I disagree with the views that are cited by people talking in defense of evil, but I am sure those are put there to give a balanced presentation, not out of a marketing motive.

If you want more information on Wikipedia entry requirements, they have a very detailed section on that in their Help area.

I personally don't use Wikipedia to read about topics that I feel strongly about because inevitably something in the entry is going to make me angry! I only use it for a quick reference into stuff I don't know much about.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2010 10:32PM by Splash90.

So how does the word "correct" fit in to this "unbiased" view of evil?

Is this the sentence you're referring to?

"There is no agreement about whether evil is a matter of social custom or correct principle that overrides custom."

The sentence seems unbiased to me. Can you explain in more detail why you think that the word 'correct' indicates a bias?

Maybe if "a matter of" was changed to "is defined by" would that solve the issue?

i.e. "There is no agreement about whether evil is defined by social custom or correct principle that overrides custom."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2010 12:23AM by Splash90.

Well, to be "correct" one must have an accepted standard by which a thing is judged for its correctness. To be fully unbiased means there can be no standard.

I'm still confused... the sentence doesn't presume to know what the definition of 'correct' is; it's just saying some people think there is a 'correct principle' (using THEIR definition of 'correct') by which actions are compared and determined to be evil or good... and some people don't.

In any case, even if the sentence was stating that there IS a correct principle (i.e. if it were biased in favor of that view), then that would go against what brucebanner said which is that someone who is either really dumb or 'pro-evil' must have written the article.

Of course the great thing about Wikipedia is, if you don't like the wording of something you can go in and change it. And hope it sticks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2010 09:32AM by Splash90.

To whom it may concern:

dsm has been banned from this message board.

Rick Ross
www.culteducation.com

I see what you are saying but this article was deliberately constructed to be misleading and it is

This whole article should be relegated to a separate article about the ambiguity of evil, or deleted and replaced entirely.

Evil has a definition, several in fact:

"e·vil (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice"

The literal definition of evil is not provided on the wikipedia entry, that of something being "morally wrong" or "causing injury, pain or harm".

The article is an example of terrible scholarship at the least and seems to be deliberately constructed to promote the idea that evil is a) a false social/cultural construct,
or b) actually beneficial, moral and advantageous.

If you still can't see that the article is inaccurate and purposely confusing and misleading then picture the same type of article for "Good". An article with no clear definiton,
that intentionally creates ambiguity and confusion where there is none, putting forward the argument that good is not real, or good is actually evil. It would be absurd, as absurd
as this entry already is.

Social Psychologist Dr. Phillip Zimbardo defines evil as:

The exercise of power to intentionally harm (psychologically), hurt (physically), and/or destroy (mortally) and commit crimes against humanity.

Evil is not ambiguous, or subjective. In fact most people agree, stealing, violence, sexual abuse, and murder are evil. To try to sell evil as something that is moral is evil.