![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 21 November 2022.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 20 Mar 2023.
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Faith Freedom International was copied or moved into WikiIslam with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of WikiIslam was copied or moved into Ex-Muslims of North America with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
In this edit, User:My very best wishes removed a Sina quote but left a reference to the Sydney Morning Herald article from which the quote was taken in place.
As a result, explanatory footnote a. now reads, in total: FFI mentions its aim to lie in "'unmask[ing] Islam and help Muslims leave [the faith]".[11] ([11] being the Sydney Morning Herald reference.)
This has created the misleading impression that the cited Sydney Morning Herald article contains the "unmask[ing]" quote (which it does not; that quote is in fact unsourced). Either the Sina quote should be restored or the Sydney Morning Herald reference deleted as well. What's preferable?
As for the FFI quote, the current wording doesn't match what's on the faithfreedom.org website. Sina says there, At Faith Freedom we want to demonstrate the fallacy of Islam and help Muslims leave this dangerous cult that is threatening the peace of the world.
The "unmask" version of the quote we are currently hosting stems from p. 162 of [1], which looks like a good source (published 2014), but we can see for ourselves that the quote given there isn't accurate. I checked the Internet Archive, and the wording in Sina's piece was "demonstrate the fallacy" rather than "unmask" even back in 2004, the oldest copy available in the Wayback Machine: [2]. Conversely I was unable to find the string "unmask Islam and help muslims leave" anywhere online other than Wikipedia and the book in question.)
So let's fix that quote as well (it'll need to be fixed in Sina's article as well). Thoughts?
Cheers, Andreas JN 466 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
An interesting new open access article on WikiIslam is now available. It was submitted to the journal in November last year and is written by Edin Kozaric and Torkel Brekke, crediting feedback and comments from Goran Larsson: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/01419870.2023.2268154?needAccess=true
Their article raises certain concerns though is more caveated in its criticisms compared to previous reviews of this website and credit is given in some respects following the changes. I think a significant update to this article is therefore warranted.
I wish to add the following to the Overview and Reception sections. The Overview seems to feature brief descriptions of the website and associated events, whereas the more analytical information seems to be in the Reception section. If these are OK or there are no objections I will go ahead with the additions. "Around 2020" is an approximate date based on the year that the authors say the site ownership changed and 2022 was the submission date of the article and last access date for cited webpages.
Overview section:
Around 2020, a major revision to WikiIslam took place with a stated aim to "provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical persectives” on Islam, and stressing a "zero-tolerance policy on hateful, misleading, unencyclopedic, and polemical content." [1]: 2 As of 2022, to an extent content was in line with the new vision. [1]: 9–10, 16 Articles generally presented varying interpretations of Muslim scholars and referenced Islamic texts, scholarly debates and academic studies. [1]: 10 However, there was a bias in the selection of topics covered on the website, some of which explicitly or implicitly linked Muslims with a non-rational worldview that is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and often tended to cast them or Islam in a negative light when voices of contemporary scholars or contextualisation of debates were lacking. [1]: 11, 3
Reception section (includes several phrases quoted from EK and TB's conclusions):
In 2023, a content analysis of WikiIslam by Edin Kozaric of Oslo Metropolitan University and Torkel Brekke, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, was published following what the researchers described as "a serious effort to reinvent itself as a scientific, neutral, and unbiased website in several ways." [1]: 2 Analysing how external websites had cited WikiIslam over many years, the researchers concluded that its articles had been "used to give legitimacy to arguments made on other websites, many of which contain Islamophobic messaging." Their analysis of the most widely disseminated WikiIslam articles found them "largely selective when it comes to topics covered, and to some extent selective in the choice of references." Some of the articles "could be said to espouse attitudes that are Islamophobic", though they noted "at the same time it is also important to underline that the articles often present alternative and conflicting opinions about the topics that are discussed." Kozaric and Brekke's main concern was that "WikiIslam presents itself as an encyclopedic and scientific site without a political agenda and that it does not critically reflect upon how it can be used for serving other interests." [1]: 16
References
Gamma737 ( talk) 10:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 21 November 2022.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view. Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 20 Mar 2023.
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Faith Freedom International was copied or moved into WikiIslam with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of WikiIslam was copied or moved into Ex-Muslims of North America with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
In this edit, User:My very best wishes removed a Sina quote but left a reference to the Sydney Morning Herald article from which the quote was taken in place.
As a result, explanatory footnote a. now reads, in total: FFI mentions its aim to lie in "'unmask[ing] Islam and help Muslims leave [the faith]".[11] ([11] being the Sydney Morning Herald reference.)
This has created the misleading impression that the cited Sydney Morning Herald article contains the "unmask[ing]" quote (which it does not; that quote is in fact unsourced). Either the Sina quote should be restored or the Sydney Morning Herald reference deleted as well. What's preferable?
As for the FFI quote, the current wording doesn't match what's on the faithfreedom.org website. Sina says there, At Faith Freedom we want to demonstrate the fallacy of Islam and help Muslims leave this dangerous cult that is threatening the peace of the world.
The "unmask" version of the quote we are currently hosting stems from p. 162 of [1], which looks like a good source (published 2014), but we can see for ourselves that the quote given there isn't accurate. I checked the Internet Archive, and the wording in Sina's piece was "demonstrate the fallacy" rather than "unmask" even back in 2004, the oldest copy available in the Wayback Machine: [2]. Conversely I was unable to find the string "unmask Islam and help muslims leave" anywhere online other than Wikipedia and the book in question.)
So let's fix that quote as well (it'll need to be fixed in Sina's article as well). Thoughts?
Cheers, Andreas JN 466 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
An interesting new open access article on WikiIslam is now available. It was submitted to the journal in November last year and is written by Edin Kozaric and Torkel Brekke, crediting feedback and comments from Goran Larsson: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/01419870.2023.2268154?needAccess=true
Their article raises certain concerns though is more caveated in its criticisms compared to previous reviews of this website and credit is given in some respects following the changes. I think a significant update to this article is therefore warranted.
I wish to add the following to the Overview and Reception sections. The Overview seems to feature brief descriptions of the website and associated events, whereas the more analytical information seems to be in the Reception section. If these are OK or there are no objections I will go ahead with the additions. "Around 2020" is an approximate date based on the year that the authors say the site ownership changed and 2022 was the submission date of the article and last access date for cited webpages.
Overview section:
Around 2020, a major revision to WikiIslam took place with a stated aim to "provide accurate and accessible information from traditional and critical persectives” on Islam, and stressing a "zero-tolerance policy on hateful, misleading, unencyclopedic, and polemical content." [1]: 2 As of 2022, to an extent content was in line with the new vision. [1]: 9–10, 16 Articles generally presented varying interpretations of Muslim scholars and referenced Islamic texts, scholarly debates and academic studies. [1]: 10 However, there was a bias in the selection of topics covered on the website, some of which explicitly or implicitly linked Muslims with a non-rational worldview that is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and often tended to cast them or Islam in a negative light when voices of contemporary scholars or contextualisation of debates were lacking. [1]: 11, 3
Reception section (includes several phrases quoted from EK and TB's conclusions):
In 2023, a content analysis of WikiIslam by Edin Kozaric of Oslo Metropolitan University and Torkel Brekke, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, was published following what the researchers described as "a serious effort to reinvent itself as a scientific, neutral, and unbiased website in several ways." [1]: 2 Analysing how external websites had cited WikiIslam over many years, the researchers concluded that its articles had been "used to give legitimacy to arguments made on other websites, many of which contain Islamophobic messaging." Their analysis of the most widely disseminated WikiIslam articles found them "largely selective when it comes to topics covered, and to some extent selective in the choice of references." Some of the articles "could be said to espouse attitudes that are Islamophobic", though they noted "at the same time it is also important to underline that the articles often present alternative and conflicting opinions about the topics that are discussed." Kozaric and Brekke's main concern was that "WikiIslam presents itself as an encyclopedic and scientific site without a political agenda and that it does not critically reflect upon how it can be used for serving other interests." [1]: 16
References
Gamma737 ( talk) 10:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)