Like most other people who use the internet for reading and research (even if my own research isn’t too important), I rely a lot on Wikipedia. In fact, I used to be a minor contributor; I started entries for one topic and greatly expanded two others. I haven’t stayed up with that, but I still go there a lot as to get a rough overview on an unfamiliar topic when needed. <\/p>\n
The question is, how accurate and unbiased is a “crowd-sourced” library out there on the cloud? According to a short review<\/a> on this topic, a 2005 article in Nature magazine said that Wikipedia is about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. Another article in “Reference Sources Review” (not a very popular and well known periodical, but it sounds authoritative nonetheless) said that the big Wiki is roughly 80% accurate versus 95% being the gold standard of professional publications. Not bad for what you don’t pay for, although I’d like to think that Britannica is closer to the 95% mark than Wikipedia’s 80% (given all you have to pay for a Britannica set or even its website and CD’s)(although you probably could still walk into a library and find a dusty copy of the Britannica ready on the reference shelf for your perusal)(but who goes to libraries anymore? I don’t, but I honestly do miss them; maybe when I retire . . . ) <\/p>\n Up to now, I haven’t found any obvious mistakes on Wikipedia. My biggest complaint to date is that when you look up a scientific concept having to do with quantum physics or cosmology or such (like quantum decoherence <\/a> or the fine structure constant<\/a>) you get barraged by heavy, complicated math expressions and ethereal physics concepts. I’m looking for something more intuitive, step-by-step, laid out with examples and diagrams. Obviously, these articles are written by science grad students anxious to show off the intellectual fruits of their academic labors. Too bad that you need to be a grad student yourself, if not an experienced physicist, to get anything out of these articles. <\/p>\n The other day, I happened to be discussing my favorite spiritual author, Thomas Merton<\/a>, with someone who had been recommended one of his works, but was not otherwise familiar with him. I advised this young seeker to read up on Merton’s life story before dipping into his books; his story in itself is just as interesting and intriguing as anything Merton ever wrote. A few days later, it occurred to me that the Wikipedia would be the logical starting point on a Thomas Merton journey for anyone under 40. So I took a look, and was impressed by the depth of detail that had accumulated there regarding the lively, paradoxical Trappist monk who died unexpectedly in 1968. <\/p>\n But after getting half way through the Wikipedia article, I started thinking, “this isn’t the Merton I came to know”. In the 1990’s, I went on my own “Merton journey” and read a lot about him and a lot by him. Merton was a spirit who lived deeply and emotionally, a man in search of something undefined and undefinable. He was a highly talented man, a gifted writer and thinker, a Catholic priest and celebrated author on religious topics, and an outspoken opponent of war and oppression and yet a pious Trappist who retired from community life into his own private hermitage in the woods (but not far from the abbey that continued to support him). And yet he was also a troubled man, a man with doubts and fears, a man who could hurt others and himself, an impulsive man who might go off on an entirely new life-path at any moment. He prayerfully acknowledged his faith in God, his belief in Christ, and his loyalty to the Roman see. And yet, deep within, his spiritual wanderings took him far afield from Rome’s teachings; towards the end of his life he was arguably becoming increasingly “eastern” in his interests and thinking. Ironically, he died while on a journey to the east, accidentally electrocuted in Thailand.<\/p>\n Despite all that, the Merton being presented in the Wikipedia article was clearly loyal to the Pope and steady in his faith. His college fling with Communistic atheism and his “fast-paced city life” as a young man were given short shrift by whomever had formulated the Merton story for the big Wiki. But what tipped it for me was how the article handled his late-life romantic affair with a young nurse, just a few years before his death. <\/p>\n I won’t go into that story right now, except to say that yes, Merton was a practicing 51 year old Catholic priest and a Trappist hermit within the Abbey of Gethsemane during the whole crazy affair. There are various articles about it, and an entire book is devoted to it, i.e. “Beneath the Mask of Holiness” by a fellow named Mark Shaw. Merton’s own published diary notes make it very clear that this was a really involved, very emotional situation, not just a few glances and witty comments between two people passing in the night. Obviously, some pious Catholics might find this aspect of Merton’s life to be quite scandalous, a possible “source of misunderstanding” for the faithful. <\/p>\n So, the Wiki article<\/a> authors decided to get out a bit of whitewash. Here is the quote that really gets me:<\/p>\n In April 1966, Merton underwent a surgical procedure to treat debilitating back pain. While recuperating in a Louisville hospital, he fell in love with a student nurse assigned to his care. He wrote poems to her and reflected on the relationship in “A Midsummer Diary for M.” Merton struggled to maintain his vows while being deeply in love with the woman he referred to in his personal diary as “M”. He remained chaste, never consummating the relationship. After ending the relationship, he recommitted himself to his vows.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This makes Merton sound like a spiritual hero, a man who successfully resisted the temptations of the flesh for the better cause of God’s service. The next to last sentence is the real stand out, claiming to know that Merton’s vow of chastity was never violated. I really think this sentence is misleading and inappropriate. I have never read of a quote from Merton claiming that he never shared any sort of sexually-oriented physical pleasure with “M” (note that there is no citation supporting the sentence in question). By contrast, I have read Merton’s published diary (Learning to Love<\/a>) from the time of his affair, and it says to me that he did have physical intimacy with his romantic partner.<\/p>\n