Changes

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members.  Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time.  Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints.  I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading.  Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members.  Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time.  Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints.  I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading.  Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies.  I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes.  One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were.  I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies.  I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes.  One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were.  I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.