Thread:Superdadsuper/@comment-1777104-20150914231505/@comment-5175866-20150915204521

I see your point. I myself like Wikipedia and the concept but here's where I draw the line: Wikipedia's content on the Bible is crowdsource from people across the world and in reflection with society, mst of them are not Christians. The result of this is the content is often containing non-canon elements (apocryphal) as well as some of those "interesting" theories. To me it often seems like the content there is pointing to how the Bible is inaccurate.

I feel very strongly convicted about Biblicalapedia being an alternative to Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia currently dominates search rankings and sadly a lot of the content is un-truthful. I often get very angry (the righteous kind) of how well Wikipedia does in terms of searches related to the Bible and all the twisting and disorting of scripture.

I feel like if we link them is contradictory to our mission and much of our BPOV. By linking it we could be leading people astray to some (but not all) messages on there that is false. I like Wikipedia and find it informational, but you need to know your Bible well in reading non-biblically based content.

A minor thing is also we usually do not have external links to other websites. I am not sure who added Wikipedia links to many of the books of the Bible, but overtime I slowly have removed them