But I agree that there are articles that can create some real disputes in a community, including the article on hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). Statistics and treatment options can be overstated or understated. Some people interested in the condition may feel that compassionate care (letting a baby die) rather than the use of extreme amounts of medical intervention to palliate the condition should be stated as on option while other people may find that option unethical since the treatment options can save the lives of 7 to 9 out of 10 children.

Looking at that article right now, I see problems with the writing style, citations, summaries, conclusions, links, history, and the random smattering of unnecessary details.

So, I guess if you take some of the behind-the-scenes discussions on an article like the one on HLHS, and increase the interested audience to millions, potentially, rather than thousands, I can understand how the article on Joseph Smith can be so very polarizing.

Well, this is a long comment! All I really mean to say is that we do appreciate you, Ardis, and all your efforts to provide a place on the internet for accurate and well-researched Mormon history, and particularly all the beautiful stories about the lives of members of the church.

Aside from a small handful of clearly identifiable “debunking” posts — ones targeting supposed Joseph Smith daguerreotypes, or Moroni’s purported dedication of the Manti Temple site, or the origin of George Washington’s “prophecy” — I can’t think of much I have written to convince anyone to change beliefs. That’s not my schtick. Rather, I simply tell stories or present artifacts that represent the Mormon past as I believe it to have been, informed both by my general worldview and by the highest standards of scholarship of which I am capable (within the time and economic limitations of this medium).

That’s what I mean by “putting the truth out there.” My method is not to argue for truth against error by opening pitting them against each other, but to offer truth, to make it available, to take it out of the dusty records and put it in public view where readers can take it or leave it.

That’s a very different thing from attempting to convince or persuade, and a very different thing from silencing alternate voices in a forum like Wikipedia which pretends to arrive at truth by the negotiation of all viewpoints.

Consider the Kent State shootings in 1970, which offer a good parallel to the differing accounts of the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith given above. Some of the initial reports claimed that the National Guard troops were fired on first; that’s generally considered to be incorrect now. However, i know a number of people who heard that report first, and insist that it was true but whitewashed out of the history, because (a) that was the first report they heard, and therefore closer in time to the actual events, and (b) it squares well with some of their assumptions about anti-war protests of that time.

Who’s right? I wasn’t around to see it, so i have to rely on what i see as the weight of the evidence rather than personal experience (and memory’s pretty slippery, anyway). But clearly, some people i know, including people i think are pretty rational types, opt to go with other sources. What should be on Wikipedia’s page on it? I know my preference, but i can pretty well guess theirs.

Another specific example, but more topical: Reports by those close to the action claim that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and and others claim that he tried to stop it. Further, (at least some of) the claims are mutually exclusive. I know which ones i believe and why, but simply presenting that side and my reasons for it isn’t going to be all that convincing to someone who opts to believe the reports i’ve chosen not to.

(Longer than i intended. Sorry.)

I think it’s interesting that those who scream the loudest about our “whitewashed” history seldom are any better in getting the story right. I’ve seen people tout the South Park version of Mormon history as obviously better than anything written by Mormons, despite the garbling of the Martin Harris story, obviously spun to promote a particular (inaccurate) interpretation of events.

I’ve read endless bellyaching about the infamous Brigham Young manual, claiming that all references to polygamy were dishonestly edited out without any notation of missing material. I personally compared the passages in question with the Journal of Discourses and found that in some instances they did go a bit overboard on the editing, but without exception, every alteration was indicated by square brackets or ellipses. But it just makes a better story to say that editing was hidden by not using standard editorial notations. Some even claim (falsely) that none of the Church Presidents manuals mention polygamy. And so the faith-promoting (or demoting) stories get propagated.

I like your admonition to “Put the truth out there”. I recently read Peter Hoffer’s (U of Georgia) short book about truth in history, The Historian’s Paradox. It was for me as an aspiring amateur in history an eye opening lesson on objectivity, the elusive nature of historical truth, and the common logical fallacies of bad history or intentional distortion and misinformation.

However, all the good intentions and hard research and careful scholarship always seems to be chasing those individuals with a predetermined agenda and a seemingly endless amount of time and energy who want to defame or discredit someone (or in this case, the LDS church), and don’t much care for the truth.

Maybe we could call the Keepaninnies the “Truth-Boot Squad”. Keep your bootlaces tied and your socks dry!