Dhamma On Wikipedia

I occasionally look through Wikipedia. It’s a bit like browsing through a good bookshop or library. Last week I decided to go through it thoroughly to see how Buddhism is presented. This is what I found. A few of the entries that directly relate to Buddhism; e.g. Nirvana, Dharma, Bodhisattva, Dalai Lama, etc. are well-done, while most are too brief or superficial. Perhaps the entry ‘The Miracles of the Buddha’ is indicative of most of those directly related to Buddhism. It has only one reference to the Tipitaka and no actual quotations. It makes no mention of the earliest, the early and the later traditions but lumps them all together as if they were all equally authoritative and valid. It casually confuses ‘popular tradition’ with scriptural teaching. It does not explain the Buddha’s attitude to the subject in full. At its best it is a superficial overview, and at its worst incorrect. When it comes to subjects not normally associated directly with Buddhism in the popular mind, but about which the Buddha often has something pertinent, even important, to say, most entries rarely even mention the Buddhist position, although the Jewish, Christian and or Islamic are usually well represented. (I notice the Mormon ‘take’ appears in just about ever entry. No doubt they have a well-organized committee making sure their beliefs are well represented) Take ‘Marriage’ for example. The Jewish, Christian and Islamic positions on this subject are given in full, as you would expect. The section on ‘Buddhism’ directs you to ‘The Buddhist View Of Marriage’ which has six lines on the subject with no references to or quotes from the Tipitaka. The bottom of this entry directs the reader to ‘Buddhist Ethics’ which gives a brief and very superficial account of the subject with only one quotation from the Tipitaka, from the Dhammapada. All other citations are from secondary sources. If we look at ‘Forgiveness’ the Islamic, Jewish and Christian views are detailed and well-referenced while the section on Buddhism is again scant and with only one quotation, again from the tired-old Dhammapada. In many Wikipedia entries, if Buddhism is mentioned at all, it is lumped under ‘Dharmic Religions’ or ‘The Indian Tradition’. Reading Wikipedia you would get the impression that Buddhism is definitely in the ‘also ran’ religious sweepstakes.

The entry on ‘Capital Punishment’ claims that there is a difference of opinion amongst Buddhists on the subject without mentioning that the Buddha’s opinion on killing of any kind is unambiguous. It also has two quotes from, you guessed it, the Dhammapada (God I hate the Dhammapada! Or more correctly, I hate the unimaginative lazy writers who can’t be bothered consulting any of the other 16,000 pages from the Buddhist scriptures) and neglects to quote what the Buddha says about executioners and judges who hand down cruel punishments. The section on Buddhism in ‘Altruism’ goes on about ‘the chain of cause and effect’ without even mention the word ‘altruism’, let alone addressing or explaining what Buddhism say has to say on this important subject. In the entry ‘Animal Rights’ (an exceptionally well-written article incidentally) there is a section on ‘The Status of Animals in the Ancient World’ which is empty as yet. Someone could write about the ethical and philosophical foundations in Dhamma in relation to animal rights – but no one has. The entry on ‘Woman in Buddhism’ by contrast, has been contributed by a someone well-versed in (I could say ‘biased towards’) Vajrayana and quotes June Campbell, Susan Murcott, Diana Paul, Shugsheb Jetsun, Rita Gross, Miranda Shaw, Tenzin Palmo, indeed just about everyone except the Buddha. The few quotes from the Tipitaka are mainly ones that support the position that early Buddhism is anti-feminine, which seems to be the main point of the article. This is summed up by Bernard Faura’s (whoever he is!) statement that ‘Buddhism is relentlessly misogynistic’. I would say that Bernard Faura is relentlessly ill-informed. If anything, the entry on ‘Alms’ is even worse. It is quite detailed but it has obviously been contributed by a monk from the Thai forest tradition. One can tell this because the writer only feels it necessary to mention giving alms to monks – the poor, the needy, travelers, etc are of course not worthy recipients for generosity.
After I read these last two entries I started to think that perhaps it is just as well that Buddhism is not mentioned very much in Wikipedia. But it has also made me think what can be done to improve and expand Buddhism’s presence on this otherwise excellent, widely read and, I assume, increasingly influential resource. Two things came to mind. (1) Continue with my www.buddhismatoz.com (which will soon be corrected and enlarged) and forget about Wikipedia. (2) Organize a group of well-informed and energetic Buddhists to write better entries and submit them to Wikipedia. This second option would require some discussion of the required structure and form of the proposed entries. Just off the top of my head here are a few of the things I feel should be considered.
(A) All articles should aim to present the Dhamma as a viable, practical and all-embracing philosophy of life perfectly relevant to the modern world.
(B) All articles should be founded on scriptural material and give references.
(C) Every subject that Buddhism has something relevant to say about, no mater how brief, should be dealt with. For example, the Wikipedia on ‘Body Piercing’ has a section on Religion which includes a Christian and the Mormon perspective on the subject. Why shouldn’t there be something on what Buddhism might have to say on this subject?
(D) A historical-chronological approach should be taken, distinguishing between early material and later developments.
I would consider the two entries ‘Nirvana’ and ‘Luminous Mind’ in Wikipedia to be good examples of articles based on the principles I am suggesting. Both are well-written, accurate and detailed. Am I correct in saying that both these articles have been written by Bhikkhu Thanissaro?
The problem with this second of the two option I was considering would be of course, trying to overcome ‘Buddhist indifference’. What do you think?