The Theopedia Statement of Faith is well-written - not to wordy, and covers all the basic points of Christianity. IIRC, it wouldn't take much amending to turn it into a Catholic creed.

The site's concept is flawed. It defeats the unique advantages of a wiki system to subject it to a particular point of view. Further, I see no reason why Wikipedia itself could not adequately cover matters of theology.

Technically, no wiki can be perfectly NPOV (no point of view), since every Wiki has a board of editors. And the editors won't always spot POV entries.

The difference between Wikipedia and Theopedia is that the latter is intentionally POV. The tagline "an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity" lets people know that, although it should be a bit more precise to let people know which segment of the faith uses the label "Biblical Christianity."

Does every wiki have to be NPOV? We have a Catholic Encyclopedia that educates readers about Catholic perspective on doctrine and history. Over time Theopedia can accomplish the same with regard to multiple-POV "Reformed, evangelical Christian theology." The wonder of Wiki is the decentralized contribution of articles, which has both POV and NPOV applications.

A single Wiki can't serve as a standalone reference source. Some sites will catch stuff that the others miss. And even POV wikis can offer objective material when it is properly documented.

(FYI, I can't think of any specific examples right off, but I've seen Wikipedia articles lifted verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Wikipedia is a mixed bag when it comes to theology. On the one hand, you can view the article on Hinduism, do a word search on "Christian," and find several concrete examples of conflict with Christian perspective. On the other hand, the article on the Christian concept of the Trinity makes only the sketchiest attempt to explain why Christians believe the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead; it lacks citations of Biblical passages held up to establish that the Holy Spirit is a person and is eternal. (It does a much better job of establishing the Biblical view of the divinity of Christ.) Granted, the Theopedia article on the Deity of the Holy Spirit does only a touch better, but it hasn't been around that long.

Could anyone imagine a NPOV evolution wiki?

Thank you for your thorough response. I admit that I was overgeneralizing when I argued that a wiki needed to have a neutral point of view to be effective. I agree with your point that the mass contribution of articles is the true value of the wiki system.

However, I am still wary of the concept underlying Theopedia. After further contemplation I believe my real concern is a conflict involved in using a wiki system applied to theology, and in particular a theology defined around a vague statement of faith.

Matters of theology, by their very nature, involve contentious points on even the most seemingly minute issues--issues which in fact have caused massive rifts among God's faithful. Theopedia's Statement of Faith, while well-intentioned, is so broad and non-specific that it will either allow for a hodgepodge of articles on Christianity--with conflicting viewpoints--or it will require the site's editors to fill in the gaps and essentially create their own religious doctrine.

Stating that the doctrine is "Biblical Christianity" or even "reformed Evangelical Christianity" is insufficient because there is no one set of doctrine for so-labeled Christians. To claim the existence of a single consistent reformed theology is to believe in an illusion. The site certainly would exclude many Catholic viewpoints. But where would it fall on differences between Lutherans and Calvinists? Between Pentecostals and 7th Day Advantists?

To create a work (whether it be a book or a website) that seeks to explain and provide information on a particular theology needs consistency, authority, and a connection with tradition. No such work would be complete without articles from church fathers and/or theological doctors of the past in addition to modern theological authorities. A wiki system, without a connection to a specific sect, meets none of those three factors, I fear.