what is this Wikipedia article you all are talking about? just curious.....
Go to "Great Commission Association of Churches" on Wikipedia. Apparently GC's past is all in the news, and it's also very documented (to the extent that it could be) not only from people who were within, but also from without: all which make excellent sources (both verifiable, notable, and by authorities in their fields!) sources under Wikipedia's policies; GC* attempted to send-in their own editors to sterilize the thing and it caused a bit of an uproar: not only that, one of their editors who was feigning neutrality then had a pang of conscience, repented, opened-up about how he was pretty much told to lie, and has become one of the guards of the thing (he's posted around here too, "Nate Swinton") against anything that violates Wikipedia's policies: effectively stymied GC (for now) about spinning and censuring information that's examining of them (rather than what they've approved and delivered). It was hilarious! Watching them trip-up and get caught: but I'm saddened that from this those very GC editors have taken interests in other Christian-related articles on Wikipedia. : (
Check-out the Discussion page to that article; while you're at it you'll be able to read-through the process. The nice thing about the whole thing was that it wasn't so war-like and bitter as are some of the other religiously-oriented articles on that site (especially cult and cult-like groups' pages); heck, on Wikipedia anything related to Catholic dogma is a no-touch else you'll get your head cut off (which is a lot to do with Christianity): even quoting all the different Catholic sources is likely to start a (pretentious, but real) war, and it's quite miserable to deal with that crowd in many cases, (though they'd be happy to hear that I argued for the preservation of "Concupiscence" as an article as distinct from "Lust", since the two embody different connotations, concepts, and uses in specialized vocabulary: some guy who decided he knew enough from reading a thesaurus thought they were just duplicates!).
Anyway, Wikipedia is a landmine of varying interests, which is its strength and weakness, strength only if those wanting to be honest know the policies very thoroughly, however: and in this case it left GC's spinning with little more than unreliable sources and emotions behind things. Odd because I remember looking at that article once (before I knew what was going on) and didn't know what to think.
