Wikipedia's Cowardice About Religion
Wikipedia sells itself as the encyclopedia anyone can trust. On most topics that's fair. But on religion, it does something I can only call lying by omission, and it does it to millions of readers every day.
The resurrection test
Take the resurrection of Jesus. A dead man getting up three days later is not a serious historical claim. It's a miracle story, in the same category as Santa Claus delivering presents worldwide in one night. Nobody writes an encyclopedia entry about Santa that tiptoes around whether he's real.
Yet go read how Wikipedia handles the resurrection. You get careful wording about what Christians believe, what the gospels report, what various scholars think. What you don't get, up front and in plain words, is the one sentence that matters most: it didn't happen. Dead people don't come back to life.
"Neutrality" as an excuse
Wikipedia will tell you this is neutrality. Its rules say to describe views and attribute them, not to take sides. But neutrality between a fact and a fairy tale isn't neutrality. It's a thumb on the scale. When you treat a supernatural claim as just one "view" among others, you give it a credibility it hasn't earned.
We don't accept this anywhere else. Wikipedia doesn't present flat-earth claims as a respectable perspective. It calls them what they are. Religion gets a special exemption, and the only reason is that a lot of people believe it, and nobody wants to offend them.
A machine for retarding culture
This is where it stops being a style issue and becomes something ugly. Wikipedia is the first stop for kids, students, and anyone trying to think their way out of what they were raised on. And what does the most visited reference on the planet hand them? Mush. Mealy-mouthed hedging that treats a corpse walking out of a tomb as an open question. That isn't education. It's an intellectual sedative, served daily to hundreds of millions of people.
Wikipedia isn't a neutral bystander here. It's an active apparatus for retarding culture, slowing down the one thing an encyclopedia exists to speed up: people dropping bad ideas. Every time it softens a fairy tale into a "belief," it drags its readers backward. An encyclopedia that knows the truth and deliberately blurs it isn't cautious. It's dishonest, it's cowardly, and at its scale, it's doing real damage to how people think.
What honesty would look like
It's simple. Describe the belief, its history, and why it matters to Christians, all of that is legitimate. But open with the fact: there is no evidence that the resurrection happened, and every principle of history and science says it didn't. Then describe the belief as a belief.
That's what an encyclopedia is for. Until Wikipedia does it, stop calling it neutral. It's a gutless, backward-looking institution that would rather keep believers comfortable than keep readers informed, and the world is dumber for it.