The Differences

I wouldn't trust any freely editable Wiki article on much of anything unless it was one I wrote myself before further alteration (with apologies to Groucho Marx).

 

I took a quick look at the Evangelicalism article. It is very long so I certainly have not read it word for word. It seems to be generally workable, with certain oddities. For example, in the beliefs section there is a fairly lengthy piece on "sexuality," while there are no sections on what evangelicals believe about the Bible, the crucifixion, or the resurrection. Not that they mention nothing of these in the article, but it seems these would be an important enough part of what evangelicalism is to have their own separate points. These kinds of oddities in Wikipedia articles are often due to the particular interests of the major editors. Also, it seems to have an editor (or editors) who is not a fan of evangelicalism. For example, in the "Other views" section it says, "some evangelicals support pseudoscientific young Earth creationism." A proper encyclopedic article, imo, would just say "some evangelicals support young Earth creationism" without the value judgment.

All that said, I find Wikipedia can be a valuable resource. Within my range of experience in using it, most articles are generally good enough to provide a starting place on a particular subject or person. The citations and external links can be a good resource for branching out and finding more material to clarify the subject. With a freely editable work such as Wikipedia is, one must be aware of its advantages and disadvantages and work outward from there.

 

For comparison, here’s a more specific article:

Evangelicalism in the United States - Wikipedia

 

I like Theopedia better for this myself!

 

Biased!

https://www.theopedia.com/about

 

In the right way though!

 

i am a little surpirsed that the Baptists - Wikipedia was left out.