On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What in the
article is actually actionable?
The face that defame his character as being part of what they call a cult.
They don't quite call it a cult. They simply say that some people have
historicaly called the organisation a cult.
Admitting you are part of an organization is not the
same as welcoming the
label of "cultist" that the piece slaps on him.
They don't call him a cultist.
Also, it infers that he's
out to impact Wikipedia articles,
Well yes most editors are.
and that he could be working directly for
the organization (with all that shady talk about "we don't know his real
connection!").
I don't think that is actually actionable.
Saying Wikipedians aren't perfect, and saying they
are cultists out to
exploit the project for propaganda purposes are too entirely different
things.
Which is why it doesn't say that.
They would hardly be the first to suggest that [[Prem Rawat]] has
balance issues.
--
geni