On 07/02/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@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.