Hello all, I am quite new here in wikipedia. I know a lot about gurus, small sects and cults. I noticed that the articles here in this wikipedia are often written by the followers of these gurus, sects and cults or the information on the webpages of these religious organization is uncritically accepted by other members and written down as a NPOV article in wikipedia.
I think this is a wrong and dangerous thing to do. This leads to false information because these groups are often self deceived and do a lot of propaganda & rewriting history. Because so few people know about these groups the information is rarely checked. Examples of disinformation that I have seen here on wikipedia are Sathya Sai Baba, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Eckankar, Theosophy, ISCKCON/ Hare Krisnha. I have already adjusted the first three groups and I will try to adjust other articles but I have limited time.
I would like to ask all members to help in this by staying alert and comparing the current articles with independent scholarly articles and testimonies of ex-members of these groups.
Thanks in advance and kind regards, Andries Krugers Dagneaux
Excellent, but don't overdo it. Any campaign to straighten things out is hazardous and must proceed tactfully, giving reasonable credit to the virtues of these groups as perceived by their followers.
Fred
From: "Andries Krugers Dagneaux" andrieskd@chello.nl Reply-To: andrieskd@chello.nl, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:59:28 +0100 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Articles about small religious sects, concern about accuracy and NPOV
Hello all, I am quite new here in wikipedia. I know a lot about gurus, small sects and cults. I noticed that the articles here in this wikipedia are often written by the followers of these gurus, sects and cults or the information on the webpages of these religious organization is uncritically accepted by other members and written down as a NPOV article in wikipedia.
I think this is a wrong and dangerous thing to do. This leads to false information because these groups are often self deceived and do a lot of propaganda & rewriting history. Because so few people know about these groups the information is rarely checked. Examples of disinformation that I have seen here on wikipedia are Sathya Sai Baba, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Eckankar, Theosophy, ISCKCON/ Hare Krisnha. I have already adjusted the first three groups and I will try to adjust other articles but I have limited time.
I would like to ask all members to help in this by staying alert and comparing the current articles with independent scholarly articles and testimonies of ex-members of these groups.
Thanks in advance and kind regards, Andries Krugers Dagneaux
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/07/04 12:38, Fred Bauder wrote:
Excellent, but don't overdo it. Any campaign to straighten things out is hazardous and must proceed tactfully, giving reasonable credit to the virtues of these groups as perceived by their followers.
It's really not hard to go looking for these articles and do some sensible and NPOV edits oneself. Some of them read like press releases, but it's very easy to sprinkle the article with "it is claimed" and add a section of common criticisms and critical links as well as official ones. This gives a basic article it's quite hard to reasonably object to the existence to, which serves as a template for filling out the article.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/07/04 12:38, Fred Bauder wrote:
Excellent, but don't overdo it. Any campaign to straighten things out is hazardous and must proceed tactfully, giving reasonable credit to the virtues of these groups as perceived by their followers.
It's really not hard to go looking for these articles and do some sensible and NPOV edits oneself. Some of them read like press releases, but it's very easy to sprinkle the article with "it is claimed" and add a section of common criticisms and critical links as well as official ones. This gives a basic article it's quite hard to reasonably object to the existence to, which serves as a template for filling out the article.
Sprinkling "it is claimed" throughout the article makes for terrible writing and worse reading. If a section is simply headed "Claims by the leadership" (or something of the sort) that should apply to everything in the section. There is still plenty of space afterwords to discuss criticisms.
Taking writings out of context, and trying to direct the reader into an interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.
Ec
[Note to moderator, if any: I don't know what the dickens is going on with my registration. If this passes your way for approval because of some claim that I'm not registered, please contact me. My attempt to contact you has failed.]
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:00:30 UTC, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Taking writings out of context, and trying to direct the reader into an interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.
Unless the original author was in fact asserting things as fact that are questioned by oneself and other persons not certifiably loony, in which case presenting an interpretation that questions that of hte author is or can be a highly desirable editing out of POV. (I'm not defending things taken improperly out of context (Duh).)
Perhaps we should not _assume_ that all these articles are good NPOV work? Perhaps we should not assume that they are not? Perhaps this is pretty elementary stuff about NPOV to be spendint the time of this list on?
Dan Drake wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Taking writings out of context, and trying to direct the reader into an interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.
Unless the original author was in fact asserting things as fact that are questioned by oneself and other persons not certifiably loony, in which case presenting an interpretation that questions that of hte author is or can be a highly desirable editing out of POV. (I'm not defending things taken improperly out of context (Duh).)
Perhaps we should not _assume_ that all these articles are good NPOV work? Perhaps we should not assume that they are not? Perhaps this is pretty elementary stuff about NPOV to be spendint the time of this list on?
What a lot of cult leaders express is a matter of doctrine rather than fact, and in that regard they can believe whatever they want and express whatever they want. If their expression is far removed from reality, they will prove their case far better than you ever can.
If the author was factually wrong, editing out his POV is substituting your POV for his, which puts us no further ahead. That's not NPOV; it's censorship. I don't support directed interpretations; I like to give credit to the reader for being able to have his own interpretation of what he reads. If a text is too liberally sprinked with phrases like "He claims..." or "He alleges..." I start to question the motives of the interpreter. Even a favorable interpreter can distort doctrines. St. Paul was notorious for doing that. Any interpretation is a second hand statement.
It is much fairer if a section of such an article is devoted to a fair presentation is made of a group's doctrines as presented in their own writings and statements. There is always adequate room in following sections for opponents to present their case.
Where there are allegations of abusive behaviour, these are often not part of the doctrine, but doctrine is often used to justify such actions. This kind of claim should be treated separately from the doctrine. Those who extricate themselves from these cults tend to lose objectivity in their comments when they deprecate the theology at a time when their problem was (with or without cause) personally in relation to those interpreting the doctrines. It is often impossible to evaluate their claims. We have seen this sort of problem here with certain people who are too quick to take issue with the casual comments of another Wikipedian.
Before I read an article I should begin with the presumption that it will contain good NPOV work. To read otherwise would be to put POV in my reading. Of course I know from experience that much writing will not be NPOV, but I can't honestly reach that evaluation until I have read at least some of the article.
As for being too elementary for spending time on the list, I again disagree. These elementary discussions are at the heart of the matter. If NPOV were to become too rigidly defined, it would be lost. That is both the blessing and the frustration of NPOV.
Ec
On 02/09/04 21:30, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the author was factually wrong, editing out his POV is substituting your POV for his, which puts us no further ahead. That's not NPOV; it's censorship. I don't support directed interpretations; I like to give credit to the reader for being able to have his own interpretation of what he reads. If a text is too liberally sprinked with phrases like "He claims..." or "He alleges..." I start to question the motives of the interpreter. Even a favorable interpreter can distort doctrines. St. Paul was notorious for doing that. Any interpretation is a second hand statement. It is much fairer if a section of such an article is devoted to a fair presentation is made of a group's doctrines as presented in their own writings and statements. There is always adequate room in following sections for opponents to present their case.
See [[Talk:GNU General Public License]] for discussions of why that article doesn't just contain the text, as the original did.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 02/09/04 21:30, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If the author was factually wrong, editing out his POV is substituting your POV for his, which puts us no further ahead. That's not NPOV; it's censorship. I don't support directed interpretations; I like to give credit to the reader for being able to have his own interpretation of what he reads. If a text is too liberally sprinked with phrases like "He claims..." or "He alleges..." I start to question the motives of the interpreter. Even a favorable interpreter can distort doctrines. St. Paul was notorious for doing that. Any interpretation is a second hand statement. It is much fairer if a section of such an article is devoted to a fair presentation is made of a group's doctrines as presented in their own writings and statements. There is always adequate room in following sections for opponents to present their case.
See [[Talk:GNU General Public License]] for discussions of why that article doesn't just contain the text, as the original did.
I just read it several times, and couldn't see the relevance. Are you somehow saying that by not making direct quotes you are trying to protect the cult leader's copyrights?
Ec
Andries Krugers Dagneaux wrote:
I know a lot about gurus, small sects and cults. I noticed that the articles here in this wikipedia are often written by the followers of these gurus, sects and cults or the information on the webpages of these religious organization is uncritically accepted by other members and written down as a NPOV article in wikipedia.
What the groups believe is what they believe, and who better to describe that than the cult's leaders? This does not imply that we accept these as truth, or that we are uncritical about their claims. Allowing a part of an article to freely reflect what these people think is as important to NPOV. A simple statement at the beginning of the section that this is taken from the group's writings or similar productions is adequate. Reading through something where every statement is dissected and criticized as it's being said is very bad writing style, and in this case completely uninformative since you end up not knowing what they believe.
I think this is a wrong and dangerous thing to do.
Absolutely not. There is nothing dangerous about fair representation.
This leads to false information because these groups are often self deceived and do a lot of propaganda & rewriting history. Because so few people know about these groups the information is rarely checked. Examples of disinformation that I have seen here on wikipedia are Sathya Sai Baba, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Eckankar, Theosophy, ISCKCON/ Hare Krisnha. I have already adjusted the first three groups and I will try to adjust other articles but I have limited time.
If these things have happened then they merit a whole separate section to outline these accusations. Many of the people who leave these sects have an axe to grind, so that much of what they say is unreliable. There is no doubt that some of what some of them say is true, but just as much can reflect personal antagonisms which they have had with the leadership, either at the sect-wide level or at a local level. How would you go about deciding which accusations are true without more evidence than the anecdotal claims of the disgruntled? How much of what really does go on reflects only incidents that are confined to the misbehaviour of local groups. Is the entire history and theology of the Catholic Church to be dismissed because of the recent convictions of priests for pedophilia?
I would like to ask all members to help in this by staying alert and comparing the current articles with independent scholarly articles and testimonies of ex-members of these groups.
Independent scholarly articles and the often slanderous statements of ex-members can be incompatible.
Ec
On Feb 7, 2004, at 12:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Andries Krugers Dagneaux wrote:
I know a lot about gurus, small sects and cults. I noticed that the articles here in this wikipedia are often written by the followers of these gurus, sects and cults or the information on the webpages of these religious organization is uncritically accepted by other members and written down as a NPOV article in wikipedia.
What the groups believe is what they believe, and who better to describe that than the cult's leaders? This does not imply that we accept these as truth, or that we are uncritical about their claims.
Precisely. We do not accept beliefs necessarily as fact. We *do* necessarily accept the believing as fact. One simply *must* admire the English language...
Peter
-- ---<>--- -- A house without walls cannot fall. Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org -- ---<>--- --