[WikiEN-l] Articles about small religious sects, concern about accuracy and NPOV

Sat Feb 7 17:51:06 UTC 2004

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

>