[WikiEN-l] Somebody with a good reputation will write a critical article about Wikipedia and esp. the article [[Prem Rawat]] that is locked now

Sun Jul 25 21:04:48 UTC 2004

I receive an email from somebody who expressed his disappointment with
Wikipedia, especially with regards to the article on the controversial
inspirational speaker and former guru Prem Rawat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_rawat. The person who intends to write
a critical article about Wikipedia is  an ex-follower and has a good
reputation. I do not like Wikipedia's reputation to get hurt because of
his article on his website but I cannot do anything for three reasons.
First, the article is locked. Secondly, I will be away from the internet
for some time. Thirdly, the situation is still highly polarized as can
be read on the talk page. 

I have to admit that some ex-followers of Prem Rawat will only be
satisfied if you start the article with something like "Prem Rawat is a
charlatan cult leader who has misled thousands of people with his
propaganda and who claimed to God almighty to save mankind. Due to this
many people wasted many years of their lives." Though I feel strongly
that the ex-followers are partially right due to my own experience with
a charlatan guru aka cult leader, I understand that this can never be
written down following NPOV guidelines. 

There is also a recurring, general problem with writing about new
religious movements (NRMs) and that is to what extent criticism of the
critics of NRMs should be allowed in the articles. I am hoping for
general guidelines. Here is what I wrote on the talk page, "I only said
that a person who chooses to pose as a guru and teach meditation
techniques is open and should be open for public scrutiny. The people
who believe and have followed this person and found him wanting and then
openly criticize him are open to scrutiny, in so far, their involvement
with this guru was serious, genuine and sincere. Their criticism of the
guru is, of course, open to scrutiny too. Apart from the authenticity of
their involvement with the guru, one could ask whether some of them have
an ax to grind but this should not be based on mere speculation or
conspiracy theories. There should be some strong documented indication
that they had an ax to grind otherwise no suspicions should be
mentioned. With regards to the same thing with my former guru, this was
a comparison that may give others more insight into my point of view and
into the fact that this unfair, insulting character assassination of
critics is very common by supporters of controversial new religious
movements. The defenders have to resort to ad hominem attacks on the
critics because they ran out of reasonable or logical ways to defend
their guru. Andries 07:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

I also wrote a satirical article about Wikipedia being a cult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andries/Wikipedia%3Acontroversy

See you later. Bye. Andries K.D