It appears that some Landmarkians have taken to revising the Wikipedia decriptions of Landmark. Perhaps some of you here with a differing point of view, with a flair for writing, might want to put in your two cent's worth:

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

I find that Wikipedia is pretty good for non-controversial subjects, but for issues that are controversial, the partisans and fanatics just take over.

some of the work on that entry, I did myself, speifically looking for a mix of positive, negative and mixed links for it to balance it out and make neutral. I don't like looking at that entry. it depresss me. earlier, un-censored versions of the entry did get copied and distributed throughout the web. with a little Googling you can locate them. such as here.

EDITED TO ADD: I did, actually, stop by the Wikipedia entry to see what had become of it. at my cursory glance it did not look that bad.

dividing the links into straight pro- and con I don't like one bit. the world doesn't work that way.

Wikipedia is definitely *not* a very good source of information on a great many subjects, because the entires are quite often written and re-written by people with an agenda. I've found some of the entries to be rather sad and/or laughable. It is far from a trustworthy source of reference.

I first saw this story online last week, and today it is in the headlines on Yahoo:

[news.yahoo.com]

I realized over a year ago that Wikipedia was not very reliable precisely because of the fact that *anyone* can write or edit entries. Now we know this to be true, so Wikipedia has responded by a "tightening" of their rules. But they haven't tightened them enough, as you still don't need to give them an email address, according to today's report.

I consider Wikipedia about as reliable as the Weekly World News when it comes to controversial topics such as cults.

Just found out about this website:

[www.wikipedia-watch.org]

And the beat goes on:

[news.yahoo.com]

Wikipedia's credibility (if they ever had any) is sinking fast...

Wikipedia has changed its policy so that anyone can edit an entry but only registered users can create a new entry.

authorized users can also get notified of changes to articles. so that if a user tries to redress some of the bias present in the Landmark article (the article currently has a lot of bias, with all criticisms rebutted and glosssed away) that they can go and restore it.

Information found on Wikipedia (like the rest of the internet) is to be taken with a grain of salt.

that's crazy talk!