The Wikipedia article on the video, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous":

[en.wikipedia.org]

is being considered for deletion. The reasoning for and against deletion are being discussed at:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

The Wikipedia article on the video, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous":

[en.wikipedia.org]

is being considered for deletion. The reasoning for and against deletion are being discussed at:

[en.wikipedia.org]

seems like just another form of Werner Erhard descended companies being afraid of full disclosure of practices and discussing things in open light....the primary reason they withdrew their case against Rick Ross in December 2005, to avoid legal discovery

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

as I said on another thread, no one has to worry about the entry getting deleted. very little gets deleted from Wikipedia. what does pretty much comes down to obvious pranks and hoaxes and entries on very trivial subjects like people writing entries about their personal projects. even in the latter case, the entries tend to stay around.

Even though Wikipedia didn't delete the article about the video, user Sm1969 has been busily gutting it.
Yesterday, Sm1969 removed links from the Landmark Education and other articles. And today Sm1969 removed the paragraph about "Appearance on the internet" which mentioned Bittorrent and Daily Motion. You can see how busy this user has been:
[en.wikipedia.org]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to play "revert wars" with Sm1969 trying to restore the links.

Well, that is the way it goes, in my experience.
For instance, Sm1969, is obviously a Landmarkian employee, someone who has made hundreds of edits concerning Landmark. They just removed the link to Daily Motion video, and he is constantly invoking copyright.
[en.wikipedia.org]

That is how those fanatics play it.
Try to get it deleted.
If not, then chip away at it, every day a little more.
Because they are fanatics, normal people will give up fighting them sooner or later.

I hope someone has the original Wiki info, and then just posts it all here, and perhaps Rick Ross can put all that info on a permanent webpage.
That's why I hate Wikipedia for this type of stuff.
Those fanatics will work 24/7 for their Leaders.

How about searching in Google and viewing it in cache? Is it too late that things have changed that much already?

Quote
The Anticult
I hope someone has the original Wiki info, and then just posts it all here, and perhaps Rick Ross can put all that info on a permanent webpage.
That's why I hate Wikipedia for this type of stuff.
Those fanatics will work 24/7 for their Leaders.

Yes, while Wikipedia is useful at times, religious fanatics are constantly on the watch. This is particularly true with the issues of Islam and terrorism. For example, if one was to read the wikipedia entry on Hezbollah, one would think this was a "grassroots peace movement" rather than a proxy terrorist army for Iran. That 1983 slaughter of US troops? Alleged. Not really a big deal, anyway, right? Only gets a small mention in the article. Wikipedia is insane.

All of the older info is contained in the HISTORY file for the Wiki entry, and can be retrieved from there. Perhaps whoever posted it, will repost it somewhere else.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There have been a few cases I am aware of where Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, had information about himself deleted from the Wiki-History, and that was very controversial, as that is not supposed to happen.
[www.wikitruth.info]

Anyway, my view is that Wiki is ok for uncontroversial stuff.
But for stuff like cults, it just doesn't work. I think in those cases one would need a series of full articles side by side, and then let people make up their own minds based on the evidence.

Knowledge cannot be attained by the mass public having a digital argument.
Peer-review seems to me to be the only way to proceed.

Quote
The Anticult
But for stuff like cults, it just doesn't work. I think in those cases one would need a series of full articles side by side, and then let people make up their own minds based on the evidence.

Well you can do this by looking at versions in the page history, and the talk page. Even information that hints at slander according to the lackeys, is often still there a little on the talk page.

Another drawback is the Neutral Point of View rule. It doesn't help for things that are proven wrong, such as Gerson therapy and other quack therapies.

In a 'real' encyclopedia, such as encyclopedia brittanica, theres no need to show different people's erroneous viewpoints, pretending they are equally valid.

You would just try and describe the definitive truth.
Love
Kath

The Landmarkian employee 'Sm1969' who is deleting links to the video from Wiki, keeps claiming "copyright" issues, with no proof. It would be good if someone could expose this fellow as being a "single issue" Wiki vandal, and PERHAPS an Admin will stop him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There are a number of Landmarkians netizenslaves who are doing everything they can to block this video.

Landmark is definately one of the most destructive, negative and damaging LGAT's in the world today. There does need to be a full '60 Minutes' type expose of Landmark.
What a horrendous organization.