It is as if. The only acceptable fashion that is allowed to be stated is for positive information only as being valid and acceptable to post.
Anything else is considered unsubstantiated information. Even in stating this website as a hate group. What a joke. There are people like myself who have gone through these seminars, and have firsthand knowledge of this garbage LGAT philosophy. How substantiated do they need it to be?
Like I said if it is not positive in what is said. It is rejected as not valid, and unsubstantiated.
Can we say censorship? Oh yes, big time censorship.
Here is link, and a sample of the gibberish on Wikipedia threads. Yeesh...
I copied a thread of conversation that in my opinion is a bunch of gibberish in how information is dealt with and evaluated as being valid.
What does everyone else feel about this supposed website that is claiming to be unbiased, and based only on substantiated information? I am missing it on my end. I am not seeing it on this site.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Sir,
The website culteducation.com is a hate-based website.
The website contains a forum and is against basically everything.
They have created an entry for Klemmer & Associates without permission.
The entry for K & A should NOT point to RICK ROSS
the RR website only contains hate-based information that is against every organized religion and group in existence.
Im not sure why you blocked my account and would like to know, if you would be kind enough to tell me.
You may post here or on my page.. i am still trying to figure out how all this works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)
Hi John, I understand that you may consider that site such, but in Wikipedia we only report what reliable published sources have to say about a subject. We do not describe our own opinions of the subjects covered. I will place some pointers in your talk page so that you can familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. Happy editing... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi,
RickRoss is not a reliable source and should not be allowed to update another companies busines page with links to their own propaganda website.
I can refer you to pages on the RR website which substantiate what I said about users being banned who cannot be provoked.. that is not opinion, it is a fact. - john —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsi john (talk • contribs)
(please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. It will automatically add your name and a timestamp). I understand how you feel, but I would suggest you take some time to follow some of the links I place on your page so that you become familiar with this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Is there any way to prevent the RR group from defacing the Klemmer & Associates entry ? While it's a free world and they're entitled to their biased and twisted and one-sided narrow-minded views, they should not be able to use wiki to create/deface entries for legitimate companies and twist it to their own use. Lsi john 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, May I inquire as to why you removed all the detail I added and reverted to The RR links to his LGAT blathering? I'm very confused. I see that you added a discussion comment that RR is not a reliable source of information, but you re-instated their LGAT links which indirectly link right back to the RR website. Additionally, K&A has not been 'linked' to multi level marketing, except by the RR website. The K&A entry was written by the RR group and they are monitoring and 'house keeping' it back to their text. At least the data I put on the page was factual, per your requirements. Lsi john 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you added a 'request for updates' , I have 'updated' the text. Is this update satisfactory? the entire LGAT concept is a RR attempt to label things as cults and dangerous. The fact that some MLM groups attend the seminars does not 'link' K&A to MLM any more than K&A is 'linked' to corporate america because it hosts seminars for major corporations like HP. [www.klemmer.com] Please note that the LGAT page has: "An editor has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced."
Lsi john 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Jossi,
Sorry to disturb you again, however it seems the problem is larger than just Klemmer & Associates.
You can also find Smee's attempts to discredit another traning seminar group: [en.wikipedia.org] where he tries to link PSI seminars to something they are not related to. Tying Thomas Wilhite to Mind Dynamics and then tying Mind Dynamics to Life spring and then making un-cited charges against Life Spring (all in an attempt to discredit Psy) should not be allowed.
Here, again, the entire Large Group Awareness Training reference is suspect due to its being unbalanced.
I recommend that someone scan all of Smee's edits for more of his attempts to deface entries for organizations which he opposes.

Also, User:Antaeus Feldspar brags about being anti-cult on his page:
"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case..."
- [en.wikipedia.org]
Based on his 'housekeeping' that reverted my changes back to the 'cult' language, his edits are also suspect (in my opinion).
Lsi john 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am mistaken about Wikipedia? Please explain to me where I am off base.

I have been very fustrated trying to sort out the information on that site. What seems to be the prevailing argument is about how any valid posts must have a positive angle for it to be accepted on the site.

At least it is what it seems to me from reading the many threads that I have read so far on LGAT's.

Any negative aspects shared that I have come accross have been shot down, and edited. I was not even able to find them as they have been edited by someone else.

All that I find is the bickering over why it was edited by someone else.

What is up with that?

Anyone can post and edit on Wikipedia so anyone associated with any of the LGATs can spin their garbage there and attack anything negative, just like they do here. RR is very careful not to label anything as "cults" and has made it clear that organized religions are not cults. He defines the difference very well. Those Wiki posters who lie and say otherwise obviously have reading comprehension challenges. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything, IMO.

Craigslist is another venue that would seem like a great place to post your experience, however, your post would likely be flagged and removed within hours. LGATers cruise these sites looking for anything negative.

Wikipedia is ok for basic facts like what day Kennedy was shot, and things like that.

But for controversial issues it can be very poor.
For things like cults and LGAT's, the cults assign people to monitor their Wikipedia entries, and these people slave 24/7 to keep the entry "clear". If any serious criticism is posted, they just delete it. Landmark does that on their entries, and tried to get entire entries deleted.

Its also probable/possible that various larger cult groups have had people working on wikipedia for years, until they have built up their admin powers, and carry more weight.

It would not be surprising in the least, if that sometime in the future that a large group like Scientology covertly took control of the entire Wikipedia somehow. This would give them enormous influence. Its possible, they have done the same type of thing before with CAN.
[en.wikipedia.org]

that being said, there are examples where the cultic drones working 24/7 have failed to get rid of all criticism in their Wikipedia entry.
But smaller articles do seem to be controlled by those in the relevant group, as any normal non-cult person just gives up eventually.

It would be interesting to watch how a new Wikipedia entry for the group Royal Way/Jacumba would evolve.

Thanks for the information. The more I read about Scientology. The more I see the tentacles from this philosphy influencing behind the scenes several controversial aspects in our society.

Agian, thanks.

When I checked Wikipedia's entry on the Mankind Project in January, It was marginally okay. It had mentions of claims of being compared to a cult, links to both pro and con articles (incl RickRoss) etc. Now It has only one mention of the word cult, there are no links to any negative sites, and it almost reaks of pro-MKP writing. It's become nothing more than another marketing tool.

I wonder if the apologists realize that by removing all of the negatives they are creating more questions than answers? I personally trust very few things with a 100% satisfaction rating.

Quote
bigboyx5
When I checked Wikipedia's entry on the Mankind Project in January, It was marginally okay. It had mentions of claims of being compared to a cult, links to both pro and con articles (incl RickRoss) etc. Now It has only one mention of the word cult, there are no links to any negative sites, and it almost reaks of pro-MKP writing. It's become nothing more than another marketing tool.

I wonder if the apologists realize that by removing all of the negatives they are creating more questions than answers? I personally trust very few things with a 100% satisfaction rating.

I found the same to be true when I researched about Klemmer & Associates on there.

What was even more interesting was a huge argument over one person editing, and removing any thing that spoke of Klemmer being a Large Group Awareness Training Program. I could not find the parts that this debate referenced as it was edited out by a member know as I believe the name was Smee, or something near this.

It was absolutely exasperating to read as it turned into a very heated debate on having the items edited and removed by this member.

Even in reading the other posts on this site wrapped around being positive in how things are stated or they would not be allowed to be posted.

What really gets me too was how a person can come along and edit anothers post, and remove certian aspects freely. I think it would be better to allow all postings, and have there be those who oppose what is said. Post alongside with what they have to share which is in opposition.

If you want truth then both negative and positive need to be shared equally as it is on this website.

Yes, it heavily leans towards the negative as a very healthy counter weight to the lopsided censurship on the web currently such as on Wikipedia.

But, all aspects are allowed to be posted. There is not a censorship happening other than adhering to posted forum rules which provide a safety net of insuring both are able to be shared.

The one aspect that it seems most have in coming to Ricks website in allowing things to be equally shared on LGAT's is this one aspect.

Critical thinking, and looking at the negative is not allowed to be turned off by the positive in anyway shape or form. No matter how eloquent the argument sounds from the many LGAT apologists have attempted in invalidating the negative aspects of these LGAT's by refuting the negative posts shared.

The very behavior and arguments that are shared by these apologists are exposed for all to see. Which usually ends in them leaving, shutting up, or being banned from not being considerate in how they are posting.

Rick Ross Institute is not about Positive, and it is not about negative.

It is about truth which is both positive and negative combined. Which is seems most apologists are not able to handle as they venture on this site.

Let truth reign...

Rick Ross has written a new article about Wikipedia and Wikipedia administrator Jossi Fresco.

Conflict of Interest at Wikipedia “Conflict of Interest Noticeboard”
[www.cultnews.com]

You will notice this is the same Jossi Admin mentioned above in this thread, and in the article at The Register.

[www.theregister.co.uk]


I don't want to act like Jossi and quote and promote myself.. but..above I stated..

"Its also probable/possible that various larger cult groups have had people working on wikipedia for years, until they have built up their admin powers, and carry more weight."

Hmm, that is what has happened. This Admin Jossi has overruled many others on Wikipedia, and I do recall him interfering with the Landmark Video Wikipedia article, deleting everything he wanted to get rid of.
This guy needs to be fired, and there has to be a mechanism put into Wikipedia, if possible, to expose Admin's with this kind of crooked bias.
On the other hand, it was blatantly obvious what was going on for years, so its also possible that Jimmy Wales wants that kind of bias in Wikipedia, as he refuses to do anything serious about it.