User talk:Andries/Wikipedia:controversy

This is an extremely funny article. I love how you've applied cult language (especially love bombing), to wikipedia. Makes a poignant statement about how the classification is inherently POV. Hats off to you. CHL 22:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I entirely agree w the above, the article is amusing, but serves a higher purpose, pointing out the POV nature of the catagory as applied to anyone or anything. Good work. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 00:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

A pattern in recovery of all kinds (cult, alcoholism, relationships, and so forth) is that recovering people often see what they feel are signs of the dependency they once suffered where such dependency does not exist. While I take your effort here primarily as humor, there is some bitterness present that probably deserves a serious reply.

While it is true that Wikipedia has certain foundation issues that are widely held to be beyond debate, Wikipedia is clearly not a cult for two reasons:

• There is no milieu control. Wikipedia does not attempt to limit member access to outside information, monitor comings and goings, or track possessions as do cults.
• The foundation issues, such as NPOV, are task-oriented and do not purport to be anything more than a means to writing an encyclopedia. There is no purported benefit to Wikipedia members broader lives in following NPOV, as would be the case in a cult, where practical and spiritual benefits are claimed

Any hobby can become all-encompassing and occupy more time and cost more money than is "good for" the participant, be it model rocketry, tropical fish, golf, or a social group like the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk. Such groups aren't cults.

Best wishes

UninvitedCompany 04:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Extreme poor taste; personnaly I find it disturbing 2 joke 3 Answers to GerardM and others 4 Is this a joke?

Extreme poor taste; personnaly I find it disturbing

I saw this post come on-line and found it in extreme poor taste. Not funny at all. What bothers me most is that Jimbo Wales is compared to Jim Jones. If anything..

What do you want to achieve by this? In the article you state that this article has no place in the main-space, and this is certainly correct, but if you really mean what you write, it would also be the wrong place as opinions and POV about Wikipedia can be found on Meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page).

Not posting stuff like this on wikipedia is inherent on the medium, it is an encyclopedia. All encyclopedia have a stated goal and are written with this in mind. The Wikipedia goal is to have NPOV articles in all languages.

People have started to modify your article therefore it is not as you originally put it up there. I found it a sick article, I personally find it disturbing.

GerardM 07:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this article must be put in context of work Andries does on wikipedia, namely articles pertaining to new religious movements. In this arena, everything and everybody is called a cult by somebody (sometimes with even weaker justification than is given here.) Therefore, I don't think Andries is actually claiming wikipedia is or even might be a cult. He seems very tongue-in-cheek when he talks about support groups, and I don't believe he intends to leave wikipedia. I think it's rather a pointed joke directed toward purported cults and other difficult subjects about new religious movements. CHL 07:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andries, would you perhaps consider removing the reference to the cult leader, which some find inappropriate ? I think we all try here to live and work together in good relations, and perhaps removing this reference would be a gentle sign of this desire to get along ? What do you think ? Would you agree to do so, or could we perhaps rephrase a bit all this ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Wikipedia:Mediation Committee)

joke

All that needs done is that this be clarified as a joke. I don't see a need for him to change anything, its funny, and proves his point well, that "cult" is an unfair label, always. He actually did an amazing job of showing how even we fit the criteria. If the term is so vague, and is also a perjorative, we shouldn't be maligning any faith (or organization) by calling them a cult. p.s. Now that there is such heated denial from such prominent community members about the wiki being a cult, I'm starting to question if he may be right ;) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 19:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that what Gérard has in particular a problem with, is the comparison of Jimbo with a man who led his own people to death. And obviously, whether he is right or wrong, he doesnot think this is fun. I note in any case, that Andries does not even take the interest in answering when comments are left to him on his subpages. SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He hasn't been here for a couple days [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Andries). Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 22:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Waou, Jimbo has been quick :-)

I have blanked the article since its original author appears to have departed, perhaps intending the article to be a goodbye note. I agree with Anthere and GerardM that it is in poor taste. Since Andries appears unlikely to amend the article, I feel it is best to remove its contents. UninvitedCompany 22:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Still no Andries? Alas, I'm afraid that the funny WP/cult article wasn't a joke. Good luck, Andries, wherever you are! Fire Star 04:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Andries did is as a joke... Funnily enough, with that type of criteria you can take any human endeavour that requires committent and in which a certain hierarchy is present and make it a "cult". Andries, is simply disturbed IMHO.--Zappaz 19:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite so. Myself, I believe the "cult" articles should report on publicly documented "cult" controversies as pop phenomena rather than engaging in direct, subjective criticisms of the groups in question. If there is enough of a hue and cry in the public eye, then they are noteworthy of mention in such regard, IMO.

I'm not saying that Andries was doing this (although I'm not saying he wasn't), but I've found many times in my line of work (which is as a representative of an old, Confucian based Chinese martial arts hierarchy) that very often the type to cry "cult" are also the ones who would put themselves up as a guru in a heartbeat if they could get someone to validate them. Indeed, their resentment of authority seems jealousy that no one authoritative is deferring to or validating them. The good news for me (and why the hierarchy has survived for so long) is that this type of student always really sucks at the martial art, which increases their marginality AND their resentment of our authority figures who don't. Fire Star 20:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying Andries is a poor martial artist? ;) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 20:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cheers, Sam. I don't know! If I had to bet, I'd guess not... I worked a bit with Andries on the Purported cults page a few months back, my input (especially as I was pretty new here at the time) gradually waned as I realised that it would be a lot more work than I wanted to do to document most cases on that page the way that they should be done to justify keeping them. Fire Star 21:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Answers to GerardM and others

I was on a holiday. It was in the first place a joke but also therapy: I was in a cult and it was not funny, I still want to understand the experience. Yes, I am bitter about that experience but I am not (yet) bitter about Wikipedia. The article is also a play of words, and a kind of practice for my edits on NRM. I never compared Jimbo Wales with Jim Jones but I will remove the picture of Jim Jones to deal with this objection. If you read the article carefully then you will see that I never attacked any contributor personally. The article also has a serious meaning, there is nothing esoteric about cult involvement, it is, in my experience, very normal, with normal people. Any human endeavour can go terribly wrong including Wikipedia and then in hindsight people may call it a cult. Andries 23:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! I didn't pick up anything sinister about the essay, but I was amused by it. I've had several acquaintances involved in cults, and I've seen how far away from their actual personalities such psychic tinkering can take them. Again, I believe that our reporting on well-documented commonly held public perceptions of various groups can be NPOV, even if directly accusing a given religious group of "sorcery" can't be. Fire Star 02:11, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back. And thank you. I was worried you might have really been gone, almost sad to have defended this as a work of humour. And again, it was very well done. CHL 04:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Andries: you are not serious, are you...? --Zappaz 19:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)