User:Andries/Wikipedia:controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This satirical article has been removed by me because it led to controversy and considerable confusion. It was in the first place a joke. It also helped to show other users how difficult and arbitrary the list of purported cults is. At a certain moment, I really did not know anymore how to proceed with the list of purported cults. I am still thinking about it. It was 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 was also a play of words, and a kind of practice for my edits on new religious movements. The article also had a serious meaning, there is nothing esoteric about cult involvement. Besides, I think that a high level of personal identification with Wikipedia may not be healthy. I do care about Wikipedia but I joined Wikipedia because I care about facts free from propaganda, self-deception and bias. Wikipedia is for me a means of providing facts and I can get upset if I think that facts are distorted. I think this is quite a good trait for a contributor.

I think it is a bit unfair to criticize me for the article that was here. The article showed my skill in writing in a quasi-NPOV way and handling the concepts involved in cults and NRMS . This skill helps me to correct POV edits by others. The only justified criticism that I can think of, is that I have used Wikipedia's web space to some extent as a personal page but nobody complained about this.

Andries 06:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I saw the article when the controversy was raging, and I did not particularly mind it. Well, the part about me being like Jim Jones was a bit for me to swallow, but I knew it was not meant seriously.

I think that the study of cults is one of the most important parts of the study of cultural dynamics generally, and that the types of things we see manifested in cults are or can be latent tendencies in any organization. While of course I don't welcome being compared to Jim Jones, I do welcome a healthy sense of constructive self-criticism within the community, to help us avoid various problems of institutional rigidity.

One of the things that I think I must do, in order to discourage bad cultural dynamics, is to be pleasant and open about criticism of me. It just isn't helpful for me to get offended, and for people to leap to my defense, over every little thing. Jimbo Wales 14:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo: I am interested in knowing more about your theory of "cults" and their comparison with organizational design. -- Zappaz 23:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, your special interest(POV) is showing.--AI 10:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What cult? - Bagel7 23:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In my mind you cannot criticize something that is subjective, without the criticism being subject to the same rules. The idea of a cult can only be truly defined by experience I believe. As you say, you were a member of a cult, and it was not fun. Indeed that must be a powerful experience. I, having never been in a cult in the sense I think you mean, have different thoughts on it. This was an interesting posting, otherwise I would not be commenting on it. If you look up 'cult' here, on this web site, you find an interesting explanation. It goes as follows:

a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

That speaks to me of a subjective culture defining the belief systems of others experience. I hang out at a bar on Fridays for the last 16 years with a group of people that have just as insane ideas and notions as I do. By the above definition, this is indeed a cult as well... however, with Wikkipidia, there is no inherent core belief system and there can really be no coherent 'membership' list. This is not a criticism but an exercise in logic I believe, just as the definition of cult is as well.Fluidmind23 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)