I am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of Wikipedia, despite its many flaws (see my user page for more), and I believe that the inherently "peer to peer" nature of Wikipedia means that eventually problems of indivdual bias will be rectified, assuming an enlightened, non-biased, and genuine aspiration for non-bias on the part of contributers. Unfortunately, the unavoidable physicalist and/or mainstream religionist orientation of many people, including (as representattives of the general population) a large number of wikipedia editors, have resulted in containing information that is flawed and innaccurate. Worse is when relifgious or extremist devotees take over a page concerning their guru, and oppose even the slightest criticism. The result is tedious wikipedia wars (such as I witnessed in the case of Sathya Sai Baba. Because extremist followers of both real and fake gurus tend to be obsessional and irrational, it is very tiring and tedious for both authentic schiolars and ex-devotees to present the otehr side of the story. This isn't the case just with cultists and religious extremists, but with any emotionally charged topic. The inevitable outcome of the Wikipedia editorial process as regards highly controversial subjects like cults or new religions, or esoteric or occult concepts, is taht the pages tend to be distorted by people who have specific prejudices are driven by a personal agenda. It is to be hoped that eventually the self-correcting nature of Wikipedia will mean that these mistakes can be corrected.
images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?