Criticism of Prem Rawat
According to Wikipedia's "user contribution" tool, Fresco's first 2400 edits - spread over more than a year from April 2004 to August 2005 - were almost entirely devoted to Prem Rawat- or cult-related articles. The edit histories of Momento and Rumiton look much the same.
At one point, Wikipedia's Prem Rawat article - which was actually created by Mike Finch - was a rather lengthy biography. But then Fresco took hold of it. Working in tandem with others, he soon created a separate article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat," moved all Rawat criticisms to this new article, and eventually had it deleted.
"All critical material was moved to an article of its own: 'Criticism of Prem Rawat," says a senior admin. "Jossi created that, with the intent that it wouldn't over-burden the main article. But then that article was merged back into the main article and basically deleted. All that critical material was pretty much all deleted, so the current article bears very little resemblance to the article of two years ago. It's shorter, and it's all positive."
Fresco can shape content in such ways because he has plenty of editors working alongside him - and he has plenty of time for on-site politics. Judging from the last nine months, roughly 35 per cent of Fresco's edits are made during standard California business hours.
"Jossi ranks among the top three editors by contributions to three out of the four key content policies," says a senior admin, referencing stats available from a Wikipedia contribution analysis tool. "What makes this remarkable is that two of those policies have been in existence since Wikipedia was founded, long before he got involved, so he's made enough recent edits to catch up." Fresco's influence is particularly conspicuous when it comes to the policies concerning conflict of interest and biographies of living persons.
John Brauns, ex-premie
In helping to shape the biographies of living person policy, Fresco has worked to ensure that editors can immediately remove negative material about a living person if it's "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". With other articles, material often remains in place while sources are validated. This is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia as a whole. It prevents libel and defamation.
But Fresco has also worked to ensure that self-published material is fair game with biographies of living persons - as long as it's "not unduly self-serving". So, if an article discusses a living person, it can include positive information from a blog or web site published by that person. But critical information isn't allowed unless it comes from an independent "reputable" source.
Meanwhile, Fresco uses this policy to control the content on Prem Rawat-related Wikipedia articles - he says as much in his Wikipedia disclosure - and though other well-known mainstream sources refer to Rawat's religious movement as a cult, such information is largely absent from Wikipedia.
Because Rawat has done his best to avoid the press since the mid-80s, published criticism of the guru is now scant. But as John Brauns and others and still others point out, it isn't hard to find mainstream publications that provide information about Rawat and his movement you won't find on Wikipedia. This includes several academic studies as well as articles from such publications as The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the list goes on.
Next page: A Conflict of Conflict of Interest
We are finding out who the unlaughing people are
I am being blocked from editing in wikipedia because my name being Rawat in Mumbai. Immediately jossi came and blocked me. Now I can just be editing own user discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prem_Rawat
(Visit there and you can leave a message or a worthwhile link, thanks)
I am researching how cults grab people and then some people spit them out. It is not allowed to be spitting out Mr Ji's ideas because they are so fixed. Maybe that is why he is getting book about himself written by a dog training person. Wikipedia is providing stong evidence of how cult holds its people and, I am proposing, makes them unhappy and unlaughing for their whole lives. But they are not wanting people to know how unhappy they are because they are programmed to be slaves and to make others too. How sad! People are telling me.
There are free spiritual portals where you can write your comments about gurus
There are free spiritual portals where you can write your comments about gurus with no editors and followers changing it.
As for example www.gurusfeet.com/guru and www.myspace.com and others.
Who cares about wikipedia when it comes to spirituality?
COI and vested interest
COI actually relates to a core issue with wikipedia. I was formerly a highly active contributor to this site, but I have found that negative aspects of many topics entailing issues of faith or patriotism or simple allegiance are totally uneditable for "civilian" contributors as they are controlled by vested-interest editors who purposely employ their administrative muscle to restrict criticism of such issues of faith. Anyone who has tried to contribute e.g. in the field of Israel-Palestine knows exactly what I am talking about, these articles are tightly controlled by a couple of zionists, and the article is essentially entirely locked down by these revert-monsters. Its also entirely natural for a brainwashed cult fanatic to attempt to control the exact topic plus the global policy on permissions to control such topics in spite of a COI. Aren't there enough editors around? Shouldn't any COI upon statement or discovery lead to the editor becoming immediately ENTIRELY barred from that topic/subject area? I have actually given up and withdrawn from making contributions. I vastly enjoyed the register article for pointing out just one instance of this problem; nonetheless, this is a systemic issue. Theres been a lot of busting parties with vested interests via IP, which led to good press. When in comes to wikipedia-internal vested interests, the same or even higher standards ought to be applied. COI should be a lot stricter. [also posted on the COI-N discussion page]