--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > For the past few days, I've been contributing to the wikipedia > > entry on Transcendental > > > Meditation. Boy, is that fun in dysfunctional sort of way. Between > > Peter, Andrew Skolnick and > > > myself, we've managed to completely rewrite the whole thing about > > 10x over. > > > > > > http://www.wikipedia.org keyword: "transcendental meditation". > > Click on the "history" tab to > > > see what I mean... > > > > Omigod, what a disaster. Skolnick's going to turn > > the entry into a rerun of his JAMA article if he's not > > stopped. > > > > I'm tempted to put in a paragraph or three on the JAMA > > episode and point out that one of the people making > > "contributions" to the entry is the author of the JAMA > > muckraking piece and that he was sued by TM for it. > > > > its immaterial to the way Wikipedia works. As long as Andrew can back up his rhetoric with > references to external sources, he's within guidelines.
Yeah, but as long as folks realized one of the "contributors" had a personal interest in making TM look bad, and had a history of doing so by misleading, they might take the worst bits with a few more grains of salt. > > There ought to be *some* way of getting a person > > barred from editing Wikipedia entries when it can be > > demonstrated that they have a personal interesting in > > and a history of smearing whatever the entry is about. > > Or at the very least, there ought to be some way of > > identifying such a person's "contributions" in the > > main entry. > > > > (Laswon, please do me a flavor: Don't let Peter Klutz > > keep putting in the phrase "comprises of"--it isn't > > English. You corrected it once, and he put it back in; > > then you or someone else corrected it again--but he's > > liable to put it back if you're not careful. Minor > > point, but the phrase is really illiterate.) > > > Peter has a habit of deleting entire sections without vetting with the rest of the > contributors so I don't see me as having any influence on the situation Well, if he puts that phrase back in, delete it and reference a professional editor (moi)! , save that I possibly > made it worse by challenging Andrew on a point or two. He got angry after that and > started quoting 3rd hand sources within the body of the article. The nastier, the better, > IMHO. Of course. > > You're doing terrific work, Lawson, but if Andrew has > > time on his hands, countering his distortions and > > misstatements is going to be a full-time job. > > > > Eh. Selective quoting is what Wiki is all about in these controversial areas, I suspect. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
