Wikipedia: Non profit, community or Cult
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:22 pm
Over the course of it's history Wikipedia has become a household name, but is it famous or is it infamous.
Wikipedia defines a non profit as a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit, in contrast with an entity that operates as a business aiming to generate a profit for its owners. Wikipedians are volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia by editing its pages, unlike readers who simply read the articles and a cult can be defined as a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals OR its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.
In this article dated May 2009, The Guardian lays out some of the telltale signs of a cult: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-religion
1. A charismatic leader - I think we can all agree, whether we personally like him or not, this would be Jimbo Wales.
2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called "brainwashing"]. - I would argue that the community guidelines, Manual of style and the near countless policies and essays would fit this criteria.
3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. - This is debatable but I would argue that this criteria is met through the economic and other categories.
The Guardian further outlines 10 warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader:
- Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. - Admins, WMF, Functionaries, etc.
- No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. - Yep, this criteria is met
- No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement. - IMO this is met, at least in regards to the Trust
- Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. - This one seems to be met
- There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. - Same old thing here. Wikipedians good, everyone else bad.
- Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. - I'll vouch for this one.
- There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader. - Again, many reports of this
- Followers feel they can never be "good enough". - Criteria met
- The group/leader is always right. - Criteria met
- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. - Criteria met
There is also one other criteria that doesn't appear in this article but I have seen mentioned before regarding other cults. An unhealthy obsession with money.
Wikipedia defines a non profit as a legal entity organized and operated for a collective, public or social benefit, in contrast with an entity that operates as a business aiming to generate a profit for its owners. Wikipedians are volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia by editing its pages, unlike readers who simply read the articles and a cult can be defined as a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals OR its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.
In this article dated May 2009, The Guardian lays out some of the telltale signs of a cult: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-religion
1. A charismatic leader - I think we can all agree, whether we personally like him or not, this would be Jimbo Wales.
2. A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called "brainwashing"]. - I would argue that the community guidelines, Manual of style and the near countless policies and essays would fit this criteria.
3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. - This is debatable but I would argue that this criteria is met through the economic and other categories.
The Guardian further outlines 10 warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader:
- Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. - Admins, WMF, Functionaries, etc.
- No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. - Yep, this criteria is met
- No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement. - IMO this is met, at least in regards to the Trust
- Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. - This one seems to be met
- There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. - Same old thing here. Wikipedians good, everyone else bad.
- Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. - I'll vouch for this one.
- There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader. - Again, many reports of this
- Followers feel they can never be "good enough". - Criteria met
- The group/leader is always right. - Criteria met
- The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. - Criteria met
There is also one other criteria that doesn't appear in this article but I have seen mentioned before regarding other cults. An unhealthy obsession with money.