A Landmark headache inducer

[JCM]

Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L) and related articles are, possibly, one of the best and I think most obvious examples of where and how wikipedia can go wrong.

I want it understood that this is in no way necessarily an explicit statement of problems regarding editors themselves, although I think that enters into it. But the subjects relating to Werner Erhard (T-H-L), including this article, fall in a very problematic area. Erhard Seminars Training (T-H-L), the first incarnation of the Landmark Forum, which is Landmark Worldwide's primary product, was a self-help group which seems to have espoused and advocated some very obviously quasi-religious beliefs, more or less of the Consensus reality (T-H-L) type and specifically apparently advocating the belief that everyone, to an extent, is the creator of their own reality, and, implicitly, that the consensus reality is more or less the collection of them, at least somewhat determined by the number of people believing in various personal realities, their strength of belief in those personal realities, and how well those personal realities relate to what might be called the consensus reality of the physical world.

And if that isn't confusing enough (although it is), Landmark in its various subsequent forms seems to have, basically, taken the forms of the "seminars" or forums offered by Erhard Seminars Training and turned them into their current "Landmark Forums". Of course, there is nothing at all wrong with that. Certainly, if such seminars are financially successful, and they were, it makes sense to continue them. Even if what seem to be the cornerstone beliefs of the original seminars are basically glossed over in subsequent incarnations, because those beliefs may have been too "New agey" for continued credibility. Nothing wrong with that either. In a sense, the Forum can be as effective as a non-military form of "boot camp" similar to that run by Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and a Gentleman. And, yes, some companies would really rather welcome seeing some of their less disciplined employees experience and benefit from such training. And some people as individuals may themselves realize that they might benefit from exposure to such.

So, everything's fine and dandy. Up to a point. That point is, more or less, now. Landmark continues to function as an employee-owned for profit corporation that, according to one of its executives, sells "inspiration." However, they really can't be pinned down as to what that "inspiration" actually is. If the "inspiration" could be realized by, say, buying a book which is much cheaper than the Forum, then that would reduce the number and frequency of people taking part in the Forum, which of course would cost the company money. And, of course, since the apparently now-former object of some of the old Erhard trainers is now apparently disavowed by the new corporate management, as being too philosophical/religious, that clearly can't be what the "inspiration" that is being sold is, because it is already publicly known and discussed, at least to a degree, so Landmark can't continue to sell it, and also overtly philosophical/religious, which would mean it would make it not unreasonable for Landmark to be counted as a part of a "new religious movement" or "cult," which are terms Landmark apparently really hates today. This apparently includes reasons for it not publicizng itself too much by the term Large group awareness training (T-H-L), which is itself associated with the Human potential movement (T-H-L), which is itself associated with NRMs and that whole area the current Landmark does not want to be counted as part of. Not that anyone can blame them.

So we wind up with an existing company that sells "inspiration" of a kind it cannot or will not describe, partially related to (1) philosophical/religious ideas which it no longer necessary wants to be associated with because such ideas are often too woo to get companies to pay for sending their employees to the forums and (2) if the inspiration could be described in a book, the reason for taking part in the Forum kinda disappears. But, clearly, like with military boot camp, it can and apparently does cause at least some people to achieve some sort of Eureka effect (T-H-L) which can in some cases help them a lot. And people who have received such an experience are of course not unreasonably attributing it to Landmark, and believe it deserves respect and credit for that.

And, of course, most of the people in the corporate organization are in some way closely tied to the older est, including its president.

So, at the end, we have a group which has specifically said it is most emphatically not a continuation of the older est, although it seems to engage in pretty much the same activities as est and its product is sold on the basis of making possible "aha" moments like est did. But, of course, that new corporation can't say what sort of specific inspiration it does give people, both for obvious monetary reasons and because at least some of those moments might not now be what it wants to identify itself with.

And the current company, not unreasonably, is extremely shy of the media, because most independent sources will discuss the historical connections and views the current company doesn't want to associate itself with.

So, what the hell do you do with the topic, when the few independent reliable sources out there which discuss the topic do generally prominently draw a link between the old and the new that the new denies as much as they can without going into any particular details about their product, which would reduce the saleability of that product?

[Sitush]

It is a walled-garden situation. Much of the stuff relating to the von Mises institute follows a similar pattern, as do many articles about yoga and obscure Indian swamis.

[JCM]

It is a walled-garden situation. Much of the stuff relating to the von Mises institute follows a similar pattern, as do many articles about yoga and obscure Indian swamis.

To an extent, not knowing the other subjects you mention that well, yeah, I have to agree with you. But there actually are at least a few complete works relating to yoga from an academic perspective, both philosophically and I guess "biologically." And, well, any form of yoga is still ultimately a form of Yoga (T-H-L) in some way. Landmark today denies virtually any connection with its roots, and its supporters do as well, which makes it virtually impossible to say anything about it except what the company itself says, given the lack of willingness they have displayed to really welcome academic or outside input. Jehovah's Witnesses (T-H-L) are I guess another example of the same, given their historical extreme reluctance to welcome any sort of independent review.

[Sitush]

It is a walled-garden situation. Much of the stuff relating to the von Mises institute follows a similar pattern, as do many articles about yoga and obscure Indian swamis.

To an extent, not knowing the other subjects you mention that well, yeah, I have to agree with you. But there actually are at least a few complete works relating to yoga from an academic perspective, both philosophically and I guess "biologically." And, well, any form of yoga is still ultimately a form of Yoga (T-H-L) in some way. Landmark today denies virtually any connection with its roots, and its supporters do as well, which makes it virtually impossible to say anything about it except what the company itself says, given the lack of willingness they have displayed to really welcome academic or outside input. Jehovah's Witnesses (T-H-L) are I guess another example of the same, given their historical extreme reluctance to welcome any sort of independent review.

There seems to be a meeting of minds: I've never dealt with JW articles but I can well imagine the similarity exists (and am certainly pissed off by their gang mentality when canvassing where I live). The heart of these problems lies in the notions of notability and neutrality. I'm going to be crude and group the lot as "cults", but hopefully those reading will understand I am using the term fairly loosely because I really don't understand a lot of the stuff that is said for their existence, although it generally sounds mostly like bollocks/snake-oil etc.

The problem with cults is that the only truly independent coverage they get usually comes from people who do indeed consider the things to be cults in a strict sense and thus are inevitably writing from a critical perspective, often indeed a muck-raking one. Me? I'd probably bin all of this shit simply because it is impossible to treat the subjects fairly: it is either promotional or massively antagonistic, and in both cases tends to become a time-sink that does no favour to those who try to contribute in an uninvolved manner, nor indeed imparts useful information to the readers. That such gardens continue to exist is a triumph of hope over experience and of those who follow Jimbo's wacky philosophy of inclusionism, which he only applies when it suits his agenda.

I know that a fair few here would like to see the entire project flattened but certainly there are a significant number of gardens that could be razed.

[Jim]

Me? I'd probably bin all of this shit simply because it is impossible to treat the subjects fairly: it is either promotional or massively antagonistic, and in both cases tends to become a time-sink that does no favour to those who try to contribute in an uninvolved manner, nor indeed imparts useful information to the readers. That such gardens continue to exist is a triumph of hope over experience and of those who follow Jimbo's wacky philosophy of inclusionism, which he only applies when it suits his agenda.

Very well said.

I once, briefly got involved on the "Landmark" talk page for some reason I can't remember, but I ran away pretty quick. It's binary warfare between rabid POV pushers and rabid "defenders".
No good can ever come of it. Better just gone. Of course, that will never happen.

[Peter Damian]

Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L) and related articles are, possibly, one of the best and I think most obvious examples of where and how wikipedia can go wrong.

(Checks edit history)

Ah right it's one of those articles where it says "older 5,000 edits". This should be entertaining.

And editors like this.

Me? I'd probably bin all of this shit simply because it is impossible to treat the subjects fairly: it is either promotional or massively antagonistic, and in both cases tends to become a time-sink that does no favour to those who try to contribute in an uninvolved manner, nor indeed imparts useful information to the readers. That such gardens continue to exist is a triumph of hope over experience and of those who follow Jimbo's wacky philosophy of inclusionism, which he only applies when it suits his agenda.

Very well said.

I once, briefly got involved on the "Landmark" talk page for some reason I can't remember, but I ran away pretty quick. It's binary warfare between rabid POV pushers and rabid "defenders".
No good can ever come of it. Better just gone. Of course, that will never happen.

Just about sums it up. I like the "binary warfare" thing.

[iii]

Predictably, ArbCom has weighed in on this question with vast amounts of commentary not even close to being worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L)

[JCM]

Predictably, ArbCom has weighed in on this question with vast amounts of commentary not even close to being worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L)

The recent case, and its remarkable ineffectiveness, is more or less what prompted this thread. And the recent request for clarification and amendment, which included gratuitous unfounded slander of a new foreign editor which temporarily caused him to retire, didn't help things. The discussion regarding the frankly ridiculous request for clarification can be found in full at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =643800885 And that same editor is now being, basically, slandered again on the same discredited allegations at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (T-H-L).

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole damn subject just completely wiped out from wikipedia myself. Unfortunately, its earliest incarnation, Erhard Seminars Training (T-H-L), is a fairly significant topic in the old "cult" controversy. But topics like this one, which few if any people outside the fanatics pay attention to, are a big problem. And, yes, regarding the recent incarnations since est, that includes the press in general, which has apparently more or less been fed material for puff pieces and damn little else.

[Peter Damian]

Predictably, ArbCom has weighed in on this question with vast amounts of commentary not even close to being worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L)

I love it. "Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. "

Passed 10-0

[Kelly Martin]

There are two ways to deal with topics like these. One is to allow all sides nominate a list of potential authors, allow the other sides to strike names from the lists proposed, and then randomly pick from the names remaining to write an article, which will be put in place and then locked forever. The other alternative (which also applies if no name can be agreed upon) is to have no article at all.

[JCM]

There are two ways to deal with topics like these. One is to allow all sides nominate a list of potential authors, allow the other sides to strike names from the lists proposed, and then randomly pick from the names remaining to write an article, which will be put in place and then locked forever. The other alternative (which also applies if no name can be agreed upon) is to have no article at all.

There actually is another way, which apparently ain't gonna work. And that would be to get the two "sides" to get together their arguments into coherent, short, sourced statements regarding specific issues to be presented to the community as a whole through one or more RfC's. And, actually, I already proposed that. But I get the impression that maybe one or more editors involved know that if that is tried, the other side might "win", and I doubt some of the people involved would be willing to take part in what they might pre-emptively call a biased decision.

[Vigilant]

There are two ways to deal with topics like these. One is to allow all sides nominate a list of potential authors, allow the other sides to strike names from the lists proposed, and then randomly pick from the names remaining to write an article, which will be put in place and then locked forever. The other alternative (which also applies if no name can be agreed upon) is to have no article at all.

There actually is another way, which apparently ain't gonna work. And that would be to get the two "sides" to get together their arguments into coherent, short, sourced statements regarding specific issues to be presented to the community as a whole through one or more RfC's. And, actually, I already proposed that. But I get the impression that maybe one or more editors involved know that if that is tried, the other side might "win", and I doubt some of the people involved would be willing to take part in what they might pre-emptively call a biased decision.

Ya know....
That sounds a lot like mediation and arbitration...
If only there were some trained professionals the WMF could hire...

[EricBarbour]

Anything related to Erhard and Est is a battleground on Wikipedia. Just remember, Will Beback used to fight with others over it. Will's father was a prominent psychologist who had studied "human potential movements" like Est and Landmark. And Cirt was often involved, because he hates Scientology, and Scientology and Est were often opponents.

- Wikipedia's relationship to Est and Erhard has been weirdly erratic and articles dealing with it were inconsistently handled. Notorious insiders Cirt and William McWhinney have been greatly responsible for some of this. (Ironically, Erhard started out as an encyclopedia salesman.)
- Another "human potential" effort was Neurolinguistic programming, the favorite subject of insider FT2.
- 16 March 2012 "So I happened upon a Burt Reynolds football movie called "Semi-Tough", and its WP article goes on and on about "est" and Werner Erhard. Like, it mentions "est" 20 times, and Erhard more than that. Very little mention of football. That seemed a bit weird, like someone was trying to make a really big deal of "est", so I looked at the page history to see who wrote the thing, and here we are. A cursory scan through these threads and the "est" articles themselves seems to indicate that Cirt hates Scientology, and Scientologists hate est... so is Cirt talking about est a lot to poke at Scientology? Or is he poking at est itself? Or what? Forgive me for not slogging through all the threads, there's rather a lot and I figured someone knowledgeable would have a quick answer."
- Which seems to be true. The March 2012 version of the film's article is all about EST.

[DanMurphy]

Predictably, ArbCom has weighed in on this question with vast amounts of commentary not even close to being worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide (T-H-L)

I love it. "Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. "

Passed 10-0

Love the talk page. 28 archives back to 2005. And before your loving and thoughtful dive into sharing "knowledge" with the little girl in Africa, a word from our sponsors:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.

Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

This is not a forum for general discussion about personal discussions about the subject. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal discussions about the subject at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.

But of course:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2015)
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (January 2015)

This section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (January 2015).
This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (January 2015)

[Poetlister]

The best way to write an article is to have a competent editorial board that can select an authoritative author to write a well-informed article, and then sub-editors to sort out the grammar and formatting. But can you imagine anyome doing such a thing?

What, Encyclopaedia Britannica's been doing it for over 200 years?

[JCM]

The best way to write an article is to have a competent editorial board that can select an authoritative author to write a well-informed article, and then sub-editors to sort out the grammar and formatting. But can you imagine anyome doing such a thing?

What, Encyclopaedia Britannica's been doing it for over 200 years?

For current topics, you're probably right. The down side, which I can speak about from some experience having looked over reviews, is that Britannica's people often are not the best out there. And the same can even be said about more specialized encyclopedias intended as being the "standard source" on topics. The Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which was the sole winner of a major "Book of the Year" award and is, along with the German RGG, counted as being maybe the best current source out there in that broad field, has been criticized in at least a few articles for having the best writer on a given historical topic chosen (sometimes from a field of one living writer) who writes an article which promotes opinions of his which have received little if any support from anyone but him. And there are cases where the best potential writer in a small field dies before the article is finished, or has to replaced for some reason by a less expert person, and such like.

[Kelly Martin]

For current topics, you're probably right. The down side, which I can speak about from some experience having looked over reviews, is that Britannica's people often are not the best out there. And the same can even be said about more specialized encyclopedias intended as being the "standard source" on topics. The Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which was the sole winner of a major "Book of the Year" award and is, along with the German RGG, counted as being maybe the best current source out there in that broad field, has been criticized in at least a few articles for having the best writer on a given historical topic chosen (sometimes from a field of one living writer) who writes an article which promotes opinions of his which have received little if any support from anyone but him. And there are cases where the best potential writer in a small field dies before the article is finished, or has to replaced for some reason by a less expert person, and such like.

But are they worse than Wikipedia?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. When you're pumping out shit by the bucketfull, it is not a reasonable argument to say "My competitor once made a tiny error, therefore you must excuse all of mine as well."

[JCM]

For current topics, you're probably right. The down side, which I can speak about from some experience having looked over reviews, is that Britannica's people often are not the best out there. And the same can even be said about more specialized encyclopedias intended as being the "standard source" on topics. The Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which was the sole winner of a major "Book of the Year" award and is, along with the German RGG, counted as being maybe the best current source out there in that broad field, has been criticized in at least a few articles for having the best writer on a given historical topic chosen (sometimes from a field of one living writer) who writes an article which promotes opinions of his which have received little if any support from anyone but him. And there are cases where the best potential writer in a small field dies before the article is finished, or has to replaced for some reason by a less expert person, and such like.

But are they worse than Wikipedia?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. When you're pumping out shit by the bucketfull, it is not a reasonable argument to say "My competitor once made a tiny error, therefore you must excuse all of mine as well."

Some of them ain't exactly "tiny" errors in those other sources. A few have actually been called some really bad words. But, in general, yeah, you're right. But it does make it harder to improve the content on those particular topics if the content in the most highly-regarded professional works in the field contain some articles which colleagues have called real howlers.

[tarantino]

Do you suppose Tgeairn (T-C-L), who's a frequent editor of Landmark subjects and was a party in the arbcom case, the same person as Tom Geairn, course supervisor at Landmark Education? I wonder why he recently removed that fact from his Linkedin profile?

[thekohser]

You know, if we had a dollar for every time someone changed or deleted their LinkedIn profile after they were revealed here, we'd not have to worry about hosting fees.