Is the Pen Mightier than a Double-Edged Sword? I Wrote and JKP-Barsana Dham Listened.

Last week, I learned that pointing out the possible fallacies in JKP-Barsana Dham’s self-promotion is a double-edged sword.

On one hand, the information helps give unsuspecting spiritual seekers a reality check regarding the organization’s excessively hyped image: But on the other hand, my thoughts give Barsana Dham information it can use to clean up its act — which is exactly what the organization did last week almost the minute I published my post about the Barsana Dham Wikipedia page’s multiple problems with content being “factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.”

Actually, to be completely accurate, I should say, Barsana Dham almost cleaned up the Wikipedia article. While it did make some changes based on the specific information I wrote about and it did get Wikipedia to remove the disclaimer at the top of the page, which stated that the page may not meet the online encyclopedia’s content guidelines, I’m still not convinced that the Barsana Dham page meets the encyclopedia’s high standards.

What I find particularly unsettling is how Barsana Dham may still be stretching the verifiability of many of its citations. Wikipedia demands citations to help ensure that the content on its pages is not merely just published by some self-aggrandizing organization or person using the open medium for its own self-promotion.

While many of the citations on the Barsana Dham page appear to be generated either directly or indirectly via self-promotional materials and information taken out of context, here are a few of the more questionable citations in my opinion:

• Citation #2 — Barsana Dham added a new line of text related to this citation: “According to an article in the ‘International Journal of Humanities and Peace,’ Barsana Dham is one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in North America.” It seems highly suspicious to me that this journal would make this claim. I will be contacting the publication to see if this is true. What’s more, as I mentioned last week, this citation is from the review of a book written by Prakashanand Saraswati, and as such is most likely indirectly from Barsana Dham’s own promotional material.

• Citation #3 — As hard as I searched, I could not find this article cited on the Internet.

• Citation #11 — Barsana Dham pulled one line out of context from a rather negative article published in the Austin American-Statesman in 1992, entitled “Swami’s planned Hindu temple is center of speculation.” Among other things, the article cited comments by ex-members who’d had negative experiences with Prakashanand and his organization.

• Citation #13 — Barsana Dham cites a book written by Prakashanand Saraswati.

• Citation #19 — This citation is questionable, because Barsana Dham makes this claim in the body of the Wikipedia article: “Barsana Dham opened its doors to Hurricane Katrina evacuees, and executed a fundraising drive in its wake.” Not only could I not find the India Abroad article cited on the Internet, but also the article’s title infers that it’s about Hurricane Rita victims (“Community rallies to help Rita victims,” October 7, 2005). What’s more, I for one would like proof that Barsana Dham actually did open its doors to Hurricane Katrina victims and that it did actually raise any money at all for them.

Now let’s watch and see if JKP-Barsana Dham starts slicing and dicing the Wikipedia page again based on my efforts to shine the light of truth on information that I feel might be skewed. If you are interested, you can track edits made on the Barsana Dham Wikipedia article on this Web page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barsana_Dham&action=history

Let’s be clear about one thing — this is not JKP-Barsana Dham’s own personal Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is open for anyone to write and edit any page on its encyclopedia. This means that anyone with knowledge of the organization has every right to contribute factual content on this page according to the content guidelines, which include being able to back up what you say with verifiable citations — hopefully citations less debatable than several of the ones currently posted there.

And you can quote me on that.

Best to all lovers of truth,
FreedomWriter

UPDATE — June 23, 2008, 10 AM — A few hours after I published this post, the edits had begun. Already Citation #11 listed above has been removed. Darn that double-edged sword! Note that Citation #13 is now #12 and Citation #19 is now #18 on the current Wikipedia page. Stand by for more changes.

Is JKP-Barsana Dham All Hype? Wikipedia Wants to Know.

There’s a saying in Texas about fake cowboys that could just as easily describe JKP-Barsana Dham: He’s all hat and no cattle.

The colloquialism refers to a cowboy who has the outward appearance of a cattle rancher (right down to an authentic cowboy hat), but in actuality has no cattle to back up his swagger.

I’m reminded of this adage when I read any of JKP-Barsana Dham’s copious amounts of self-promotion — which it seems to be self-generating on a daily basis these days (could this be to bury some particularly unsavory news on the Internet?).

It seems that I’m not alone in my skepticism regarding Barsana Dham’s claims to fame. These days even Wikipedia is wondering how much of Barsana Dham’s spiel is real and how much is sheer PR puffery.

I found what I consider to be a couple of very revealing behind-the-scenes Wikipedia Web pages this week. One of them cites that in early June 2008 Barsana Dham’s Wikipedia article was one of the Top 25 most edited articles on the Web site. In fact, since Prakashanand’s arrest on April 24, 2008, there have been over 50 edits to the Barsana Dham Wiki article by multiple sources.

Top 25! Wow — that’s huge considering there are currently 10 million articles posted on the online free encyclopedia. I’ll bet that’s one accolade Barsana Dham won’t be promoting.

Barsana Dham seems to exist in an insular world of its own making and may not be used to other entities telling it that it’s over the top. Perhaps it finds Wikipedia’s content rules to be too confining.

Wikipedia’s content guidelines are fairly simple: “content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited.” Since March 2006, a number of independent contributors and Wiki editors have been editing or proposing edits to the Barsana Dham Wiki article along these guidelines.

However, even with all the edits in the past two months, I’m still concerned that Barsana Dham may not be posting content within Wikipedia’s guidelines. Here are just three points (out of many) regarding citations that have me wondering about their neutrality:

• “It is one of the largest Hindu Temple complexes in North America” (Barsana Dham cites a person who wrote a review of one of Prakashanand’s book and who is a holistic health researcher)
• “Barsana Dham has become a place of pilgrimage for millions of Hindus living in North America” (Barsana Dham cites an article from “Hinduism Today,” even though the content appears to be from Barsana Dham’s own press release)
• “Shree Radha Rani has many names” (Barsana Dham cites one of Prakashanand’s books as the source)

Due to its questionable content, Barsana Dham’s Wiki article was almost deleted all together in April 2008. Now Wikipedia notes at the top of the page that the article has multiple issues including:

• Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
• It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.
• It may need copyediting for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.

Barsana Dham will have to clean up its act soon — or go the way of three other Wikipedia articles that where recently deleted:

1. Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat
2. Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj
3. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati

I can only guess that on these three pages JKP-Barsana Dham either didn’t even try to ratchet back the blatant self-promotion or it had no way to describe these entities without using hyperbole.

If we cannot even trust the JKP organization to post Wikipedia content that meets the online encyclopedia’s egalitarian rules for truth, notability, and neutrality, what information can we trust from JKP-Barsana Dham?