Talk:Landmark Worldwide/Archive 13

message: I've watched the edits of all of the pages in question, with the result being a series of vague homogenous, pages.
I will add that I know a staff member of LEC, LLC. at one of the more prominent global centers. I am only going to state what I know to be true here and you all are going to have to take it at that.
1)Non-written policy is that the WIKI entries be cleaned up to so that the negative information available to the public is non-existent or minimal.
2)There is active dialogue and action to completely discredit Rick Ross.
3)Active course leaders are given a series of answers to frequently asked negative questions to provide those who ask for information. Policy is to not deviate from the answers.
4)Werner is attempting to reconcile with Landmark or vice-versa. See links to Landmark on his webiste. Once all negative print information and archival video is eliminated, Erhard is to be painted as a victim of character assasination in a sympathetic light. By links to Landmark in his website alone, it is very clear Landmark is making no attempt to claim "Werner presently has no association with Landmark whatsoever," a decidedly different take than information in given to Forum participants less than ONE year ago. This is very, very strange given the admonishments I was given not to mention Landmark and Werner in the same sentence last year and as recently of January-March of this year.
5) In reference to 4) above, I've noticed the most mass edits began to occur after the internal shifts on Landmark's policy regarding its association with Werner began shortly after this line of talk was abandonded by those in the training to lead the Forum. I'm advancing the possibility Landmark Education Corporation, LLC. is attempting to reconcile with Erhard. I find this disturbing.
6) As this is all verbal information given to me by staff members, which was verbal information relayed to them, nothing is written down. It is policy to have as little as possible on paper due to "intellectual property."
7) Although I admit there is no way to verify this information on paper, the mole I know inside doesn't know they are a mole. They're just not following company policy and speaking candidly about internal policies. This does not make this information false in any way, though.
8) Again, the timing of the mass revisions seems entirely too coincidental. I would have a conversation with the mole, go back to reference the wiki article, and find the past information was actively being edited out. An ex-mental health professional who became a Landmark member is writing a pro-Landmark paper which will be used to either supplement or replace the Harvard study. The former is more likely.
The verbal information given to me, I know to be true.
Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writing history 

message: I am involved with Landmark Education, I was a staff member though I haven't been a staff member for years (since 1996).  I have lead Seminars and worked with Landmark's Seminar design team.  I have a deep understanding of the current internal workings.  Here is my point-by-point response to this interpretation of what happened. 
First, many of the facts you state are undisputed facts.  You then make unsourced statements about Landmark's intent.  I will over the course of the day try to respond point by point...
=== General ===
There is no "move" to Australia and India.  The US centers are expanding AND the work is exploding in Australia and India!  It is a global expansion.  You will see growth in a lot of other areas around the world...  Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's on the Landmark Education litigation entry on wiki. Click on the assertions LE made about Rick Ross. I think Timb and Pendant had a hand in editing that aricle, but we've discussed that today. Just making sure the truth is here, still.
Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No e-mail accounts there, per Vernice. Alex, I swear I'm not making up the no e-mail thing. I WISH I were capable of something like that. Vernice insisted she had to send me a postal apology (never received) because the Houston Center had NO e-mail accounts.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, per LE's HQ in San Diego, I was informed many Centers and Center Managers DO NOT HAVE E-MAIL CAPABILITIES or LE E-MAIL ADDRESSES. Alex, not all Center Managers have landmark.com e-mail addresses. What you stated above is patently FALSE. LE HQ reinforced what other staff and members indicated earlier. Just the facts, man.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, if you don't mind---Why don't you ask her where my letter of apology she wrote and mailed by the way actually is? She promised me and another now-staff member that it was written and sent. If she can't mail it, she can E-MAIL it. Ya know, the whole authenticity and integrity thingArcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You got some of the evidence today via e-mail, Alex.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for this? Revisionist interpretation 

message: There is no "move" to Australia and India.  The US centers are expanding AND the work is exploding in Australia and India!  It is a global expansion.  You will see growth in a lot of other areas around the world...  Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: "Non-written policy is that the WIKI entries be cleaned up" 
Frankly, you are giving way too much credit to Landmark's marketing department.  Though some staff members have from time to time participated the edits are made- as you can tell for looking  at the history- by amateurs and people who have taken Landmark.  
The Landmark site and related sites (though I know little to nothing about the EST, Werner Erhardt sites) are being edited by volunteers trying to create good ACCURATE encyclopedic content. Alex Jackl 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 1. Unwritten policy 

message: "There is active dialogue and action to completely discredit Rick Ross."
I don't mean to be controversial but Rick Ross does fine on discrediting himself all by himself.  There is certainly not an "Active" dialogue in Landmark Education to discredit Ross except to counter whatever anti-LE spin Ross and his followers generate.  Ross and his associates seems to have a VERY strong anti-Landmark bias and uses spin and marketing techniques to propagate and publish that bias hence why he is even on Landmark's radar screen at all. Alex Jackl 15:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's on the Landmark Education litigation entry on wiki. Click on the assertions LE made about Rick Ross. I think Timb and Pendant had a hand in editing that aricle, but we've discussed that today. Just making sure the truth is here, still.
Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 2. Rick Ross- Not personal at all 

message: "Active course leaders are given a series of answers to frequently asked negative questions"
Yes.  This is standard practice.  Since every public-facing employee can't attend every board meeting or issue briefing ALL (at least serious ones) companies produce summaries of the facts or decisions by the company so that company staff members or representatives of any kind can speak what is actually true rather than the result of the rumor mill.  Relying on hearsay from what a staff member hears is not particualry valuable- expecially in an international company as widely distributed and decentralized as Landmark Education.Alex Jackl 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 3. Standardized answers 

message: "4)Werner is attempting to reconcile with Landmark or vice-versa. "
Not a reconciliation.  There was never a breach though it wouldn't surprise me that LE was reluctant to bring him up in the 90s given some of the media frenzy about him in the early 90s. If you read the current article or have been following the edits for the last three years you will see that it was baldly stated that Werner has no formal relationship with Landmark Education.  No stock, no board position, doesn't work for Landmark, has been doing his own thing... That is STILL TRUE.  No change.  It also states that Werner Erhard occasionally consults for Landmark Education.  Also still true. Now what I believe may have lead you to this interpretation is that the controversy over Werner Erhard is disappearing into the mists of the far past and so Werner Erhardt is less controversial and is easier to talk about.  I always hated it when Werner Erhardt was brought up in programs I lead because I know nothing of the man and only know hearsay and what I have read about the man. So who knows- we may see more of Werner Erhardt, we may not.   He is getting on though.. wouldn't he be retiring soon? Alex Jackl 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 4. Werner Erhard 

message: "I've noticed the most mass edits began to occur after the internal shifts on Landmark's policy regarding its association with Werner " 
I was one of the first people to begin editing the LE Wikipedia page and I did not receive any guidance from LE at all.  As a matter of fact for years LE ignored my cries to pay attention to this medium! :-) It just is not the case.  As to you being "disturbed" by Landmark "reconciling" with Werner Erhard.  Why?  Do you have some personal relationship with Erhardt?  Did he do you some wrong?  Have you ever met the man?  I haven't met him and I am reserving any judgment.  I am certainly not going to condemn someone when all I know is the yellow journalism spouted about the guy in the late eighties/early nineties.  I don't know for certain what is true and what is not about him and his history- but I have seen the yellow journalism spouted about LE today and if there is the same level of accuracy and truth Werner Erhardt might very well be a saint! :-) LOL.  Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 5. "Mass edits" 

message: "As his is all verbal information given to me by staff members, which was verbal information relayed to them, nothing is written down. It is policy to have as little as possible on paper due to "intellectual property.""
This is just wrong.  Here is what you to do to blow this out of the water: Go to your local Center and ask a staff member to show you the policy and procedure manuals.  EVERYTHING is written down.  As a matter of fact - it is the opposite problem form what you are saying.  I think there needs to be less paper and more dynamic electronic processes with minimal guidance documents.(Note I am a Systems Architect  so my biases are showing).  The leaders have documents that lay out the Landmark education vision, stance, frequently asked questions.. etc.. All of that is documented.  No offense but your "source" needs a bit of re-training if that is what they think.  Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No e-mail accounts there, per Vernice. Alex, I swear I'm not making up the no e-mail thing. I WISH I were capable of something like that. Vernice insisted she had to send me a postal apology (never received) because the Houston Center had NO e-mail accounts.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, per LE's HQ in San Diego, I was informed many Centers and Center Managers DO NOT HAVE E-MAIL CAPABILITIES or LE E-MAIL ADDRESSES. Alex, not all Center Managers have landmark.com e-mail addresses. What you stated above is patently FALSE. LE HQ reinforced what other staff and members indicated earlier. Just the facts, man.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, if you don't mind---Why don't you ask her where my letter of apology she wrote and mailed by the way actually is? She promised me and another now-staff member that it was written and sent. If she can't mail it, she can E-MAIL it. Ya know, the whole authenticity and integrity thingArcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No paper?  Are we talking about the same company? 

message: "Although I admit there is no way to verify this information on paper, the mole I know inside doesn't know they are a mole. They're just not following company policy and speaking candidly about internal policies. This does not make this information false in any way, though."
You should read the history of this talk page.  There has been a lot of candid talk about that.  You don't need a mole- many ex-staff and program leaders have written into this talk page.  There is sourced information out there.  This kind of "second hand, my friend told me" kind of information is not well-sourced.  If your friend were writing here that would be a different story.  But there are elements you have clearly either mis-interpreted or your friend gave you only partial information.   Look, I know LE was very paranoid about the media after how badly it got burned in the early nineties by the whole tabloid journalism thing that happened.  It took them years to get over that and to stop protecting themselves.  Now they are becoming more and more public and less and less cautious.  This vibe may be what your friend picked up on.
Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moles 

message: "8) Again, the timing of the mass revisions seems entirely too coincidental. I would have a conversation with the mole, go back to reference the wiki article, and find the past information was actively being edited out. An ex-mental health professional who became a Landmark member is writing a pro-Landmark paper which will be used to either supplement or replace the Harvard study. The former is more likely."
All of this is innuendo- this page has been wracked by people spouting opinions having those be in conflict.   I am not against that but if you are going to assert facts you need to have AT LEAST first-hand experience of the thing you are asserting OR have a well-sourced attribution for what you are saying.  And frankly, my interpretation is more liberal than some editors who only want to see directly sourced content.  Thank you!!!!!  Alex Jackl 16:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got some of the evidence today via e-mail, Alex.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innuendo not useful 

message: With all due respect, most of the above is totally inappropriate content for wikipedia, even on discussion pages. These are for discussion about how best to improve the articles in accordance with wikipedia policies; not for general airing of comments about the subject matter of the article.  Still less are they platforms for the presentation of alleged "insider knowledge" or for your personal speculations.
If you wish to become a member of the wikipedia community and contribute to the quality of the articles here, you will be warmly welcomed; but please take some time to acquaint yourself with the policies and guidelines, especially What Wikipedia is not, Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and Reliable Sources. But if you just want an outlet for material such as this, please go to a blog or discussion forum.
Having said all that, I have to say that much of what you say is factually inaccurate, and most of the rest is irrelevant whether true or not.
I for one have been editing this article on and off for about three years, and my motivation is to produce an accurate, neutral, well-formed encylopedia entry based on reliable verifiable published sources. I am not doing it because I was instructed by a Landmark staff member or anyone else.  The same seems to be the case for others who have regularly edited here.  I see no evidence that other 'pro-Landmark' editors are part of any kind of orchestrated campaign.  Neither have I noticed any particular changes in the pattern of activity that would be consistent with your theory about a sudden adoption of a policy to direct the editing process.
Your assertions about changes in the relationship between Landmark and Werner Erhard also seem to me to be no more than wild speculation.  Certainly I was aware of his historic connection with the company before I did the Landmark Forum in 2002, and I encountered no evasiveness or embarrassment in dealing with any questions that came up about him in courses or in introductions.  True, they didn't go out of their way to draw attention to the connection (and still don't) - but why should they?  The fact would be completely irrelevant to most people: what interests them is what results they can expect from the courses, and whether these results are likely to be worth the time and money they would be investing.
Finally - could I ask you to please follow the convention of indenting your comments if you insert them into another person's posting (start the line with a colon (:) or several to indent more) - as this makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks. DaveApter 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DaveApter.  This is not the appropriate place for most of the above discussion. Concerning the Australian connection: I live in Sydney and have attended several courses here.  I don't know of any evidence to indicate that LE in Australia is very different from the US, although I would say it is somewhat less "hard sell" here (probably reflecting cultural differences). I also know that seminars here are often led by senior US-based staff members, so this would make it unlikely that large differences would go unnoticed by LE headquarters. Timb66 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, I have to say this much: if I hadn't gotten someone on this site's attention, LE would still be playing "pass the buck" with me. I had meaningful dialogue with Alex Jackl. First LE participant who is actually trying to help, versus lip-service. If anything materializes, then there will be stuff I wrote that remains true and may need to be included, and the rest of it will be deleted. Timb, Apter...thanks for "being." Being helpful? Dunno, but I guess you guys are the true epitome of "est," or "to be."Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another response to above