Cults (and generally, minority religions) are poorly and inconsistently handled by Wikipedia.
I will quote my comments from a thread in the "private area":
Ever looked closely at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (T-H-L-K-D)
? Lengthy, detailed, one of the oldest articles
on en-wiki, and obviously being "sanctified" by church members. At the present time, that would include Richwales (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, Eustress (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, and a few others. As time dribbles by, the "Controversies" section expands and contracts.
Similar things happen to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (T-H-L-K-D)
, but it doesn't enjoy quite the golden showers of righteousness that the primary Mormon church articles do. Folks like ARTEST4ECHO (T-C-L-K-R-D)
and a few IP addresses "expand" the article to make it more "wikiality-ish", yet others reinsert the group's "legal problems".
Similar things happen to the articles about other Mormon sects listed here
. No doubt because those groups tend to be "technology-ignorant".Similar
for the Unification Church, which counts an early Wikipedian (Ed Poor) as a member.
There's lots more, but I'll let you find it. Start here
The presence of rabid anti-cult nerds on en-WP, like Will Beback and Cirt, doesn't help. I would have to say that the cult coverage
is generally very poor in quality, and frequently biased.