Here we go again (wikipedia)

[yossarian]

Using a website called 'way back when' I compared a cached version of the wikipedia page (cached on November 2013) to the current version. I am now unsure which version is what and who's edits... Here are some subtle differences that I found. Just a few examples:

1. Cached version: The Ra Material, also known as the The Law of One, is a series of five books purportedly authored by a non-human intelligence named Ra and his questioners through the process of channeling.

The current version has changed 'purportedly' (italicized) to 'reputedly'.

Purportedly means to claim something even if it may be false
Reputedly means what people believe. Subtle differences in connotations. Not too much of a big deal but makes slight difference.

2. The cached version changed 'hypnotic state' to 'non-conscious state'... What is a non-conscious state? Non-conscious in psychology may allude to consciousness - for example minerals are non-conscious because they do not have awareness. Non-conscious processes alludes to mental processes that work when we are sleeping or no aware. It does not describe a trance state necessarily as hypnotic state would imply.

And then:

3. Cached version: ' The material in the books conveys an elaborate philosophy called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One" or that all things that exist are ultimately the same thing.'

Current version: 'The material in the books conveys an elaborate grand reality called The Law of One having the basic principle that "All is One", or that all "things" that exist are ultimately the same "essence" within many forms.'

'elaborate philosophy' --> 'grand reality'

There is a HUGE difference to claim something is a philosophy and something is a 'grand reality'. This is distorted depiction of the Ra Material to say it is a 'grand reality'. This is what some were concerned about when A1's edits came out.

Have not finished comparing yet tho...

I'm not sure if the November 2013 cached version is what Yossarian wrote last year? Can you confirm this?

Over 20 people wrote the article. Most of these authors were worthless and made the page worse instead of better. You give good examples of where people put in dumb changes.


There were about 6 authors who made valuable additions and contribution. I wrote the main outline and I found most of the sources.

Wikipedia policy is not at all what THAT GUY is saying, btw. He has no idea what hes talking about.