Besides there is a strong anti-anti-cult tendency in Wikipedia that tries to dismiss "apostates" as unreliable. That is another reason why it is better to have an opinion of an academic cult watcher. (I now start to suspect the that dismissal of apostates as unreliable is just a protection of their profession.)

I personally feel quite upset by the accusation that "apostates" are unreliable. I have written with a lot of restraint about SSB in Wikipedia, not as someone who has been betrayed. I have the strong impression that the same applies to your writings on your website.

Yes, of course an researcher should interview current and former members. And yes, I would feel insulted if somebody did not believe my experience as a SSB follower but instead relied only on academic literature that may or may not be of good quality, as I have noticed quite often. But there is a big difference. Much of the academic literature about SSB was written by ex-followers themselves.