Insider/Outsider Debate

Before reading the articles, I'm pretty split on the insider/outsider debate. I feel that it's very important for people to be an 'insider' when writing diverse literature. It's necessary to have literature by people who have experienced something within their culture. The reader gets an inside look as to what that culture is like for the author, and it seems more 'authentic.' Then again, sometimes authors aren't always clear and specific with the facts, and could be making generalizations about that culture. Yet, authors who are 'outsiders' may be making generalizations as well. I still feel it's important to get those perspectives as well. Even though they may not be of that certain culture they're writing about, it could be very good multicultural literature, and they could have done their research and have the facts correct. But to some people, they don't want to believe those stories because it may not be authentic. That's where some of my questions come in. What makes a diverse book 'authentic' and should we criticize those who are an 'outsider'? But isn't it consider stereotyping if we say that 'outsiders' can't write good diverse literature? Just because they may not have that cultural background, they could possibly be more basic with the facts and not be bias towards certain practices. I feel that sometimes 'inside' authors tend to be bias towards other groups because maybe a certain experience could have effected them negatively. So how do we know if an author is being bias and stereotyping? Shouldn't we let everyone be able to write diverse literature, as long as there's no stereotyping and the facts are correct and unbiased? I believe it's a good story and gets the reader to think about that new culture and learn new things about that background, then that story should be told.