Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 05-29-09 09:02 AM   |   Updated: 05-29-09 12:41 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Wikipedia Scientology

Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage.

The move is being hailed as "an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits," and it is the first instance in which Wikipedia has banned a group as large as the Church of Scientology.

The Register reports:

According to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running Wikiland court case, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities." Leaning on the famed WikiScanner, countless news stories have discussed the editing of Scientology articles from Scientology IPs, and some site admins are concerned this is "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality."


One admin tells The Reg that policing edits from Scientology machines has been particularly difficult because myriad editors sit behind a small number of IPs and, for some reason, the address of each editor is constantly changing. This prevents admins from determining whether a single editor is using multiple Wikipedia accounts to game the system. In Wikiland, such sockpuppeting is not allowed.


The Wikicourt considered banning edits from Scientology IPs only on Scientology-related articles. But this would require admins to "checkuser" editors - i.e. determine their IP - every time an edit is made. And even then they may not know who's who.

The case — the fourth Scientology-related dispute on the site in four years — opened in December 2008 and closed Thursday with the Wikipedia arbitration committee voting unanimously to block IP addresses associated with the Church from editing the site.

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors," part of the decision read. "Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas - such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute - or to publish or promote original research is prohibited."

"Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest," it continued. "Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans."

Story continues below

Scientology, the committee concluded, is so controversial a subject that it requires special oversight for the site's purposes:

3.0) This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.


A) Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage and disputes have spilled over into, for example, articles for deletion, the reliable sources noticeboard, the conflict of interests noticeboard, and sometimes the administrators' noticeboard.


B) Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organisations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other's self-published material.


C) Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.


D) The worst casualties have been biographies of living people, where attempts have been repeatedly made to slant the article either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view of the contributing editor.


E) However, this problem is not limited to biographies and many Scientology articles fail to reflect a neutral point of view and instead are either disparaging or complimentary.

Read the full decision here.

Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage. ...
Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage. ...
Loading...
 
Filed by Danny Shea
 
Comments
1090
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (21 pages total)

Of note, the vote to ban CoS was not unanimous as reported but 10-1.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 05/31/2009
- dlinguist I'm a Fan of dlinguist 10 fans permalink
photo

sounds like someone is splitting hairs

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 05/31/2009
- PatCcj I'm a Fan of PatCcj 2 fans permalink

Scientology isn't a religion, it's a cult. Their books belong in the self-help section, not on the same shelves with the Bible. When it becomes clear that their input on a neutral website isn't informational but an attack, they ought to be banned. tjirish44 is absolutely right, they only reason they want the status of a religion is to get the tax breaks on their millions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 05/31/2009
photo

All religions are cults

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:21 AM on 05/31/2009
- CurtTX53 I'm a Fan of CurtTX53 3 fans permalink

Cannot the same be said about political parties?

T/C Curt

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 05/31/2009
- pokemon I'm a Fan of pokemon 21 fans permalink
photo

Na, not all. I do think that all have the potential to being abused though.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 05/31/2009
- EvanHansen I'm a Fan of EvanHansen 11 fans permalink

Um, I don't like them but the only difference between a religion and a cult is about 200 years of development.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 05/31/2009
- ROLtheWolf I'm a Fan of ROLtheWolf 14 fans permalink
photo

Feed the Scientologists to the Lions!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 AM on 05/31/2009
photo

Hope they taste better than Christians!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 05/31/2009
- jimmyaj I'm a Fan of jimmyaj 5 fans permalink

That's what my lion told me, too. He (and his six lionesses in waiting) are waiting. And they are VERY ANXIOUS!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 05/31/2009
- pokemon I'm a Fan of pokemon 21 fans permalink
photo

Thats the Thetans, or whatever they call them, talking and not you. Perhaps after about 3 million and some sessions we can make the bad aliens souls leave and you'll feel better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 PM on 05/31/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 27 fans permalink

Targeting the use of scientology equipment seems incredibly shortsighted.

What could be easier than changing your network address?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 AM on 05/31/2009
- jimmyaj I'm a Fan of jimmyaj 5 fans permalink

If you log on through AOL, MSN, or any nimber of dozens of ISPs you have a different IP number every time you go online...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 PM on 05/31/2009
- StephenJK I'm a Fan of StephenJK 26 fans permalink
photo

Scientology is poop in a book.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 PM on 05/30/2009
- Acidic I'm a Fan of Acidic 6 fans permalink

Religion is poop in several books.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 05/31/2009
- uneeda I'm a Fan of uneeda 4 fans permalink

so is wiki nonsense

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 05/31/2009
- AN2009 I'm a Fan of AN2009 4 fans permalink

I can't say I'm surprised that Scientologists have been making self-serving edits on Wikipedia, especially given their hostile attitude towards nonbelievers. I still remember Tom Cruise's strange antics a few years back when he was trying to thrust his views upon others. I did find the South Park parody (season 9, episode 12) of Scientology hilarious.

Founder of Scientology L. Ron Hubbard: "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 05/30/2009
- digdeeper I'm a Fan of digdeeper 18 fans permalink

The way to kill millions is to start a religion!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 AM on 05/31/2009
photo

Well, does it look like there might be a market for a debate section?

Instead of banning, require those who repeatedly are found to write self-serving entries that are consistently disputed to be moved to the 'debate' section, or once noted as a 'debate' type entry, the edits are marked, dated and signed-full disclosure-for all sides of the debate, so that information is not withheld, still freely added, but those who come across the information can easily see what is disputed.

This could lead to a new area of interest perhaps, some people might search for the debate section. There could even be a feature Hottest Debates This Week.

I think the all out ban goes against the concept. I hope they reconsider. All information should be out there. And what is contested, well, let us say that it is contested but put the information out there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 PM on 05/30/2009
- marirose I'm a Fan of marirose 4 fans permalink
photo

On the face of it, this seems like a great idea. However, what would end up happening as already occurs in the MSM is that debate space would need to be allotted to the flat earth society members as well as the round earth society members and so on sown the line - two (or more) sides to every inane issue that exists despite scientific or other facts disproving the other sides. You know what I mean? Banning sucks all around but where there is abuse of the system we can't stand by and let it happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 AM on 05/31/2009
- Acidic I'm a Fan of Acidic 6 fans permalink

he he so true, but isn't that kinda what we're doing now/the point of posts and blogs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 AM on 05/31/2009
photo

Well I guess I'm thinking in a debate section, they cannot edit each others side- They can write aobut themselves whatever they want, and the debaters who contest any facts can, in their section, write whatever they want- not to be edited, much like we do not have our comments edited. Well, perhaps moderators needed? Not sure about that.

But once a subject is deemed hotly contested and moved to debate, each side may write what they like and support their argument as they like, with comments -like here.(moderators can move arguments if they fit into an existing side)

Anyone doing research on the subject will then at least have enough info to realise that they need to find out more instead of believing the guy they just met who want to take them to a meeting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:15 PM on 05/31/2009
- AlexFTW I'm a Fan of AlexFTW 19 fans permalink
photo

Lientologists don't debate, they hassle and slander and smear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 AM on 05/31/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 27 fans permalink

Millions of dollars at stake.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 AM on 05/31/2009
- Khirad I'm a Fan of Khirad 312 fans permalink
photo

Some of the comments posted reveal they haven't read the article, don't seem to understand the mentality of the $cientology organization, or have clearly never been in an edit war with a recalcitrant ignoramus/zealot. Wikipedia has been too tolerant of organizations like these editing their own pages to remove criticism. If a proponent wants to argue their case, fine. That's not the issue here. If you have no idea what I'm saying, go to any controversial wiki article, click the 'discuss' tab and take a look behind the scenes. These orgs routinely break wiki code and don't even bother to take that step, often, and many a person's time has to be consumed reverting pages constantly. It's not fair to them. The Co$ was just being a malicious nuisance.

P.S. - to all who criticize Wikipedia, why not edit a page you think is poorly referenced instead? I grew up on my set of World Book Encyclopedias -- practically read the whole set -- guess what, Wikipedia is a great starting point for more obscure topics, uses unicode (for those of us dealing with different scripts), and for re-remembering something you already knew. Don't mistake it as the end-all-be-all authority.

By the way HuffPo, thanks! I saw this news yesterday on xenu.net and was hoping you'd carry it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:39 PM on 05/30/2009
- loonwalk I'm a Fan of loonwalk 9 fans permalink

Some comments suggest that the commenters are not careful readers. Besides, common sense says that if wiki banned something, it is for some large, unavoidable reason, since this is an isolated case. You bring up 6 or 12 cases and I will apologize for inferring you're not so astute as you think.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 05/30/2009
- amdezurik I'm a Fan of amdezurik 41 fans permalink

looks like HP has a scamitoligist mole too

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 05/30/2009

Oh, come on! I am as remote from Scientology, and any other religion as one can be. As far as I am concerned, all things religious should cease to exist. I am making a case for what used to be the great principle of Wikipedia: The knowledge of all, to get to a better truth. Are you so afraid of different views that you see moles everywhere?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 05/30/2009
- ruffmama I'm a Fan of ruffmama 27 fans permalink
photo

"Sometimes Wikipedia lies"....exact quote that I overheard my 9 year old tell my 11 year old.

Even little kids can tell when they are being BS'd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 05/30/2009

It is, in fact, a decision that completely undermines the principles on which Wikipedia is based. I am not a Scientology fan, but one must ask: Where is the line drawn? Wikipedia supposedly reflects popular knowledge, backed up by the faith that the overall average of contributions will amount to something close to the truth about a topic. After all, Wikipedia is the result of the convergence of multiple points of view, including the point of view of Scientologists, who, whether we like it or not, know more about it than anybody else. Why ban their input? Wikipedia should instead trust that this input will be tempered by outsiders, defectors, etc.. The same goes for all religions, cults and movements.
This is a move motivated by the fear of non conformism. Wikipedia cannot and should not fight the manipulation of information, because their whole core is about the knowledge of many, the power the bigger common sense, etc... Am I the only thinking it is a contradictory move?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 05/30/2009

You may not be the only one, but the idea that wikipedia should not have a mechanism to effectively deal with intentional distortion and manipulation of the information presented on its pages is silly. If you'll recall, Stephen Colbert recently demonstrated one of the major weaknesses of the technology by having his viewers change wikipedia entries in such overwhelming numbers that the normal constraints in place on wikipedia did not work. It is this same weakness that scientology exploits and thus it is perfectly appropriate to limit their access.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 05/30/2009
- dsws I'm a Fan of dsws 16 fans permalink
photo

"Wikipedia supposedly reflects popular knowledge, backed up by the faith that the overall average of contributions will amount to something close to the truth about a topic."

That's never been my impression when editing Wikipedia. Vandalism is vandalism, not one more co-equal data point to be averaged with others. Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view and citations from secondary sources. Wikipedia is not intended to be used for self-promotion, either by individuals or by groups. If a cult is significant enough to be encyclopedic subject matter, there will be secondary sources saying so and providing information about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 05/30/2009
- Acidic I'm a Fan of Acidic 6 fans permalink

The " Where is the line drawn " is a cra p argument and you know it. People don't always take a mile when you give an inch. It's in the eye of the beholder, paranoia is not a virtue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 AM on 05/31/2009
- rf-hawaii I'm a Fan of rf-hawaii 27 fans permalink

"... including the point of view of Scientologists, who, whether we like it or not, know more about it than anybody else. ..."

Ah, part of the problem. We're talking about a potential cult. Properly executed, cults control their participant's world views. Which makes the participant's view of the cult itself especially suspect.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 05/31/2009

Excellent news!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 05/30/2009
- tjirish44 I'm a Fan of tjirish44 9 fans permalink

Scientology is a narcissistic religion where basically the world revolves around YOU!!! Ie... You are suppose to purge negative influences around you. Hence if you are a member you should shut out skeptics and to move up the tier you have pay big $$ for the "sessions." Obviously you can see why it attracts celebrities. You arre the center of the universe. With some celebrities constant need to feed their ego and surround themelves with Yes people. It makes total sense. Scientology main goal is to make sure the government recognizes it as a religion for tax reasons. That's why Scientologists are sooo thin skinned about criticism.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 05/30/2009
- Acidic I'm a Fan of Acidic 6 fans permalink

huh, well said Tj, I never thought about the tax recognition issues.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:55 AM on 05/31/2009
- JustMe133 I'm a Fan of JustMe133 7 fans permalink

Scientology=MadMoney from MadPeople!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 05/30/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (21 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect