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 10 Next › Last » (21 pages total)
- hmsbeagle I'm a Fan of hmsbeagle 13 fans permalink
photo

Yahoo!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 05/30/2009

Does Wikipedia actually explain this bizarre religion- that would be a first.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 05/30/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

I think that's pretty much the point.

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

I think it’s interesting that Wiki would take on Scientology and still claim that it's maintaining a neutral site. Why not take on other groups who might be attempting to promote their agendas? Scientologists aren’t the only religionists out there with an agenda after all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 05/30/2009
- Tulka2 I'm a Fan of Tulka2 295 fans permalink
photo

The world never knows what to do with new religions no matter how wacky and dishonest the old ones are, eh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 05/30/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

They never claim they ARE maintaining a neutral site. They claim that is their goal.

I'm guessing that the Scientologists and the people bashing them are causing the biggest disruption at the moment, thus they're the targets. If anybody else started rewriting things on such a scale as appears to be happening here, I suppose Wiki would target them, too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 05/30/2009
- dsws I'm a Fan of dsws 14 fans permalink
photo

I've contributed to Wikipedia on matters where I have a strong point of view. But I have done my best to advance my point of view only by providing information that can be recognized as credible from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and by presenting it in a NPOV way that will survive similarly honest editing from those who disagree with me. Anyone who does that gets welcomed. Anyone who gets into edit wars and posts unsupported opinion gets reverted, warned, and eventually banned. As far as I've seen it's a surprisingly fair and well-run process.

The swarm takes on the vandals pretty much neutrally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 PM on 05/30/2009
- Tulka2 I'm a Fan of Tulka2 295 fans permalink
photo

Neil Stephenson's phrase, "web of lies" applies to anything read on the net or anywhere else.

Being literate does not mean one can read a word and type it. Literacy also means being able to read for tone and context. I suspect some who are able to read and type a word will never reach the level of accuratly judging tone and context too. It's been that way since Da Vinci marveled at the piece of written scrap paper he found floating down the street. And before that...? Forget it. It was all Church sanctioned.

The most one can hope for, is both writer and reader are aware and honest enough to admit what they don't know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 05/30/2009

SciFi authors are usually not the best source to reference in a philosophical debate, especially when they begin preaching in their books. See also: Robert Heinlein, John Ringo, Arthur C. Clarke, Michael Crichton and others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 PM on 05/30/2009
- dirtfarm I'm a Fan of dirtfarm 4 fans permalink

In the early days of the net most sites were maintained by, for the most part, well-educated volunteers from universities. Knowing that, you treated material as 'suspect' until finding corroborating info to answer whatever question you had. Wiki's got a full-time staff trying to stay close to history and impartial neutrality. Scitol does not. For curious readers, try "A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 05/30/2009

Anybody who thinks Wikipedia is a great source for info is stupid anyway. You always have to take Wiki-poop material with a grain of salt. Everyone knows it's tinkered with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 05/30/2009
- mychagall I'm a Fan of mychagall 4 fans permalink

That I would have to agree with!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 05/30/2009
- dsws I'm a Fan of dsws 14 fans permalink
photo

Of course you have to take it with a grain of salt, always being aware that it's a mixed bag of excellence, incompetence, and outright vandalism. It's still a great source. The articles that are up to standards have the links right there and you can judge the credibility of those sources yourself. Even if something is suspicious and you have to check it out, it's still faster than looking through ten pages of marginally-related google hits when you want to find something that's not easy to google directly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 PM on 05/30/2009
photo

I'm sure the Scientologists have the money to create their own Wiki site!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 05/30/2009
photo

Do edits to Wiki go directly online, or do edits have to pass through a moderator first?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 05/30/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

They go right up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 05/30/2009
photo

ronald wilson reagan = SIX SIX SIX

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 05/30/2009

I'm no fan or Reagan, but in the interest of keeping information current: it has long been known that the number 666 is not the correct number for evil/Satan/etc. I admit, I can't remember what the number is, but think I heard it's the same as the new Manhattan area code (not 212, the other one).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 05/30/2009

Whether one agrees that the Church of Scientology has systematically violated Wikepedia's Terms of Service and should be banned, it is obvious that this "fix" cannot technically work. The Scientology organization is technically sophisticated and will easily devise distributed work-arounds.

From a broader viewpoint, this episode can be viewed as more evidence of social economics that will ultimately drive anonymity out of the internet.

Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter and so many other communication phenomena are just others suggesting that inevitable result.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 05/30/2009
- Birdman I'm a Fan of Birdman 38 fans permalink

The Internet has never been truly anonymous, anyone that has the ability can find out where any message or e-mail originated, even if it was coming from a fictitious address,. Properly traced, anything can be tracked to its origin. Besides the Internet was never meant to be anonymous, it was designed as a medium to exchange ideas between universities. Granted it has morphed in to some other thing but still it was never intended to be anonymous and any message can be tracked if need be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 05/30/2009

Where do they draw the line? Will The Vatican be banned from editing? Will political parties be banned from editing? Who decides?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 05/30/2009
- Birdman I'm a Fan of Birdman 38 fans permalink

Well obviously you didn't read the article in this case since Wikipedia content belongs to Wilkipedia, their board of directors can determine who can and can't edit posts. In this particular case had you read the article the board felt that the church itself was engaged in edits that were self serving. Under your idea of an open and free network of information, none of it could be trusted if everyone was allowed to edit information about themselves, do you think that any organization should be allowed to change content because they disagreed with it? Apparently so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 05/30/2009
photo

The real question is, would you buy an encyclopedia full of lies and propaganda? Wiki has the right to edit things out as it sees fit. Credibility is at stake. Wiki is not the Onion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 05/30/2009

I agree. And considering the fact that it is free and most articles are well-resourced and authored by experts in the field, it's really the best info-access deal I've ever come across.

As my mother used to say "for free, you take. For MONEY, you complain!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 05/30/2009
- Mulvaney I'm a Fan of Mulvaney 8 fans permalink

I have no problem with banning self-serving edits. I once edited a wikipedia article that stated "unfortunately" Raymond van Barneveld lost a darts match. I eliminated the "unfortunately" language, in part because I am a fan of Phil Taylor. Without vigilence then wikipedia would be full of self-serving articles and you could no longer trust its information.

Scientology may be a good place to start. But what about all the self-serving articles about Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 05/30/2009
- jalapeno I'm a Fan of jalapeno 27 fans permalink
photo

There should be a disclaimer with each religion. Caution: May reinforce artificial dilusions and visions, for dilusion lasting more than four hours, please consult a physician.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 05/30/2009

LOL - excellent disclaimer and exactly what is needed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 PM on 05/30/2009
- LREKing I'm a Fan of LREKing 20 fans permalink
photo

As opposed to "real" delusions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 05/30/2009
- poaster I'm a Fan of poaster 42 fans permalink
photo

Maybe they take their posts over to Dickipedia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 05/30/2009
- RuffNReddy I'm a Fan of RuffNReddy 9 fans permalink
photo

Scientology isn't even a religion!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 05/30/2009
photo

Yeah, but it's just as bad as one...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 05/30/2009
photo

I think you overestimate religion's merits if you think they somehow exceed Scientology's.

Here's the bar: belief in stuff you can't prove (faith), and stories you like to tell that may or may not be true (myth).

The apparent respectability of old institutions is just a comfortable illusion.

IMHO...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 05/30/2009

And what is? Please limit your answers to beliefs that have existed since the beginning of time, not modern ones that have been around less that 3000 years (i.e. a blink of an eye).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 05/30/2009
- AbeMartin I'm a Fan of AbeMartin 10 fans permalink
photo

Does this mean I won't have to wear my aluminum foil hat to protect me from dangerous emissions when I am writing or editing Wiki articles? What will Greta Van Susteren do when she finds out?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 05/30/2009
- poaster I'm a Fan of poaster 42 fans permalink
photo

Crack a smile.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 05/30/2009
- Mulvaney I'm a Fan of Mulvaney 8 fans permalink

Aluminum hats don't work. You need to have the old fashioned tin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 05/30/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (21 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect