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
advertisement

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. ...
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 11 12 Next › Last » (21 pages total)

Way to go, Wikipedia! You've got balls!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 AM on 05/30/2009
photo

The human race should banish Scientology from the Earth.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 AM on 05/30/2009
- LCLA I'm a Fan of LCLA 21 fans permalink
photo

A lot of these controversies would go away if "churches" were to lose their 1st Amendment based exemption from taxation. That exemption is part of the so-called separation of church and state, but so many "churches" want it both ways. They want to influence politics (policies, laws and elections), but they want to maintain their favored status.
It is time for our Executive and Legislative and Judicial branches to all start enforcing the law fairly and taxing "churches" to the extent that they engage in the influencing of government policy and personnel. I believe it would have a salutary effect on both churches and the government.
Separation of church and state is so fundamental a part of the American way that it is canonized in the very first amendment to our Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is time that these constitutional principles were better respected!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 05/30/2009
- Dweezle I'm a Fan of Dweezle 3 fans permalink
photo

I remember reading an article where Robert Schuler was quoted as saying "He will not allow the government to Tax the Pulpit" At the time the IRS was after him to pay taxes on earnings from his "Theatrical Productions" where admission was charged, (I believe the events were even available through Ticketmaster) Just like I am sure Mel Gibson paid taxes on His movie productions...
(Schuler eventually paid the taxes soon after that statement was published... ) I also recall his wandering around the construction site asking workers to donate a portion of their wages to his church when they built the Chrystal Cathedral, (AKA Glass Menagerie).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 AM on 05/30/2009
- writerroz I'm a Fan of writerroz 14 fans permalink
photo

In this day and time, no religions should be allowed tax free status since religions have become more about controling people than they are about lifting them out of poverty, slavery or whatever painful circumstances they've fallen into.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 AM on 05/30/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

Agreed 100%. Naturally this was not enforced during the Bush admin since nearly all of the churches involved support the neocons. Even now with Dems in charge, how easy do you think it would be to enforce this? They'll all start screaming that they're being persecuted and anyone for this hates Christians, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 05/30/2009
- MikeHermit I'm a Fan of MikeHermit 43 fans permalink
photo

All religions are cults. Just some have a lot more followers. So you could call them super cults I guess.

The ones that bother me most are the more secretive ones. And the ones insist on you giving them money to be closer to the diety.

Paging Jim Jones and Jim Baker/Jimmy Swaggert.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 05/29/2009

"A cult is a group of worshippers that is too small and too poor that they cannot afford to buy a piano or organ, electricity and lights and sound systems, and it's members and leaders cannot afford personal hygene stuff. When such group managed to have their own musical instruments, lights and electricity and their leaders acquired a clean cut and smells good, then that when it becomes a religion.".......

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_cult_and_a_religion

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:34 AM on 05/30/2009
photo

Scientology at its debute could purchase whatever equipment or facilities it felt like. From the description, you have provided the should have hit the bona fida religion phase by now.

But people still think its a cult. However, in a historical context We should let it sit a few centurues to see if it picks up steam.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 AM on 05/30/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

That really doesn't strike me as a very learned answer, especially the personal hygiene stuff. Huh???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 05/30/2009
- RonPaulFan I'm a Fan of RonPaulFan 4 fans permalink

Jeffrey, I'm starting to worry about you. You quoted me correctly, yet apparently don't understand the difference between "having MET" and "having heard of". No, I never personally met Matthew Shepard. I have heard of him however and remember seeing his story on the news. As a defender of gay rights, I think what he went through was horrible and think the jerks that did that should receive the death penalty.

That being said, I hope you're not comparing the nightmare he went through to your own "harassment"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 05/29/2009
- RonPaulFan I'm a Fan of RonPaulFan 4 fans permalink

I could honestly care less about people going off on Scientology. My beef is that people feel so good about themselves for ridiculing Scientology, while staying completely silent on the big issues, and the truly dangerous religions of the world that literally cause deaths by the thousands. Think about it...Scientology is so small, and yet it takes up the majority of the blogosphere compared to Islam. It's absolutely absurd. Think about all the jokes from Jon Stewart on Scientology. Now do you a youtube search and compare that to the segments on Islam. I feel like I'm living in bizarro world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 PM on 05/29/2009
photo

Since you are so focused on defending Scientology, I would agree with you - you are living in bizarro world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 PM on 05/29/2009

Lol.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 05/30/2009
- larissa68 I'm a Fan of larissa68 6 fans permalink

Okay, here's how it works. This post? It's on Scientology. People come into this post to talk about... Scientology. They go into other posts to talk about ... other things like politics or other religions or what coat so and so was wearing to some world event.

It's called staying on topic and it's netiquette. If this was a post on Islam, we'd be talking about Islam. We're not.

What you appear to be doing is to deflect the conversation away from the main topic which is Scientology. Trolls and Shills do that and it's no appreciated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 PM on 05/29/2009
- JDM73 I'm a Fan of JDM73 40 fans permalink
photo

You hit the nail on the head, larissa. And all you have to say to send a Scientology shill to send him packing is two words: "Lisa McPherson".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 AM on 05/30/2009
photo

So long as you're a Ron Paul fan, you are living in a bizarro world. Of your own creation, I hasten to add.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 AM on 05/30/2009
- Vurz I'm a Fan of Vurz 19 fans permalink
photo

Good for Wikipedia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 PM on 05/29/2009
- jozinha I'm a Fan of jozinha 21 fans permalink
photo

Wow, your avatar really dates you.

Love the 50's!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 PM on 05/29/2009
- nylibgrrl I'm a Fan of nylibgrrl 21 fans permalink
photo

Hey, now...those things were still around in the 70's, too!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 05/30/2009
- RonPaulFan I'm a Fan of RonPaulFan 4 fans permalink

larissa68: You wrote, "you need the attention rather than answer them directly to their face"

Larissa, you, and all of us, blog for one simple reason, so that we can express ourselves and get ATTENTION.

Secondly, blogging is not talking to someone in "their face", it's using a terminal to communicate. It's actually the single most ineffective way to communicate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 PM on 05/29/2009
photo

So that is what Tom Cruise has been doing since no one is interested in watching his self serving movies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 05/29/2009

Most of his movies are pretty successful and make a lot of money...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 05/29/2009
- RonPaulFan I'm a Fan of RonPaulFan 4 fans permalink

Jeffrey, Scientology cannot make anyone pay. It's called individual choice. Are you saying you want to take away free choice? Isn't that what our country is founded on? Next, you'll say it's not freedom, because the church is brainwashing people. To that I say, great, tell me who's not brainwashed. Why do you think Coca Cola spends $1 Billion per year in tv ads. Get a grip on reality- we're all part of this bubble of influence. We make good choices, we make bad choices. That's just the way it is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 05/29/2009
- larissa68 I'm a Fan of larissa68 6 fans permalink

Are you really this incapable of hitting the reply link on a post so you can reply to someone? What you are doing is the equivalent of attempting to carry on a conversation with someone and every time they ask you a question, you stand up and shout your answer to the entire room because you need the attention rather than answer them directly to their face. Not only is it rude, it's ignorant.

It's ironic that you've inferred that most people in this blog are not college educated when you cannot manage to navigate this site properly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 05/29/2009
- JDM73 I'm a Fan of JDM73 40 fans permalink
photo

Normally I'm vehemently anti-censorship, but I'm always happy to see Scientology taking it in the nuts. Evil bloodsuckers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 PM on 05/29/2009
- RonPaulFan I'm a Fan of RonPaulFan 4 fans permalink

Have the evil bloodsuckers caused pain in your life? Has Scientology hurt you personally? If so, I'm sorry you went through that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 PM on 05/29/2009
- jugganaut I'm a Fan of jugganaut 12 fans permalink

Xenu is not amused.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 05/29/2009

i AM NOT FOR BANNING RELIGION BUT IN THE CASE OF SCIENTOLOGY i AM FOR IT.. THIS IS NOT A RELIGION.. iT WAS SPAWNED FROM THE MIND OF A GREEDY MAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAUD AND MONEY.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 05/29/2009
photo

congratulations Wikipedia!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 PM on 05/29/2009
photo



All I am doing is reading every post! I am not touching this topic. Though WrongPaul- that is funny-
I do not subscribe - cults, religion or magazines

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 PM on 05/29/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last » (21 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect