Wikipedia Removes Semi-Protection from Civil Liberties

The public square just got a whole lot less open.

On May 29th, Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" banned all IP addresses affiliated with the Church of Scientology from editing any part of the online encyclopedia. The decision came after four months of debate among Wikipedia's top administrators. This is the first wholesale banning of an organization from Wikipedia, as opposed to bans for individual users or protective restrictions placed on pages that are prone to vandalism (as after the Colbert-mediated African elephant prank). The new policy is a major step back for Wikipedia and all internet communities.

Almost no one would deny that Scientologist editors have persistently caused problems for Wikipedia. The latest case is the fourth scientology-related controversy to require arbitration at Wikiedia's highest levels in as many years. Edits and deletions of material that criticizes scientology have occurred on a massive, seemingly coordinated scale. It is entirely possible that, on net, edits from within the Scientology compound do destabilize the Wikipedia community, without contributing very much of value, but banning all members of a controversial organization sets a terrible precedent for the regulation of online speech.

Today, online communities like Wikipedia and facebook are the public square, or at least the one with the most relevance to most citizens. When the assumptions for free speech change here, it represents a threat to our civil liberties that is every bit as dangerous as an attack on them in the 'real world.'

There are ways to curtail the kinds of edit wars that were raging on the Wikipedia Scientology pages. WikiScanner, a free software available online, can identify the sources of anonymous edits made on Wikipedia by analyzing the IP addresses of the perpetrators. With the motto of 'Radical Transparency' this software has already uncovered self-serving edits by Diebold Election Systems, Exxon, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Wikipedia's commitment to sourcing its articles and maintaining a neutral point of view should allow it justifiably to revert biased editing that isn't supported by facts. In the long run, Wikipedia can succeed only by fact-checking and not by bans. Very few organizations' edits stem from a central location that can be discerned by IP address, and, even for those that do, it is easy to send operatives out to public libraries to edit Wikipedia articles with real anonymity. Wikipedia's policy to ban all Scientologists, regardless of past behavior, is ineffective, at best, and sets a terrible example for online communications.

One disheartening preview of the future has been playing out on the forums of Bioware, a company that runs a Star Wars-themed MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game). Bioware banned the use of the words "gay," "lesbian," and "homosexual" in forums discussing the characters that players created. Bioware community manager Sean Dahlberg's initial comment was simply, "As I have stated before, these are terms that do not exist in Star Wars. Thread closed."

After an outcry by the Bioware's users (and a listing of several famously gay characters in the extended Star Wars universe), discussion of homosexuality was allowed back on the forum. This situation was resolved, but it is hardly the first scandal of this kind. Sony's Home network for PlayStation users banned the words "gay," "bi-sexual," and "Jew" in 2008, and a Microsoft-run Xbox forum banned a user who self identified as a lesbian, on the grounds that discussion of sexual orientation was "offensive."

This kind of censorship is more dangerous that simple hate speech. Bioware, Sony, and Microsofts's actions were meant to stifle debate, mute speech, and shove gays back into the closet. Wikipedia's recent actions, like those of these companies, prevent an entire class of people from engaging in communication and commerce.

As long as there is sufficient competition, perhaps this kind of discrimination can be overlooked, if we assume that the targeted group can simply switch to a different service, but the issue is really less a question of losing out on a service than one of losing out on society. We don't live in an era of block parties and neighborhood associations, and, today, the public square isn't in our streets, it's on our computer screens. Our lives and our business and personal connections are moving online to sites like facebook, flickr, paypal, and Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should reverse its Scientology ruling rather than set a precedent of discrimination that will only grow more dangerous as our lives move online. Shutting out entire subgroups from these networks is shutting them out of 21st century society. This discriminatory policy will have repercussions that we can't revert with a single click.

 

Follow Leah Anthony Libresco on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leahlibresco

Comments

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Wrong! Scientology has shown itself time and again to be a dangerous criminal enterprise masquerading as a religion. Their only purpose for existence is to act as a vacuum cleaner on the savings of the gullible.

[RaisingAwareness]

I've studied Christianity as a child and have studied Scientology and Spiritualism as an adult for many years and have used the knowledge and techniques I've learned in each religion for my own betterment. I've found that Scientology has a wide-range of very useful and powerful spiritual techniques that have helped me overcome obstacles to happiness, success, athletics, school, improved relationships etc.. I've also volunteered my time in the past to help people with these techniques. So you can say that I have first-hand knowledge of Scientology and I can tell you from personal experience that most people who write or talk about Scientology have a lot of false and bizarre information about it and some are just flat-out lying about it.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia and some people, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have been spreading misinformation about Scientology. I woudn't care too much about false information being spread but the fact is that it's causing a lot of irrational and dangerous bigotry out there. Just look at the thousands of death and bomb threats in just the past few months aimed at churches and parishioners. So I don't blame the church for trying to correct inaccuracies out on the web because there's plenty of it which has turned several unstable people into now felons.

[TAFL]

Yeah...right.

[jmpurser]

I disagree. Freedom is not a suicide pact. If an organization has show itself to be incapable of participating properly then it's the responsibility of wiki to restrict or eliminate their ability to harm the commons. It sounds like that's what they did and then only after long debate and more than adequate provocation.

It is a shame that it happened but given the range of human motives and behavior any human society is going to need something like this sooner or later.

[CAMBEL]

There is nothing wrong with them screening out editing from people who have constantly broken their rules. Your premise is flawed.

[BlackJAC]

The decision has nothing to do with restricting civil liberties and everything to do with Wikipedia's desire to become a legitimate academic research tool akin to the Encylopedia Brittanica. Too often there have been instances of character assassination through altering Wikipedia entries; for example, someone changed the San Francisco city motto from "Gold In Peace, Iron In War" to "Pass The Astroglide, Bruce." They locked down Dubya's page for that very reason. If you don't believe me, look at the gops' own Conservapedia, in which Joe McCarthy is canonized.

[jayburd]

And what if it had been a bunch of neo-nazis trying to rewrite the history of the holocaust? Would any self respecting blogger be crying "free speech" then? I don't think so.

As someone said, it's their website and they can ban whomever they want. Besides, it seems to me the Scientologists asked for it by relentlessly hammering the site. Free speech has its limits. Even in the galactic confederacy...

[TAFL]

That was a rather weak argument.

[ramblingjohnny]

Am all for freedom of speech but nowhere does it say that an encyclopedia that depending on cloud sourcing and volunteers to create page and edit them as to have total free speech! It hard enough to keep the regular jerk from messing up page as it is! If a group is engaged in messing with cold hard facts about themselves it become almost impossible to keep them from doing it by regular means. Because they can flood every local discussions and every local votes on every goddamn page that they want. So the whole community got fed up and show them the door and that ok. And by the way some politician, political party and their staff are next!

Everybody has free speech but if you shout outside my house at three in the morning am calling the cops!

[richie42]

I mean this is their website, they can do whatever they want to.

[jayrayspicer]

Sorry, but this post is illogical. The Church of Scientology has proven time and again that it is profoundly opposed to free speech. Letting them erase free speech on Wikipedia is a curious way to defend free speech. The only thing wrong with this action by Wikipedia is that it is not likely to be very effective. Better, as pointed out, to simply lock the pages and only allow senior Wikipedia staffers to make edits.

[ramblingjohnny]

It probably going to happen too but a message had to be sent not just only to the biggest offenders but to every tom dick and harry who are messing page up every day!

[SimJack]

"prevent an entire class of people from engaging in communication and commerce." really? Is craiglist violating this precept by eliminating ads from escorts and other pleasure industry professionals in over 18 sections? Not quite the same thing, is it? Wiki, nor any other site at their choosing, is obliged to allow known spammers access to their entries or post misleading or falsified or erroneous information.

[Cacaoatl]

The kind of self-serving edits made made by the so-called Church of Scientology didn't have any place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on the topics they cover. Scientology has churches everywhere and hundreds of celebrity practitioners, their rights are hardly being violated by not being able to edit articles on Scientology to their version of the facts.

[oregonbird]

Wiki hasn't the best rep as a resource as it is; if they identified a problem and tried to work out a solution with the perpetrators without any change in the situation -- then they are entitled to protect their product from further damage.

They haven't gone nearly far enough, they'll find.

[FreelanceMinion]

I wish the writer would make clear his own relationship (or lack of one) with Scientology just so we can be clear whether he is taking a free-speech stand or has an axe to grind FOR Scientology.

While Wikipedia has stated that it is dedicated to being created by all its users, and, in theory, everyone on the planet, it is still a private group and not the actual internet commons. As such it has a right to create limits to its own "openness." As stated it has had to do this on a much smaller scale before on articles that are controversial (pretty much any recent President's entry will be locked to editing without oversight). If you don't like this you can form your own wiki as happened with conservapedia.

Wikipedia has overwriten Scientology CRITICS as well, who also tried to misuse entries to their own ends. In the end, Scientology servers were not banned because Wikipedia came to agree it is a bad group or philosophy, but because they had proof the church was using its facilities in an organized conspiracy to edit for its own ends. If Sci critics can all be traced to one server not used for legitimate wiki entries, that server will be banned too.

What is most unfortunate is not that "free speech is being limited" but that certain groups always try to game a free speech zone into a propaganda zone of their own exclusive viewpoint.

[BrandonAbell]

If a family frequently comes over to your house and just about every time they do you find that somebody shat at various places in your home, at some point you're going to stop inviting that family inside. It doesn't mean that you're all of a sudden less welcoming to people or unfriendly. You've just decided that you value your home, you've put a lot of work into it, and you don't want to have one small group of people ruin it for everybody.

Rules and limits on anti-social behavior make us *more free* not less free. There's nothing more dangerous to "civil liberties" than the chaos and unaccountability of mob rule.