|
Just like that.
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."
cont. in link.
Wikipedia also banned some wikipedians from editing articles about scientology because they were too biased. However, scientologists are banned from editing any wikpedia pages. In any case, those IPs that wikipedia banned may not be too impactful since scientologists can still do it through other means.
Here is the case that lasted six months.
You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
|
they should do the same thing to corporations.
like Coke and DoW and Monsanto who edit shit on there to let everyone know how safe their products are.
i do hope they take this a little further.
ty good post.
|
I believe it is a good move if the Scientologists were actively attempting to modify Wikipedia to make themselves look good.
|
i agree frag.... i wont get into scientology, but any motivation other that "fact" should be considered for ban.
|
What other solution would you propose? Let Scientologists skew Wiki?
|
Wikipedia admin checking in.
For starters, The Register always blows this kind of shit out of proportion since they like to make drama about Wikipedia. I'd be wary of taking anything they say too seriously. The coverage outside of The Register seems to be more fair.
Anyway, if you had been a participant in trying to defend these articles from the Scientologists over the last 5 years they've been aggressively -- and with great determination -- infiltrating Wikipedia, you might be able to appreciate what a relief this is. Yes, they can edit articles via other means, but it will now be much more difficult.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
hey.. you guys wanna go to the comedy club down my street? it's called the church of scientology
|
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote:
But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics. lol? Did you even read what they were doing?
|
On May 30 2009 14:43 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote:
But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics. lol? Did you even read what they were doing?
I don't believe he did.
|
konadora
Singapore66366 Posts
Looks like /b/ raided wikipedia now?
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Scientology shouldnt even be legal in the 1st place
|
im glad they at least care about neutrality. that is the best sign of all, gj
|
On this page which has all the vote decisions for the case, the particular move to ban all scientology IPs had one lone dissenter. Basically, the rebuttal to his claim was that wikipedia also bans organizations like college campuses and because most of the scientologist activity was related to scientology. Now I've known for quite a while that the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" deal is bullshit, but banning an entire organization will probably do nothing more than make it harder to keep track of their edits.
On May 30 2009 14:43 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote:
But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics. lol? Did you even read what they were doing?
Yes, so? You think this is like the one case that someone abuses wikipedia?
|
Baltimore, USA22261 Posts
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote:
I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
I think it's generally accepted that being a scientologist naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens...
|
On May 30 2009 14:45 Carnac wrote:
Scientology shouldnt even be legal in the 1st place
k thx <3 bai.
Seriously, it should be legal, and it should not have it's own entry at wikipedia, what a load of shit.
|
i think my boss is a scientologist :O
our library just HAPPENS to have like every LRH book ever written.
its scarry.
|
On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics.
yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
|
On May 30 2009 14:49 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics. yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
|
On May 30 2009 14:49 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2009 14:37 Hippopotamus wrote: You know I'm leaning toward this being outrageous. Now scientology is a pretty fucked up 'religion' and it has some extreme, terrorist-like stances like Fair Game which essentially states that enemies have no rights within the scientology ethical framework. This is pretty bad since an enemy is anyone that tries to oppose the spread of this religion. But banning all Scientology IPs is pretty bad. I mean, other than being scientologists, these people could be perfeclty intelligent citizens capable of contributing to various wikipedia articles on other topics. yep people who devote their lives to a religion created by a science fiction writer are often perfectly intelligent and not crazy at all
So say we all.
|
On May 30 2009 14:53 Hippopotamus wrote:
How do you make the distinction between religions created by science fiction writers and sheep herders? To me they're both pretty loony, but I know many intelligent people who buy into the latter kind so I don't see why one wouldn't extend this to followers of the former as well.
A lot of people bring their own biases to Wikipedia, and they're dealt with on a case by case basis.
The difference with the Scientologists is that they are much more organized and determined, and their PR is such that they learned Wikipedia policy so they could appear to be making legitimate edits that, in the aggregate, severely slanted the articles to a pro-Scientology bias. So in this case ArbCom decided to go with the nuclear option, and I think they were right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
