EPTWikipedia bans Scientology IPs - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:01 Draconizard wrote: I like how Christianity/Hinduism/Islam/etc. are somehow viewed as "better" than scientology. They are just as ridiculous if not more so in some cases. They're simply older, and people have had time to digest/ignore their garbage. great work. this sort of thinking was unheard of 200 years ago. this gives me hope. the only thing that keeps religion going is a bunch of people agreeing with each other... for no external reasons. im hoping this cant go on forever. | ||
|
Aurra
United States469 Posts
| ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21552 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:06 SonuvBob wrote: This thread isn't going to last long. =/ so say we all? | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:00 malathion wrote: 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. Explain the process of making legitimate edits to arrive at an illegitimate result? I admit that I have not been reading much about scientology on wikipedia. I have seen edit warring, abusing the 3-edit rule and I have personally dealt with wikilawyering. Especially annoying is when some jackass accuses you of using weasel words. But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article. | ||
|
Clow
Brazil880 Posts
| ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
| ||
|
no_comprender
Australia91 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:29 Motiva wrote: I think this is a step in the right direction for wikipedia. Regulation is always necessary. I'm glad to see it happening. isnt that the truth. without regulation we would all have been working when we were 10 years old. we would be driving cars without safety regulations. eating food without even ingredient lables. watching commercials without any accountablity to truth or reality. and who knows wtf we would be drinking and eating... im sure they would feed us sawdust if they thought they could get away with it. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:01 Draconizard wrote: I like how Christianity/Hinduism/Islam/etc. are somehow viewed as "better" than scientology. They are just as ridiculous if not more so in some cases. They're simply older, and people have had time to digest/ignore their garbage. You say it like age has no meaning whatsoever. You also say it like you understand all those religions well enough to be able to say such a sweeping statement. Also, "some cases" isn't enough to condemn something like this...even Scientology. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
| ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote: Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying?But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article. If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7584 Posts
or said "I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens " then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them? So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:34 JWD wrote: Is this really super newsworthy? A more accurate topic title would be "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive Scientologists", or even just "Wikipedia bans IPs of some abusive users". Based on the Huffington Post bit you quoted, this event is regular Wikipedia moderation, not an anti-Scientologist movement. The banned users could be of any creed...the bottom line is they were consistently abusing Wikipedia and thus were IP banned. What else is new? Is Wikipedia going to IP ban some Christians tomorrow? Probably. Well, this is in many news outlets. There wasn't enough room for the real title, but it should be "Wikipedia bans all IPs associated with Church of Scientology". This bans more than just some abusive scientologists and it doesn't really prevent some abusing scientologists from editing wikipedia if they'd really want to. The spirit of the motion is to ban scientologists from wikipedia. Banning all church of scientology IPs is simply the closest wikipedia can come to doing that in practice. I know wikipedia has banned stuff in the past, many high schools, for example, but this just seems to be crossing the line. | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:36 VIB wrote: Hippopotamus, I'm sorry but I honestly cannot tell if I understand what you're saying. Did you just say that there is no way that changing a wikipedia article can make that article biased? Is that what you're saying? If that's the case it sounds really dumb. But I'm not good in english and maybe I'm just getting confused. I hope so. Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article. | ||
|
Alventenie
United States2147 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:43 AttackZerg wrote: wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that I being a christian he was stupid or said "I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens " then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them? So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland. I believe the difference is more due to the fact that scientology is a relatively "new" religion, whereas christianity, islam, and other religions have been around a much longer time, so people have become resistant about what they do. Sure, its easy to skimp over the fact that christans and islams have done many bad things in religious events (for a lack of better word at the moment) and not make comments on that, but is much easier to make comments on scientology due to it being very new in the informed world, making most of its documents about itself readily available to the public. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:43 AttackZerg wrote: Instead of getting mad at the consequence you could instead try to figure out the cause. People didn't randomly choose a religion and said "Hey, I'm gonna pick up on these one!". There is one very distinctive reason why many people simply ignore most religions, but hate Scientology. And if this episode on wikipedia don't give you the slightest clue, I don't know what will.wow I can't believe how many people who I consider smart have nothing but short, dscriminating comments about scientology, yet if I told some wackjob christian that being a christian meant he was retarded or said "I think it's generally accepted that being a christian(scientologist) naturally excludes them from being intelligent and contributing citizens " then people would be moderatoring it. I think most religions are stupid and abuse media, but is the difference between these idiots and the ones who think an imaginary friend is watching over them? So much discrimination on teamliquid.... the general forum is a wasteland. For the record, I personally could care less for any of them. But I do understand why others feel this way about scientologists. | ||
|
Alventenie
United States2147 Posts
On May 30 2009 15:50 Hippopotamus wrote: Well, how do legitimate edits lead to a slant? Usually you skew an article by introducing weasel words, lies, and overloading one side of an issue, and creating a sense of false controversy. Those are not legitimate edits. I just don't see how, say, 20 edits that add information, clarify statements, and citations (the most important kind of edit!) ultimately decrease the quality of an article. I believe most people see it as how it is written. In a hypothetical situation say of, the Iraq war, if we edit wikipedia to say we invaded Iraq to save the people of terrorists and such, that is a positive way of looking at our invasion to Iraq, good morals etc etc. However, if it was phrased, US invades Iraq and in turn provokes terrorists to attack Iraqi people out of revenge, which is the exact same event happening, just worded differently, you could see how it makes the US look worse than the first case. In case one, the US would be viewed as doing the right thing, in case two the US is shown being the root of the problem that happened. Being bias isn't changing the facts to something they are not, it is presenting them in a way that makes them look favorable to a group/person/interest you want. You can make most statements turn into a positive one for you, negative for enemies without changing any serious facts of what actually happened. | ||
| ||
