• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 07:20
CEST 13:20
KST 20:20
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL21Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak15
Community News
Weekly Cups (May 19-25): Hindsight is 20/20?0DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack8[BSL20] RO20 Group Stage2EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)17Weekly Cups (May 12-18): Clem sweeps WardiTV May3
StarCraft 2
General
The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN Can anyone explain to me why u cant veto a matchup Karma, Domino Effect, and how it relates to SC2.
Tourneys
Last Chance Qualifiers for OlimoLeague 2024 Winter [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO12 - Group B DreamHack Dallas 2025 EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1) [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO12 - Group A
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans? Battle.net is not working Practice Partners (Official)
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] RO20 Group D - Sunday 20:00 CET [BSL20] RO20 Group B - Saturday 20:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Monster Hunter Wilds Beyond All Reason Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread
Dota 2
lawless labs myosarm sarm yk-11 Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread All you football fans (soccer)! European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Yes Sir! How Commanding Impr…
TrAiDoS
Poker
Nebuchad
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 13295 users

Wikipedia bans Scientology IPs - Page 2

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Draconizard
Profile Joined October 2008
628 Posts
May 30 2009 06:01 GMT
#21
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.
CursOr
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States6335 Posts
May 30 2009 06:03 GMT
#22
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.
CJ forever (-_-(-_-(-_-(-_-)-_-)-_-)-_-)
Aurra
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States469 Posts
May 30 2009 06:04 GMT
#23
My imaginary friend could beat up your imaginary friend.
SonuvBob
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
Aiur21549 Posts
May 30 2009 06:06 GMT
#24
This thread isn't going to last long. =/
Administrator
mahnini
Profile Blog Joined October 2005
United States6862 Posts
May 30 2009 06:11 GMT
#25
On May 30 2009 15:06 SonuvBob wrote:
This thread isn't going to last long. =/

so say we all?
the world's a playground. you know that when you're a kid, but somewhere along the way everyone forgets it.
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 06:19 GMT
#26
On May 30 2009 15:00 malathion wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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
Profile Blog Joined September 2008
Brazil880 Posts
May 30 2009 06:19 GMT
#27
What a great move by Wikipedia.
(–_–) CJ Entusman #33
Motiva
Profile Joined November 2007
United States1774 Posts
May 30 2009 06:29 GMT
#28
I think this is a step in the right direction for wikipedia. Regulation is always necessary. I'm glad to see it happening.
no_comprender
Profile Joined April 2009
Australia91 Posts
May 30 2009 06:31 GMT
#29
scientology really isn't a religion, it's a lot more about personal development than it is about anything else. people aren't forking over 1000s of dollars to hear some bullshit about aliens, they're paying to attend courses and seminars to gain skills for everyday life. too bad it's run like a cult, i went and took the free test and when i was talking to the auditor she told me 99% of scientologists had no idea about xenu etc before anti-scientologists came up and started confronting them about it, apparently the 1st few levels of scientology are basically self-help stuff
~2000 iccup z player, msg if you want to have a few games
CursOr
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States6335 Posts
May 30 2009 06:33 GMT
#30
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.
CJ forever (-_-(-_-(-_-(-_-)-_-)-_-)-_-)
PH
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
United States6173 Posts
May 30 2009 06:34 GMT
#31
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.
Hello
JWD
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States12607 Posts
May 30 2009 06:34 GMT
#32
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.
✌
eXigent.
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Canada2419 Posts
May 30 2009 06:35 GMT
#33
Tom Cruise must be FURIOUS!
VIB
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
Brazil3567 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 06:37:10
May 30 2009 06:36 GMT
#34
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote:
But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
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.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
AttackZerg
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States7454 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 06:46:58
May 30 2009 06:43 GMT
#35
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.
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 06:44 GMT
#36
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
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 06:50 GMT
#37
On May 30 2009 15:36 VIB wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote:
But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
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
Profile Joined July 2007
United States2147 Posts
May 30 2009 06:51 GMT
#38
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
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
Brazil3567 Posts
May 30 2009 06:51 GMT
#39
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 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.
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.

For the record, I personally could care less for any of them. But I do understand why others feel this way about scientologists.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
Alventenie
Profile Joined July 2007
United States2147 Posts
May 30 2009 06:55 GMT
#40
On May 30 2009 15:50 Hippopotamus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 15:36 VIB wrote:
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote:
But I don't think I've ever seen truly legitimate edits sum up to an overall slant in an article.
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.




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.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Road to EWC
10:00
Asia Closed Qualifiers
RotterdaM787
3DClanTV 98
Liquipedia
Road to EWC
09:00
Korea Open Qualifiers #1
CranKy Ducklings144
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 787
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 11374
Calm 9884
Rain 7130
Bisu 4380
Shuttle 2369
GuemChi 461
Mini 257
EffOrt 170
Killer 100
ToSsGirL 90
[ Show more ]
ZerO 88
Aegong 56
Rush 48
Mind 46
NaDa 28
sSak 26
Icarus 21
GoRush 17
SilentControl 12
Shinee 12
Noble 12
IntoTheRainbow 11
Barracks 11
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
Hm[arnc] 9
Movie 7
Stork 2
Dota 2
Dendi2914
XcaliburYe748
PGG 255
Fuzer 176
Counter-Strike
olofmeister2724
allub179
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor181
Other Games
XBOCT541
B2W.Neo533
Happy488
XaKoH 246
crisheroes229
DeMusliM218
Mew2King115
KnowMe51
ArmadaUGS47
QueenE32
ZerO(Twitch)6
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick666
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 64
• IndyKCrew
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• RaNgeD 13
• Rasowy 6
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV773
• lizZardDota2328
League of Legends
• Stunt974
Upcoming Events
Road to EWC
10h 40m
Road to EWC
21h 40m
Road to EWC
1d 4h
BSL Season 20
1d 6h
Sziky vs Razz
Sziky vs StRyKeR
Sziky vs DragOn
Sziky vs Tech
Razz vs StRyKeR
Razz vs DragOn
Razz vs Tech
DragOn vs Tech
Online Event
1d 16h
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Road to EWC
1d 21h
BSL Season 20
2 days
Bonyth vs Doodle
Bonyth vs izu
Bonyth vs MadiNho
Bonyth vs TerrOr
MadiNho vs TerrOr
Doodle vs izu
Doodle vs MadiNho
Doodle vs TerrOr
Replay Cast
2 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-05-28
DreamHack Dallas 2025
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL Season 17: Qualifier 1
2025 GSL S2
Heroes 10 EU
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.