• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 19:57
CEST 01:57
KST 08:57
  • 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
The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL1Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator2[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak15DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview21
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)9Weekly Cups (May 12-18): Clem sweeps WardiTV May3
StarCraft 2
General
The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL Can anyone explain to me why u cant veto a matchup DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025)
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO12 - Group A DreamHack Dallas 2025 SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
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
Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans? BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ GG Lan Party Bulgaria (Live in about 3 hours) BW General Discussion Recent recommended BW games
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL19] Ro8 Day 4
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
Nintendo Switch Thread Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
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
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Trading/Investing 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: 11693 users

Wikipedia bans Scientology IPs - Page 3

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
VIB
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
Brazil3567 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 06:59:24
May 30 2009 06:56 GMT
#41
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.
And here are 100 examples of people who believe it's possible to make an article biased by adding legitimate edits:
[...]
Is it clear now?

edit: to clarify a bit: "overloading one side of an issue" is absolutely relative. It's hard to judge that from one single edit. But you can picture what happens after hundreds of additions.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 07:03 GMT
#42
On May 30 2009 15:55 Alventenie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 15:50 Hippopotamus wrote:
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.


Well yes, but those wouldn't be legitimate edits. That's not gaming wiki rules, that's breaking them.
Alventenie
Profile Joined July 2007
United States2147 Posts
May 30 2009 07:06 GMT
#43
I would consider that bending said rules, because they are not actually changing the facts of the information. In both of my cases, the US invaded Iraq (true), just one of them makes the US look good, and one makes them look bad.

They could of said something as simple as back when 4chan did the anonymous stuff against them about how 4chan attacked them, instead of scientology posting videos about what they do and many people responding to that. The article could have been Anonymous attacks Scientology, whereas most people know it as Anonymous responds to Scientology and their religions ways. Both represent the same thing, one makes Scientology look good, one doesn't.
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
May 30 2009 07:09 GMT
#44
On May 30 2009 15:19 Hippopotamus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 15:00 malathion wrote:
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.


have enough drops of water and you can fill a bathtub. The individual edits make small, subtle changes, but as a whole the distortion is large.
SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 07:12 GMT
#45
Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.
Alventenie
Profile Joined July 2007
United States2147 Posts
May 30 2009 07:16 GMT
#46
On May 30 2009 16:12 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.



Ok? that's why they got banned, so i don't see the point of us talking back and forth about it. If you are saying what about those who didn't do those edits who are intelligent beings, then I can say:

the 5% ruin it for the other 95%, just like in school and other team organizations. Wikipedia sees them as a group of people who share a same belief, so instead of trying to pinpoint which specific people in Scientology are editing it and banning them (leading to them just getting other people of Scientology to post it for them), they just ban them all halting all efforts immediately.
Hippopotamus
Profile Blog Joined October 2004
1914 Posts
May 30 2009 07:29 GMT
#47
Well, then we're back to the idea that the edits scientologists made were not somehow legitimate and then suddenly after x legitimate edits the article becomes biased. So they could be dealt with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
May 30 2009 07:30 GMT
#48
On May 30 2009 16:12 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well, see, you point out two possibilites. The thing is, wikipedia isn't supposed to be either one of those. These kinds of edits are not considered legitimate and to test it, you can just edit any significant article in such a manner and you will probably get reversed without so much as an entry on the talk page.


Have you actually read the edits they made? Have you followed the endless debates on Weasel words and NPOV?

I mean its great you want to argue, but you really dont understand.
SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
May 30 2009 07:33 GMT
#49
On May 30 2009 16:29 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well, then we're back to the idea that some edits scientologists made were not entirely legitimate and then suddenly after x legitimate edits the article allegedly becomes biased. So they could quite possibly be dealt with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?

SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
May 30 2009 07:33 GMT
#50
On May 30 2009 16:29 Hippopotamus wrote:
Well, then we're back to the valid idea that a few edits scientologists made were not entirely legitimate and then immediately after x legitimate edits the article allegedly becomes biased. So a better way would be to deal with using the usual methods that have been applied, for example, to holocaust denial articles or any other article where most of the damage could come from editors rather than anonymous users. I'm not an admin so I don't know the specifics of banning, but couldn't all those IPs have just been topic banned? Why did they get banned off all articles?
SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
Lemonwalrus
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States5465 Posts
May 30 2009 07:34 GMT
#51
I think fusionsdf's quote button is stuck down.
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
May 30 2009 07:35 GMT
#52
No, I'm making a point.
SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
Klockan3
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Sweden2866 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 08:39:34
May 30 2009 08:37 GMT
#53
Um, those things are answered in the article.

The deal is that these troublemakers are constantly changing their IP's so that they get hard to track, and they have way more users than IP's in circulation so the only way to ban them would be to ban all of those IP's. Why not just ban them from editing their own articles? Because wiki needs to find a solution which isn't too troublesome for them, especially since this would mean that they would have to rescan every person before they make an edit since the Scientology abusers were rapidly changing IP's to making them harder to track.

So in the end, it would not be possible to ban a few of these IP's which were "violators", since they all shared the same IP's. Also this didn't ban private persons IP's just those associated with the organization.

Edit: And to fusion, you don't get banned for changing the way something is described, it just gets changed back without a note as you said since it is rather harmless. However imagine if you had a hundred users all making those innocent changes, then you couldn't ban any of them since they all made an innocent change but the result is 100% worthy of a ban
Foucault
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
Sweden2826 Posts
May 30 2009 08:45 GMT
#54
On May 30 2009 14:45 Carnac wrote:
Scientology shouldnt even be legal in the 1st place


what
I know that deep inside of you there's a humongous set of testicles just waiting to pop out. Let 'em pop bro. //////////////////// AKA JensOfSweden // Lee Yoon Yeol forever.
VIB
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
Brazil3567 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 08:58:49
May 30 2009 08:57 GMT
#55
Hippopotamus, "biased" is a relative term. You are biased in relation to what? You present 1 pro argument and 1 con, it's fair. If you present 1 pro argument and 10000 cons, you're being biased.
Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people.
shimmy
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
Poland997 Posts
May 30 2009 08:59 GMT
#56
Wikipedia <3
Hell hath no fury like the vast robot armies of a woman scorned.
MasterOfChaos
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
Germany2896 Posts
May 30 2009 09:04 GMT
#57
I think it is stupid to ban them. If they post from known scientology IPs their edits are easier to find and revert. Now they'll resort to proxies or their private internet which makes them harder to detect. Observing them while they are in the open is better that driving them underground.
And why isn't simply setting scientology related articles to protected or semiprotected enough?
LiquipediaOne eye to kill. Two eyes to live.
HeadBangaa
Profile Blog Joined July 2004
United States6512 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 09:14:09
May 30 2009 09:12 GMT
#58
Well, this could be a very slippery slope. Kind of worrisome, and I'm sure most would agree if they could put their opinions about Scientology aside.

Centralization always has the potential to become tyrannical.
People who fail to distinguish Socratic Method from malicious trolling are sadly stupid and not worth a response.
Monsen
Profile Joined December 2002
Germany2548 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 09:35:40
May 30 2009 09:34 GMT
#59
In my opinion calling it a "religion" is questionable. To me it's a sect (and a dangerous one at that).
11 years and counting- TL #680
qaswedfr25
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States212 Posts
May 30 2009 10:00 GMT
#60
Anonymous is winning
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL: GosuLeague
19:00
RO16 SWISS - Round 3
Semih vs cavapoo
Hejek vs TousaN
ZZZero.O74
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft483
RuFF_SC2 134
CosmosSc2 62
EnDerr 9
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 784
ZZZero.O 74
NaDa 8
Icarus 5
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm69
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1460
flusha565
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0300
AZ_Axe150
Heroes of the Storm
Grubby4092
Other Games
summit1g13770
tarik_tv11749
Day[9].tv1009
shahzam534
ViBE279
ToD235
Maynarde164
JuggernautJason73
Sick57
Trikslyr57
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1135
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 62
• Hupsaiya 56
• davetesta35
• musti20045 24
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 18
• Rasowy 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4711
Other Games
• imaqtpie1702
• Scarra1286
• Day9tv1009
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Monday
3m
CranKy Ducklings7
GSL Code S
9h 33m
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
10h 3m
Road to EWC
10h 3m
Online Event
15h 3m
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
HupCup
15h 3m
Road to EWC
16h 3m
Road to EWC
22h 3m
GSL Code S
1d 9h
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Road to EWC
1d 10h
[ Show More ]
Online Event
1d 12h
Road to EWC
1d 16h
Road to EWC
1d 22h
Replay Cast
2 days
Road to EWC
2 days
Road to EWC
2 days
Road to EWC
2 days
Road to EWC
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Road to EWC
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Road to EWC
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

ASL Season 19
DreamHack Dallas 2025
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
YSL S1
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL Season 17: Qualifier 1
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
ESL Pro League S21

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
2025 GSL S2
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.