EPTWikipedia bans Scientology IPs - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
foeffa
Belgium2115 Posts
| ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
besides how can they ban scientology ips they probably have computers all over the world , so wikipedia guys must ban them after they edit, to counter that just need to use pc bangs , school pc, work pc , proxies they wont be able to ban all this ip range. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
bold move | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On May 30 2009 14:48 cUrsOr wrote: i think my boss is a scientologist :O our library just HAPPENS to have like every LRH book ever written. its scarry. What a terrible library. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
PS in reference to the OP, sometimes people get a little too bound up in the 'human rights' issues. You can talk about these people's inalienable rights, but that's pretty much bullshit when they're not going to be hurt. It's just like excluding someone from a group of friends, it's not like hanging them. The guys deserve to fuck off and stop editing wiki. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On May 30 2009 14:45 Carnac wrote: Scientology shouldnt even be legal in the 1st place why not? | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
| ||
|
Wurzelbrumpft
Germany471 Posts
On May 31 2009 00:14 LuckyOne wrote: wait if i understand this correctly they say articles about scientology are biased..? thats like saying articles about christianity are biased or articles about evolution are biased , just let ppl chose what they want to believe in. No, having an article about a religion doesn't make it biased. Scientologists Made the article biased by altering it. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On May 31 2009 00:53 Wurzelbrumpft wrote: No, having an article about a religion doesn't make it biased. Scientologists Made the article biased by altering it. wouldnt a scientologist be the best person to write an article about his religion? just like an evolutionary biologist would be the best at writing an article about evolution. whats truly biased are wiki admins. they want a scientific approach to religion article. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
Wikipedia is great for dispassionate topics. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On May 31 2009 01:16 FieryBalrog wrote: Don't ever rely on Wikipedia for controversial issues or issues that a small group of people are really passionate about. That "small group of passionate people" will almost always disproportionately influence the article because they care so much more about it. Wikipedia is great for dispassionate topics. and articles involving big money | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
X was a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z. vs X is believed by the Y church to have been a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z. See how one is much more biased than the other? Sure, a Scientologist is probably the most qualified to write the articles, but if they don't write them from an objective point of view, then they're in violation of wikipedia's terms of service. | ||
|
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On May 31 2009 01:32 Biochemist wrote: Compare: X was a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z. vs X is believed by the Y church to have been a prophet of God who wrote the inspired Z. See how one is much more biased than the other? Sure, a Scientologist is probably the most qualified to write the articles, but if they don't write them from an objective point of view, then they're in violation of wikipedia's terms of service. so a Scientologist cant write an article about scientology from an objective point of view. but an evolutionary biologist can write an article about evolution from an objective point of view? some bias are allowed others arent. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On May 31 2009 01:51 LuckyOne wrote: so a Scientologist cant write an article about scientology from an objective point of view. but an evolutionary biologist can write an article about evolution from an objective point of view? some bias are allowed others arent. Clearly not. It's clear that the scientologists were just writing to make themselves look better anyway. From this statement you made I doubt you will be willing to argue rationally anyway, there wasn't any sort of thought put into the difference between a SCIENTIST and a RELIGIOUS NUT. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
Since most people gets a new IP everytime they reconnect, or they can go internet cafe or use a proxy. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
actually youre right, lol. our collection is terribly small, its mostly just a place for JrHigh and low-income folks to use the internet for free. thats like 90% of our activity. which is fine with me, but its more of an internet hub than a library. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
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. this may be true but if they were indeed that intelligent then they should have realized something like this would have happened and thus tried to spread the word of scientology in some other ways for example u don't see us Christians getting banned for editing stuff about evolution or w.e | ||
| ||
