China Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology Wikioperating Thetan Level Zero By Cade Metz 29 May 2009 Exclusive In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates. Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately. The eighth most popular site on the web, Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Administrators frequently ban individual Wikifiddlers for their individual Wikisins. And the site's UK press officer/resident goth once silenced an entire Utah mountain in a bizarre attempt to protect a sockpuppeting ex-BusinessWeek reporter. But according to multiple administrators speaking with The Reg, the muzzling of Scientology IPs marks the first time Wikipedia has officially barred edits from such a high-profile organization for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the site. The Church of Scientology has not responded to our request for comment. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 wtf is the wikipedia supreme court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 not too cool with this. sets a disturbing precedent. yes, perhaps check into the edits/entries by scientologists (and ALL other extremist types), but if wikipedia truly wants to live up to the ideals behind its creation, it will not ban anyone from getting involved. but, more seriously, the question becomes 'who gets banned next?' and that is the scary part of this dont agree with scientology, but this isnt right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 wtf is the wikipedia supreme court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins PR Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 ^ Whoah! | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 that picture was taken shortly before they went to meet up with their a-list celebrity girlfriends, for the record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikbug Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Is this the UK version of the Onion or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbws Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 not too cool with this. sets a disturbing precedent. yes, perhaps check into the edits/entries by scientologists (and ALL other extremist types), but if wikipedia truly wants to live up to the ideals behind its creation, it will not ban anyone from getting involved.but, more seriously, the question becomes 'who gets banned next?' and that is the scary part of this dont agree with scientology, but this isnt right As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is not a publicly funded entity, which means they can do what they want, and I am OK with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 As far as I can tell, Wikipedia is not a publicly funded entity, which means they can do what they want, and I am OK with that. while you are correct, and that is the case legally, on the opening page it says "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit." yeah they certainlyt have the right to do this, but as i said before i think it seems to go against the very basis of wikipedia's existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BALLz Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Anyone know what the C of S was doing. Were their memebers going around editing the pages of other religious beliefs or were they just updating their own page. EDIT: nevermind. read the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I cant side with Scientologists, no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 remember when people on here edited the cowbums page on wiki? they put that big pic of Irvin up in his mugshot...that **** was TOO funny!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 My biggest feeling on this is that they should know it's not going to work. From what I understand, the Scientologists have a smear machine that Dick Cheney wishes he had, a legal department that Disney would be afraid of, and a cyber warfare unit that's China wishes they had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 My biggest feeling on this is that they should know it's not going to work. From what I understand, the Scientologists have a smear machine that Dick Cheney wishes he had, a legal department that Disney would be afraid of, and a cyber warfare unit that's China wishes they had. And a Naval Fighter Wing that kicks Russian ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 and a dude who can change faces with anyone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 while you are correct, and that is the case legally, on the opening page it says "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit."yeah they certainlyt have the right to do this, but as i said before i think it seems to go against the very basis of wikipedia's existence. It depends on what the C of S were doing. Anyone can edit but they have to do so under the guidelines. Wikipedia does not allow corporations creating anything that might be considered promotional, and anything controversial should be backed up up by other independent sources. If, as I suspect, C of S folks were editing out criticism that was backed by other sources, it's understandable that the custodians of Wiki would stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 while you are correct, and that is the case legally, on the opening page it says "the free encylopedia that anyone can edit."yeah they certainlyt have the right to do this, but as i said before i think it seems to go against the very basis of wikipedia's existence. I think there's an unspoken understanding in these sorts of things that those kinds of promises don't extend to those who abuse the privileges. I don't have a problem with it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 If, as I suspect, C of S folks were editing out criticism that was backed by other sources, it's understandable that the custodians of Wiki would stop them. fair enough, but at the same time i would hope that the C of S (or any organization who might eventaully share the same fate) also has a chance to "defend" itself against untrue criticism / invalid fact alterations. obviously a post something like 'the C of S eats babies and fries household pets' would be changed, but as much as i disagree with the C of S it is still a legit organization and it would be very easy to only slightly change some of their information to make it be shown in a more negative light. i dont disagree with anything anyone has said in this thread, but i do hope that this situation is monitored very, very closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 For once, I'll refrain from stating my opinion on cults that have equal status as the true religions of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 For once, I'll refrain from stating my opinion on cults that have equal status as the true religions of the world.What IS the difference? Age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 What IS the difference? Age? Popularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 For once, I'll refrain from stating my opinion on cults that have equal status as the true religions of the world. i would argue that in order for a belief to be a religion, it only has to be truly believed by a single person. some of the **** out there is bat**** crazy for sure (and id prob include scientology in that catagory), but free religion is free religion. i dont like some of the things theyve done involving censorship throughout their history, but if someone believes it then not a lot anyone can (or should try to, imo) do as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's rights. the legality/morality of some of their historical actions is questionable for sure, but i wont fault anone for joining the church if they really identify and connect with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 i would argue that in order for a belief to be a religion, it only has to be truly believed by a single person. some of the **** out there is bat**** crazy for sure (and id prob include scientology in that catagory), but free religion is free religion. So that means supporters of the latest propoganda err Global Warming are in essence religious extremists and their great Satan are those in the US who are Carbon Credit challenged who they must smote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 not too cool with this. sets a disturbing precedent. yes, perhaps check into the edits/entries by scientologists (and ALL other extremist types), but if wikipedia truly wants to live up to the ideals behind its creation, it will not ban anyone from getting involved.but, more seriously, the question becomes 'who gets banned next?' and that is the scary part of this dont agree with scientology, but this isnt right seeing the title, I was a bit unsure about it, but having read the specifics I'm actually okay with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGI Jef Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 So that means supporters of the latest propoganda err Global Warming are in essence religious extremists and their great Satan are those in the US who are Carbon Credit challenged who they must smote. actually thats not what im saying at all. yeah you can take my words at the most literal face value possible, but i think its clear that the basis for this part of the discussion is religion. it is the belief in a higher being/presence/power. if someone believes in anything to be as such, i would consider it a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.