Quote
Oerlikon
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/wikipedia-bans-church-of-scientology/

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

I read the article, and I'm not sure I agree with wikipedia's actions. But I don't know the whole story, so I can't really say one way or the other.

All I can say is that I believe that Scientology is an evil, fraudelent, and dangerous cult, that is run by sociopaths.

However, the First Amendment also states that we have the freedom of speech in this country. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place where anyone could edit, if they so chose.

I would want to have the freedom to listen to offbeat, perhaps even sociopathic, opinions. Freedom of speech is very, very important.

Again, I don't have all the reasons for the Wikipedia board's actions, so I can't say whether I think it is right or wrong.

--eaglecage



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2009 10:26PM by rrmoderator.

I think the ban is fine. Wikipedia is NOT a government run website so "freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We all have "freedom of speech" but must live with the consequences of said speech. If I tell my boss what I really think about him, he would have the right to fire me.

Wikipedia is moderated just like this forum is. You have NO right to violate the agreed upon rules of these sites. Trolls and apologists who exorcise "freedom of speech" will get banned from this forum so quickly that it will make their head swim.

I think it is time that Wikipedia stops allowing itself to be a dumping ground for misinformation and cult recruitment. Good riddance, CoS!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2009 10:58PM by Sparky.

There was talk that Scientology was literally trying to "take over" the entire Wikipedia from the inside, by sending in Scientologists to try to gain Admin powers, and ultimately take it over.
It could be that was related to this, as they did also ban certain wikipedia members, who edit lots of articles, but only as a way to have more pull in the Scientology articles, and related.

But this is not going to stop Scientology, they will just figure a way around those rules, using alternate computer accounts, etc.
But it might stop them from taking over Wikipedia. Maybe that was its objective?

Cade Metz of The Register has some good info too.

[www.theregister.co.uk]
QUOTE: "The guys I worked with posted every day all day," Tory Christman tells The Reg. "It was like a machine. I worked with someone who used five separate computers, five separate anonymous identities...to refute any facts from the internet about the Church of Scientology."

Nope --not so.

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

[thewhitereport.com]

It is interesting how wikipedia relates to cults. Because of my experience with one of the Samael Aun Weor cults I was very disturbed by the posting they have on him. It is crammed full of quotations to make it seem as legitimate as possible even stretching it to use sources that barely related like Gandhi`s biography. It seemed like it was ligitimate according to their rules but something very suspect is going on in how the article was created and continues to be created.

I second what Sparky said, and I'm going to add more info.

eaglecage, for someone who claims to be interested in Scientology, your questions and remarks are consistently shallow and uninformed.

Wikipedia didn't ban Scientology because it's an evil, criminal enterprise. If that were the reasoning, Wikipedia would also ban entries on the Mafia and North Korea. Those entries remain.

Wikipedia banned known Scientology IPs because Scn, unsurprisingly, has repeatedly broken Wikipedia's rules against self-serving edits. Wikipedia warned them many times, and, again unsurprisingly, Scn ignored the warnings.

Quote

According to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running Wikiland court case, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities." Leaning on the famed WikiScanner, countless news stories have discussed the editing of Scientology articles from Scientology IPs, and some site admins are concerned this is "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality."

Wikipedia is not a democracy and has never allowed free speech. It is an encyclopedia, and, ideally, allows only informed, neutral speech. Its job is to offer truthful, unbiased information, not steaming heaps of Scienoshit.

Banning Scn is in the best interests of Wikipedia's readers.

I think this is great news and it makes me hopeful that they might one day ban the MISA cult members who continually edit the page on Gregorian Bivolaru.

This continual editing of Wikipedia creates the impression that Bivolaru is a persecuted victim of the Romanian Authorities when he is in fact a criminal and a pimp who owns a vast criminal empire based on the slavery, suffering and exploitation of his victims.

I'm so pleased that Wikipedia is getting its house in order re cults and I hope it is just the beginning

Quote
Sparky
I think the ban is fine. Wikipedia is NOT a government run website so "freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We all have "freedom of speech" but must live with the consequences of said speech. If I tell my boss what I really think about him, he would have the right to fire me.

Wikipedia is moderated just like this forum is. You have NO right to violate the agreed upon rules of these sites. Trolls and apologists who exorcise "freedom of speech" will get banned from this forum so quickly that it will make their head swim.

I think it is time that Wikipedia stops allowing itself to be a dumping ground for misinformation and cult recruitment. Good riddance, CoS!

You are right, Sparky. Freedom of speech does not apply. If CoS apologists want to say something, they can publish it elsewhere. I do find it unfortunate that there isn't a place where both sides can make their case though.

I suppose there isn't really a good solution for this situation. If a forum/wiki is unmoderated, it becomes a dumping ground. If it is moderated, there is the spectre of censorship.

--eaglecage

Quote
Christa

eaglecage, for someone who claims to be interested in Scientology, your questions and remarks are consistently shallow and uninformed.

Wikipedia didn't ban Scientology because it's an evil, criminal enterprise. If that were the reasoning, Wikipedia would also ban entries on the Mafia and North Korea. Those entries remain.

Because I felt that the tone of your post was accusatory towards me (although perhaps unintentionally so), I feel the need to respond.

First, I do not claim anything more than a passing interest in Scientology, nor do I claim to be informed about it. All I know about it is the little that I have read and heard. I have never been a member of the Church of Scientology.

Second, I didn't say that Wikipedia banned Scientology for being evil. I wrote "I don't have all the reasons for the Wikipedia board's actions, so I can't say whether I think it is right or wrong".

I was just writing my opinion that I, for one, would (usually) want to hear more opinions rather than fewer. I would prefer my news and information as raw as possible, and as close to the source as possible. I generally want information presented to me in a way that is not propaganda. But if there is a point of view that would not exist except as propaganda, I would still want some sort of access to those views.

I've thought a little more about this issue, and I suppose I have changed my opinion. My previous opinion was that I didn't know if it was right/wrong to ban Scientology edits. My new, revised opinion is that it is a good idea to ban persistent SoC apologists, who are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. If people need pro-Scientology information, they can always find the SoC point of view just by googling "Scientology" and going to their website.

--eaglecage

I read on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) that not only were CoS apologists who gamed the system IP-banned, but also banned were anti-CoS apologists, who were gaming the system.

I am glad that there is plenty of data available on Scientology, but it is too bad that it will be a little harder to find information on Scientology from people who really care. After all, neutral views usually come from people who have no personal stake in the subject matter.

I am not saying that abusers should not have been banned. What I am saying is that it is good to have access to highly-opinionated views. Because it is precisely these views that matter most.

Actions are more often motivated by emotion than by neutral objective rationality.

--eaglecage