Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology
El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"
It still is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit," nothing has changed. You miss the point of "free" and "open" it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there. People make mistakes, people distort the truth, and people Lie. Others, have to correct these errors. If one person "cries wolf" a lot, you're simply not going to listen to them. This is all that it is. If someone had a history of not telling the truth, why would you trust them?
Now the Scientologists will just edit it from their homes.
I;m unaware of any mass Christian movement to edit Wikipedia. Heck Christians can't even agree within themselves, how will they push an agenda.
I predict a few outcomes:
*CO$ will find a way around it by rapidly changing their IP addresses
*If this gets to be a major headache, Wikipedia will either semi-protect all related articles, which they are generally loathe to do, and/or start treating entire ISPs as if they were open proxies
*Here's where it gets interesting: CO$ will discover they can manipulate Wikipedia into blocking entire ISPs, and will use that information to hurt ISPs they don't like. This will only work on relatively small ISPs that don't depend on location, e.g. non-major dialup ISPs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You know, it's all fine and nice to be anti-religion, but I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult, despite trying to lump them together for your own jollies, and this is coming from an atheist.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.
Stop misusing important terms like "freedom of expression" until they lose all meaning.
This is one private entity to another, a simple case of "my house, my rules" - Abuse them and I'll make you leave.
I note your assumption that, in order to find that cover offensive, one must be Christian.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
They are free to express themselves. Just not over here on this privately run website, that is supposed to host impartial articles on a wide range of subjects, because they refuse to be impartial in their expressions there. They are still perfectly free to express themselves though (this being the internet and all, they can post their drivel just about anywhere).
Random side note:
Since they are all supposed to be reincarnations of super beings (or something), why is it that they haven't cured cancer for us yet?
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
The part about how they treat the outside is definitely evil, although primarily evil insofar as they have a lot of money and intend on doing harm.
The rest doesn't seem at all like a double standard or inherently malevolent. We're all free to get along and settle our differences outside of court. The courts inherently exist only for the cases when no agreement can be reached, but action is required. Definitely it's a huge drain on society to have people dragging one another in there for every trivial piece of bullshit infighting that may occur. Get along, as much as possible.
I don't especially want to take my sister to court because she didn't pay me that $100 back that I loaned her in high school. Nor is there a double standard if I should take my phone company to court if they refuse to reimburse me for making a mistake on my bill. I might be able to agree with my sister, or decide that it's not worth the family hostility, but the phone company is (at best) nobody to me.
Ten things atheists and christians can agree on.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult
Agreed. And since some people don't see it, modern religions don't try to turn their followers against non-followers. They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either. They don't try to kill people that leave the fold.
Note that some religious fanatics may have the above characteristics, but fanatics do not make up the majority of the people that consider themselves religious.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
That's a popular view, but not a useful one.
I'd suggest that the difference is related to the direction of resources. If a significant portion of the group's resources are directed towards the wealth and well-being of its founders, as opposed to an external problem or cause, then you an unhealthy expression of religion, and quite possibly a cult.
i before e, except after c.
WTF are you talking about? There's nothing wrong on his post.
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia, so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Seems unlikely, given how secretive the COS is. The less information there is publicly, the better, seems to be the way they look at it.
:q!
I don't entirely buy that. Most mainstream religions don't require a person to see themselves as worthy ONLY through the religion and most DON'T require as much offerings or tithing they can pressure you out of. There is a huge difference between the corner Baptist church where they don't get bent out of shape if you go to church with your Methodist friend some Sunday and a group like the Moonies. That Baptist church most likely isn't after you to sign over all your money and capital then sell yourself into virtual slavery to cross the Bridge as Scientology will.
Religions differ in the demands they make on parishioners and in the control exerted on them. Religions that make inordinate demands on your social, psychological, time, credulity, and financial resources deserve a pejorative and "cult" is as good as any.
There is plenty not to like about more mainstream religions like the Baptists and Southern Baptists especially but being a cult isn't one of them.
IP addresses don't identify people. They tell routers where to forward packets.
Can we please move beyond this 1980s idea that IP addresses identify people?
That definition still includes a good proportion of American Christians, since one of the larger (and certainly fastest-growing) sects of Christianity in the US is Pentecostalism, run by pop-star-like, very wealthy and often TV-show-having leaders of megachurches.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'll stab.
Using HUMANS to filter rather than code.
Yeah, it stinks. The more the fundamentalists proclaim themselves "conservative", the more "conservatism" becomes synonymous with "plain wrong and stupid". Sucks for level-headed conservatives!
I NEARLY DIED!!!!!!!!!!
When I read the first two blurbs I came across on the front page of conservapedia.
Article of the Year: Evolution
In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: "The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year."[10]
* "Gallup's analysis says religiosity outweighs educational level in shaping views on evolution." (USN)
Discover what Wikipedia, the public school systems, and the liberal media don't want you to know about the creation vs. evolution issue.
And better yet...
Conservapedia's Highlighted Article ...A study reported that the liberal media is biased towards pro-atheism coverage.[11] Do you want to know what the liberal media is not reporting about evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins? Please examine Conservapedia's Richard Dawkins article!
Watch this video of evolutionist Richard Dawkins being stumped by the question of a creationist!...
Makes me feel like the world is a battlefront.
On one side is the people with the mental capacity to alter their views and accept scientific progress.
Well... the other side is banished to manipulating statistics to their advantage. Statistics that they don't even fundamentally understand because that is way too "sciencey" for them. Seems like a horrible fate.
Scientology does not want information to be free though. They want it shrink-wrapped with large price tags to access that information.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Yes, because there's never been anyone like Martin Luther or anything like the Great Schisms that could have negatively affected PR for Christianity. Nope, they've been completely and totally uniform in only letting good things come into public view.
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Real-world interaction systems don't need to be perfect, they just need to discourage or encourage certain behaviors.
This makes for one more step that members of the Church of Scientology have to make before they can edit. I'd guess that would cut down the edits that would need to be rolled back by half, which would be a sizeable improvement for any organization.
Further, this sends the clear and documented message that any editor which finds CoS propaganda should just go ahead and revert the change. And it is arguable, but if Scientology is banned from editing Wikipedia, Wikimedia might have a stronger court case that Scientology is tresspassing on their servers. This could be important if Wikimedia is ever sued by Scientologists.
The ______ Agenda
While I realise you probably live in the USA, where everything can be defended as "free speech", in the "real world" of forum and wiki administration there are some behaviors that need to be banned for, such as repeated trolling, spamming porn links, etc, that otherwise can make a forum/open community unbearable to work in.
If you show repeatedly (for years now, I imagine) that you have no interest whatever in making positive contributions, but you still keep coming back to troll or vandalize other people's work, banning seems like a very good punishment. Let the childish fucks that are apparently unable to discourse civilly because of their religion stew in their own little world.
Having to time and time again revert edits tires out even the biggest community (especially considering the amount of people who are watching articles like that are probably not all that common), as it is no more than a waste of time. Also, given the Hive mentality of Co$, I doubt if it matters much if you screen out the dumb fucks who are kept in compouds; the ones that are allowed to roam free (Tom cruise) are the dangerous ones.
And what about "Church"?
I avoid involving the word Church when referring to Scientology since that will defame other churches unrelated to Scientology.
Don't bother, other churches can use more defamation.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. We actually help people. I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. We actually help people.
Attending church is not required to help people. You are making a false distinction by bringing in irrelevant facts. Scientologists probably contribute to charitable works as well but it still is irrelevant.
Yes, we have an agenda behind it, to tell others of our beliefs, but one is not required to join our faith in order to receive the benefits of our generosity and our desire to help those in need.
So basically your price to receive aid is to harangue some poor fellow who is down on his luck that he should believe in your mythology. Nice.
Our beliefs are out in the open, for all to peruse and attempt to debunk.
I don't believe for a moment that you are the slightest bit interested in a skeptical analysis of your religion or that you or your congregation would react with anything except hostility to such an analysis.
Please do not insult the believers, those in this world who believe it is right to help and provide hope to our fellow human beings who suffer around us and those who wish to better the world in which we all live, by comparing us to the greedy, abusive, and controlling pseudo-religion that calls itself the "church" of Scientology.
There's two problems there. The first is that you are trying to make your beliefs credible by confusing them with charitable works that have nothing to do with your religion. You don't need a church to do charity and frankly I have little respect for anyone who does charity under false pretenses or with ulterior motives. You are trying to recruit people who are down on their luck to your church. I find that distasteful if not outright despicable.
The other problem is that you presume that I as an outsider think your christian/muslim/jewish/whatever beliefs are any less bizzare than those of scientologists. Nor do I think the behavior of your church is necessarily any more honorable. Your religious beliefs are, and should be, just as susceptible to criticism as any others even if you don't like what is said. It is fair to point out that there are more similarities than differences between scientology and christianity. It is fair to point out that neither scientologists nor christians welcome actual logical analysis of their beliefs, texts or doctrines. The stories are different but they both are made up mythologies based not in fact but in irrational belief.
A church is a group of people who welcome you in, and welcome the world to inspect their beliefs, and in fact encourages them to do so.
I have NEVER seen a church that welcomed people to skeptically "inspect inspect their beliefs". Interesting choice of words you used. Frankly if I were to "inspect" your beliefs I suspect you and your congregation would react with hostility when I point out the logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and self-contradictions. Some even react with violence when you point out that their emperor has no clothes. No, I don't accept your premise that churches welcome people in or welcome people to critically inspect their beliefs.
A cult is a group of people with something to hide who refuse to allow just anyone in, and try to keep their power to themselves.
Are you seriously arguing that religions do not constantly war with each other like tribes precisely for power? That the church does not recruit members precisely to grow its power and influence? A cult is nothing more than a religion that hasn't become "successful" yet. A cult is a threat to a religion because it might just take followers away from the religion. All religions were once cults and to my mind they still are cults. It is a distinction without a difference.