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.'"
CoS has abused Wikipedia since almost its inception and have been a thorn in the side of the moderators for dozens of articles, but this is not going to stop them until you get a coourt to prohibit them from using the site. CoS specializes in umbrella fpr tax shelters and all sort of even more nefarious things and I bet right now they have a fresh batch of IP address just waiting for this story to die down so they can continue to suppress knowledge by outright censorship and the promulgation from the top to continue their intelligence operations based on their own special brand of disnfo, w extra crazy sauce, threats of lawsuits and calls to physical violence.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion
if they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.
"1 Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon drug
"therapy" program outside of required State licensing or
inspection on a leased "independently sovereign" Indian
reservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma. Just this month, after
extensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahoma
ordered this facility closed."
http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt
Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology:
http://www.badcult.info/watd/
zosxavius photography
Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago? Is this still the case? If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?
http://community.atom.com/Post/AntiScientologyInfomercials/03EFBFFFF0182C7B8000800AE87F1/
Wow, I'm pretty impressed. Almost makes me want to buy one of these shitty towels... almost.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Simple solution to this. Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations. It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law. Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.
I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.
I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts. Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server. That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them. Even allow them to police themselves.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Every person under the sun is weak to the effects of an effective brainwash. In these cases, they're especially susceptible, because they're open to it.
Auditing is the process through which they clear "engrams" from the subconscious. It is basically untrained hypnosis, and dangerous. They say it's not hypnosis, but a state of high suggestibility. Same thing to me.
It is through auditing that they become better Scientologists. In this process, however, the brainwash sets in. Eventually, subjects believe that the way of the CoS is the *right* way of doing things. It is a misguided but honorable goal. I've met many Scientologists, many of them are very smart and very capable. My brother in law is hilarious and a great friend. He's not weird by any means. He wants to do it to become a better person. Any attempt to steer him away from it gets shut down rather quickly.
The CoS is full of mostly well-intentioned people that got caught up in a dangerous web of lies (and economic loss). They have been psychologically programmed to do things that we find offensive.
It is very interesting to see the defense mechanisms that church policies have. Almost every rule I've heard of can be easily tied to preventing the Scientologist from realizing the harm he's caused himself: psychiatric treatment (especially medication), the "internal law", keeping "suppressive personalities" away, etc.
My brother in law is quite reasonable in his unreasonableness. He understands we disagree so we hardly touch the subject anymore, and he is open to discussion, but is NOT open to finding a middle ground. Any attempts to do so are seen with skepticism.
He's told me numerous time that the "space opera" that you can read about in Wikipedia is just made up by the press, I wonder what's going to happen when he hits OT3 and they serve it to him on a hot dish of shit.
The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership. This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.
So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing. Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan).
There's a page that lists famous Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts. I always add, with CITATIONS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES and other sources, Charles Manson and Dennis Rader ("BTK Serial Killer) and the terrorist group known as the BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA promptly removes it.
You are correct but there is still a big problem with scientology: it enjoys rights that no other religions in the USA enjoy via secret deals its made with the IRS that we are not privy to. This is a source of concern given its history of governmental infiltration & espionage.
http://www.nysun.com/national/judges-press-irs-on-church-tax-break/70957/
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Hah! Joke's on them! They try to make sure their members are living in Scientology-owned compoundes and so have no separate residence which makes it harder to leave or be persuaded by others!
Bout time that policy came back and bit them in the ass, eh? Not that they'll stop editing Wikipedia, it'll just be more inconvenient.
Btw, is there going to be a big asterisk at the slogan now? "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone* can edit. *not including the Church of Scientology"
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
All those who equate Scientology and Christianity obviously don't interact with many Christians, or if they did, they interacted with the fringe minority.
Perhaps back when Christianity started, it was a fanatical cult. Perhaps there are still a few stragglers. However, the majority of Christians just leave people alone and participate in church-sponsored community activities. Think of it as a support/social network where everyone pretends that they have the same imaginary friend. In fact, I have a friend, an atheist, who attends a church group just to meet people. They all accept him, despite his lack of beliefs.
Now, contrast that with the majority of Scientology literature out there where people have lost all of their money or even their lives to Scientology. Where brutal and underhanded tactics are used to quiet dissenters and acquire new followers. Where even the founder is on record stating that religion is the way to make money.
That is the difference. Perhaps it's not obvious to so many here who suffer from Asperger's syndrome.
The same goes with break-away Mormon sects that still practice polygamy and force underage women into marriage. They're differentiated with the label 'cult' for a reason.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Having read the article, the Wikipedia has identified sites that robotically edit the wiki pages to suit the Scientologist's agenda. Yes, of course those people responsible can find proxies and new addresses to edit from. But, if there are 5, 10, or 50 people with multiple accounts who sit all day watching for edits that they don't like, they will become apparent as their bot-like behaviour shifts to new IP's. And, they can be shut down again, and again, ad nauseum.
I don't think the Wikipedia intends to put a ban on all edits that might favor this "church", just to stop the corporate style attack on the pages. If I'm wrong, and they really intend to ban all edits favoring the "church", well - more power to them. It will cost them a lot more than a few banned IP's. They better get some help from Anonymous or 4chan, or someone like them that is willing to sabatoge Scientology machines and networks.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Wikimedia might have a stronger court case that Scientology is tresspassing on their servers.
That's what I was thinking too. Doesn't the law in the U.S. read such that attempting to bypass ANY security in place on a computer system, no matter how weak, is a crime? If Wikimedia could show that the same edit pattern was being done by the same computers (or possibly even users, I don't know) by proxying around the blacklist, wouldn't that be proof of an attempt at security circumvention?