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.'"
Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously?
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?
The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html
Two things:
1. Wikipedia should never lift the ban.
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Hmmm... but according to my research, it's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others. Why would Wikipedia ban such a group?
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
Jimbo just put himself on the top of the list for a good old fashioned dead agenting.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Fighting determined organizations like CO$ is like squeezing a balloon.
If your goal is to make them react, you win. If your goal is to stop them from doing something they are determined to do, good luck with that.
I predict within 3 months the CO$ will have found ways around this ban. The most obvious and probably the most obvious is for each editor to start using dialup internet for CO$ edits, and change IPs or even dial-up area- or city- codes if you have national free long distance. Oops I think I said too much already.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
watch your back jimbo, interplanitary DC9's coming your way
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Now the Scientologists will just edit it from their homes.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for all people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
Their Thetans made them do it. :-)
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
They were just way too pushy. OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church. I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.
Carrie -The Christmas Angel
This will only cause them to start using something like Tor or any other method of obscuring their IP. I don't see how an IP ban will be that effective. It only serves to make it much more difficult to prevent them from doing this in the future since the Wikipedia folks could at least know when it was them before due to the originating IP block. Now it will just be random IPs and much more difficult to keep a handle on. It's forcing them to be smarter. Just what we need, knowledgeable religious wingnuts who worship aliens.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
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?
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.
how long before they sue wikipedia because they say what they"re doing is unfair :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
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.
TOR exit nodes are already notoriously difficult to edit from:
*You can't edit anonymously.
*If you have a new-ish account that is barely old enough to let you edit semi-protected articles, your account is treated as if it was new when you are connected via TOR.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!
#DeleteChrome
Wikipedia 2 - Rise of the Thetans
That sounds like something Hubbard would cook up!
Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.
I note your assumption that, in order to find that cover offensive, one must be Christian.
For more really really fun and interesting info, go to Operation Clambake. Before you freak about the URL, the URL is real, and so is the guy (Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs this out of Norway, which is why Scientology has not gotten any legal traction against him yet). I recommend a read, for what little that's worth.
http://www.xenu.net/
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Slashdot follows the Wikipedia example: irony?
Mother used to said If you want you find a way But mother never danced through fire shower
Wikipedia 2
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?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Scientologists have enough money to get advertised in /.
To be fair, Conservapedia is fundamentalist, not just conservative.
We are the Church of Scientology. We are the New Anonymous.
A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
A religion is a large, popular cult.
YMMV
when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
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!
Talk about irony!
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
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.
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!
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?
The home-school Christians took their football and went to play at Conservapedia, which is JUST AS FUN and as important as Wikipedia.
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.
[...] such a high-profile organization [...]
Anyone else see something wrong with that statement? I mean, c'mon, "High profile"... What the fuck guys? This is a fucking cult here.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
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
I can sympathize with the Boy Scouts of America - Manson and Rader are terrible, horrible examples. If they had been just that little bit more prepared, they wouldn't be in jail, would they?
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
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.
level-headed conservatives!
Isn't that an oxymoron?
How can someone following a particular set of principals discard a party? Which party? I didn't realize there was a conservative party - perhaps you meant the jackassed republican party that hasn't followed conservative ideals since 1996?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No. I have one right next to my chair with a glass of gin on his head right now. Very useful.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
Wow ... I first thought this was joke site, but, just wow ...
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
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.
Not defending Scientology, but does Wikipedia not champion free speech?
Exactly - so why should they allow an orchestrated attack on free speech by COS? Free speech isn't about who yells the loudest.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
But I still think either anyone must have the right to edit, or that whole Wikipedia experiment has failed.
First we got site lockdowns for non-logged-ins. Then for logged ins. Then blocking of IPs. Then admins enforcing their agenda. Then they planning their agenda together on a mailing list.
That's just wrong on so many levels.
I've thought a bit, about how you can merge the freedom to edit with the ability to filter out nutjobs. And in the process, I found that view are just relative. You can usually not prove that someone is 100% right or wrong, because 1. no single person can track the reasoning down to quantum physics, and 2. there still is the missing base of the world formula. So we pretty much always rely on some sensible paradigms and long chains of reasoning. The nutjobs usually are those, that either A) fail in their logic, or B) do not follow the groupthink of what everyone assumes to be correct, but never gets tested.
Now the problem is, that on Wikipedia, not only (A) gets blocked (which nobody can or wants to check down to the physical base anyway), but (B) too (aka "spin"/"agenda").
Don't think that an "agenda" or "spin" is entirely bad. Because unfortunately, pure objectivity is a physically impossible fantasy. People just have to make their logic work for them, with the input they got. And some just got some really weird or different combinations of input.
So there would be two ways to solve this:
1. Rigorously enforce logic reasoning, most likely with a special language, with defined semantics. You would then find the reasoning behind everything, down to the most basic paradigms. This would be very great... if it were realistic. ^^
Because unfortunately, you would notice, that for some things, you would still, even with rigorous logic, end up with more than one basic paradigm. Because we simply don't know this yet.
2. Because of the problems with (1), we have to make it possible to create more than one view of a subject. I know this sounds like the argument for creationism (which I strongly oppose). That's why there has to be a second element. Maybe you know how cascading stylesheets (CSS) work. For every element, the interpreter goes trough all the rules, and applies them, by overlaying each rule with the next one, so that it changes in the points of the second rule.
Imagine this, but with the rules being people, and the interpreter being you (with software assistance), and the element being the article.
So people could put together a "view" on Wikipedia. From collecting specific versions of the articles into a group, and giving it a name. Then others can define their view from using the first view as a basis, and adding some modifications. And so on.
The enduser can then choose from the views. He could for example, choose the view of some association of scientists or university, add some "Jon Steward" on top of it for the political things, and season it with some changes that a trusted friend or editor chose. He could also publish that as another "view".
This would make it possible, to create a completely "clean" (in your eyes) Wikipedia (trough choosing the right "view"), and still allow everything and anything to be said. Even some weirdo's 4chan Wiki view. ^^
Of course it would be nicer to be able to enforce logic. But until we found a realistic way, and have a world formula, I think this is our best shot.
I rather sacrifice that, than to sacrifice freedom.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
No ban need mention a party by name, rather simply enumerate policy violations that merit said ban. Done.
The home-school Christians took their football and went to play at Conservapedia, which is JUST AS FUN and as important as Wikipedia.
I seriously think that Conervapedia is just satire. Some of the bullshit on there is just too unreal to be serious...
You don't hang out with too many conservatives, do you?
The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with them, however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to spreading misinformation, they too should be banned (as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal)
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I must admit that I don't know how ads in such large size sites are administrated but it really bugs me that Scientology does excessive advertising on Slashdot, especially front page.
It can be also the scientific terms they picked to trigger ads or plain "lets do propaganda to these nerds".
Does /. (or the parent in fact) have right to reject certain advertisements? It has reached a point that I saw couple of people accused /. to be sponsored by them. Ads of any religion (or anti-religion) in a technical site doesn't really make sense to me at all.
I abhor the "church" of Scientology, but gladly attend my local congregation. We actually help people. We feed the poor, cloth the homeless, and support humanitarian aid all over the world. 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. Our beliefs are out in the open, for all to peruse and attempt to debunk. Our book (the Bible) is able to be purchased at B&N or Borders for less than $10 in translations ranging from strictly accurate (and confusing to some) to paraphrased to make it easier to understand, if you really want to see what we believe.
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.
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. 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.
Your comment betrays a bigotry towards all organized religion, and I cannot see what benefit it added to this conversation.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
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.