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.'"

Comments

The Irony

[EdIII]

Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously?

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Our E-Meter detects more money in your pocket.

Re:The Irony

[Brandybuck]

No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

*picture of Picard facepalming*

Re:The Irony

[Barradrewda]

I wish there was a mod -1 Wet Blanket.

Re:The Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It's elitist pricks like you that expect everybody to have an IQ greater than a cinch bug that is the reason we're in the financial mess we're in. If people remain dumb, ponzi schemes can go on forever. Stop bursting bubbles. Let people be stupid.

Re:The Irony

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:The Irony

[tuba_dude]

Neither you nor your parent actually get the joke

Personally, I'm getting tired of these fucking "whoosh" comments. News flash: you are not as funny as you thing you are, and if you think making a stupid reference to some hackneyed geek cliche gives your otherwise nonsensical comment credibility, you're wrong.

Oh, and those "fixed that for you" comments are getting pretty awesome, too.

Fixed that for you.

Re:The Irony

[cgenman]

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.

Re:The Irony

[dword]

We should do the same and ban them from Slashdot, forcing them to post under the shameful name "Anonymous Coward". That'll teach them!

Re:The Irony

[Kreigaffe]

That depends on how many dupes and Idle stories are on the front page

Re:The Irony

[neomunk]

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?

Re:The Irony

[Hatta]

Personally, I'm getting tired of these fucking "personally, I'm getting tired" comments.

Fine by me

[zappa86]

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?

Re:Fine by me

[lindseyp]

No, but all this does is cracks down on "official" astroturfing. We all know that xenu's followers will simply do their edits from home, from now on.

This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.

Re:Fine by me

[Kjella]

This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.

If this was the end, wikipedia has had the fat lady singing since the beginning. There's way too much useful information nobody bothers getting into an edit war about to be killed off by these sorts of things. If I didn't read about them on slashdot, I'd barely know they were there but I guess that's because I already know where to expect them.

Re:Fine by me

[Taxman415a]

As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members"). While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.

The reason they are singled out for that type of description is there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the description. Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the COS does. Besides that, I don't see the description you refer to in an article right now.

Re:Fine by me

[Antique Geekmeister]

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).

Re:Fine by me

[quantax]

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/

Re:Fine by me

[JohnBailey]

As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out for direct criticisms in the opening paragraphs of the article, (e.g "cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members").

Ok.. How about "A bunch of cults who financially defraud and abuse their members"

Re:Fine by me

[mcrbids]

(oh ok "religions" what's the difference?)

Both are fine with believinng idiocies like evil galactic overlords, Harems full of virgins, or deities that grant eternal life by dying on a wooden stake along with some criminals.

Both have memberships and generally some way to extract money from their populations.

But a religion becomes a cult when one or more of the following occur:

1) a clear bias towards profit. ( google for 'scientology make money'' to see this in action)

2) Membership policies that serve to isolate its mebership from external influence. (Oogle 'scientology disconnection policy' for more details)

3) Extreme polcies of secrecy and nondisclosure. (such as the Xenu story which Scientology still denies even though the cat it SOOOO out of the bag - they charge you some 300,000 dollars to find out the 'truth')

4) General skirting social norms and laws, such as child labor, marriage/sexuality, contracts, finance, education, etc. Note that Scientology has many, many horror stories from children that have been raised in or introduced at an early age. Additionally, it's composed of a complex labrynth of corporations and licensing that clearly is designed to withstand significant legal assault.

Yes, the mormons have many of these attributes, but Scientology takes these to a whole new extreme.

Re:Fine by me

[ChaosDiscord]

People focus on Scientology because it screws people up to an extent no major religion does. Other smaller religions and factions are similarly destructive, like the Mormon faction that still practices polygamy, but they tend to be small fish compared to Scientology. This is why anti-Scientology unites people of multiple religions and atheists. Once people decided to focus on Scientology, the question was how to attack. It's hard to go wrong with mocking someone, and Scientology's beliefs are so wonderfully easy to mock. So that's what they mock. It's the tactic, not the reason.

Re:Fine by me

[jandersen]

Scientology is currently everyone's favorite whipping boy. Followers of larger and more powerful religions don't want to get into a debate about whose beliefs are nuttier, because they're all about equally nutty when you get right down to it.

Let me just point out that this is not a question of which religion is stupider; to me as a convinced atheist they are all equally meaningless, but there are some that are far more harmful than others. Scientology is way out there, not because of what they believe in, according to their books, but because they behave to all intents and purposes as a dangerous and unscrupulous criminal organisation. The first thing they do to new members is make them deeply indebted to the organization by pushing them through meaningless "courses" that get exponentially more expensive. And they suppress any criticism with extremely vicious attacks on those who are critical - as well as their familes.

Calling Scientlogy merely a cult is way too generous. They are a criminal organisation.

Re:Fine by me

[Concerned Onlooker]

And check out this interesting little tid bit. Not all conspiracies are tinfoil hat dreams. From the article (#2, Operation Snow White):

Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history. Ever.

Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days?

Re:Fine by me

[Actually, I do RTFA]

As much as I despise Scientology, I don't see why their cult should be singled out... other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way

Well, Scientology (and other cults) do things I've never heard of religions doing (since the Middle Ages):

1. Restrict who is allowed to have access to holy texts so they can make enlightenment contingent on payment
2. Record confessions/counciling sessions to blackmail members.
3. The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.
4. Claims a scientific validity (and basis... even so far as claiming to be based on earlier, real, scientists work)
5. An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.

6. Also, Scientology seems to ignore many things real religions do: organize food drives and other charitable events, provide aid to members in need (emotional or economic), and other beneficent acts.

About Fucking Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:About Fucking Time

[Mike Buddha]

Yeah, look what they did to that Shamwow dude.

Re:About Fucking Time

[dgcaste]

No it doesn't.

My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.

He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity. Even perceived threats are great game.

When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.

Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.

So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things."

I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.

Re:About Fucking Time

[Austerity Empowers]

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.

Re:About Fucking Time

[Shadow of Eternity]

Legally violent? They're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders.

Re:About Fucking Time

[MightyMartian]

http://community.atom.com/Post/AntiScientologyInfomercials/03EFBFFFF0182C7B8000800AE87F1/

Wow, I'm pretty impressed. Almost makes me want to buy one of these shitty towels... almost.

Re:About Fucking Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:About Fucking Time

[dgcaste]

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.

Re:About Fucking Time

[mcvos]

They're all made up.

Perhaps, but not all as obviously as scientology. Hubbard didn't start out by saying: "God has revealed himself to me", he started out by saying: "If you want to get really rich, you've got to start your own religion." And then he started a religion. He announced that it was fake, and people still believe it.

Why!?

[Nrbelex]

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?

Re:Why!?

[Xtravar]

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.

Re:Why!?

[lostmongoose]

Actually no. The *only* difference between a religion and a cult is prominence/influence and/or state recognition as a 'religion'.

Re:Why!?

[TapeCutter]

Ten things atheists and christians can agree on.

Re:Why!?

[piojo]

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.

Re:Why!?

[megrims]

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.

Re:Why!?

[domatic]

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.

Re:Why!?

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Why!?

[Xtravar]

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.

Re:Why!?

[Dr_Barnowl]

They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either.

Yes they do. They just don't send in the attack lawyers.

My wife's vicar told her she shouldn't be marrying an atheist, which very nearly ended our relationship, partially because she took him seriously, and partially because I was so angry that she took him seriously.

In retrospect, it would have been a good time to leave.

It was only a matter of time

[linzeal]

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.

xenu

[timmarhy]

watch your back jimbo, interplanitary DC9's coming your way

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the Scientologists will just edit it from their homes.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the Congressmen do now.

Re:So what?

[644bd346996]

Then it will be possible to identify the IP addresses of devout Scientologists based on the edit patterns. Not something they would want to do if they were internet-smart.

Re:So what?

[DriedClexler]

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"

Re:So what?

[Kreigaffe]

I'd be willing to bet that wiki already blocks any proxy IPs it's aware of thanks to /b/

Re:So what?

[Nathrael]

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone* can edit. *not including people who constantly make disruptive edits and keep breaking the established rules". What the Co$ was doing wasn't exercising their right to free speech, they were vandalizing a website with spreading lies. Free speech means you can lie in your own mediums and when talking to people, but does not include the right to lie in a medium you do not own, because there, you have to operate within the rules that apply to everybody.

Re:So what?

[noundi]

That's not the point. We all know internet censorship fails, the point is that they're making a statement. The single largest knowledge base on the net doesn't consider the church of Scientology as viable for presenting any data. This says a lot. When you point out a liar, you no longer need to parse the lies. Eventually people will learn to ignore that liar.

I for one thank wikipedia to use their stance and point out that this shit is not tolerable. Next up, christianity, islam, judaism. Way to go wiki.

Re:So what?

[Nathrael]

But the Co$ did *not* add any viewpoints. They tried to censor criticism of Scientology or otherwise promote their cult. They have a long history of vandalism and warnings. Banning people from editing Wikipedia is usually a last resort if every other measure fails, and in this case, the ban was more than warranted in my opinion.

Re:So what?

[jbolden]

Pro scientology viewpoints are not banned. A group of editors is banned. They aren't banning a viewpoint but a subgroup of people.

Re:So what?

[jbolden]

t would be better to give scientology itself a page about themselves that only they can edit, that is labeled as such.

Every user has them, their user page. Editorials are permitted there. But every page in the encyclopedia has to have a neutral point of view. There are other wikis which allow biased pages. This is not MySpace

Re:So what?

[niney]

Yes, they're using the extension TorBlock to do this.

Re:So what?

[jbolden]

Absolutely it does. But all authors (editors) are required to support the idea of building a NPOV encyclopedia. Neutrality isn't supposed to be something that happens accidentally but something that editors are deliberately striving to achieve.

And wikipedia has a very robust definition of neutral. Sure there are areas of judgement but what the Scientology editors were doing was well outside those areas.

Re:So what?

[mrchaotica]

Unfortunately, the definition of neutral is subjective in all forms of media.

Right, which means it must be based on a consensus determined by multiple parties. The cult of Scientology does everything it possibly can to destroy that consensus and inflict its fucked-up brainwashing on everyone else, which is why it's necessary to go to such extreme lengths to stop it!

Re:So what?

[chihowa]

Seriously, I think you fooled the mods here too. Tor exit nodes are just computers running Tor that have been set up to also be an exit node. There are hundreds of nodes and they are run by volunteers, not by the Tor project. You can get a list of the exit nodes (here, for example), but Tor Hyams has nothing to do with them.

It's not their fault!

[MacColossus]

Their Thetans made them do it. :-)

Re:It's not their fault!

[Lueseiseki]

Well that's really weird. You've completely seized the ancient mistake our species has been making for decades! You should be the sovereign of spelling!

Re:It's not their fault!

[Bored Grammar Nazi]

i before e, except after c.

WTF are you talking about? There's nothing wrong on his post.

how many more people have to die?

[ZosX]

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/

Good :)

[Christmas]

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.

Scientology and earthlink.net

[acb]

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?

Re:Yay

[Omniscient Lurker]

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

[youn]

how long before they sue wikipedia because they say what they"re doing is unfair :)

Tor already mostly blocked

[davidwr]

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.

So now it's...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!

Re:nice

[Austerity Empowers]

Wikipedia 2 - Rise of the Thetans

That sounds like something Hubbard would cook up!

What Science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.

Re:freedom of expression

[The Master Control P]

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.

Operation Clambake

[bryan1945]

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/

Re:nice

[Captain Splendid]

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?

Re:freedom of expression

[Thansal]

"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?

Re:nice

[Brian Gordon]

To be fair, Conservapedia is fundamentalist, not just conservative.

The New Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

We are the Church of Scientology. We are the New Anonymous.

the difference between religion and cult

[J_Omega]

A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
A religion is a large, popular cult.

YMMV

Re:nice

[Chris Daniel]

when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

Devious alternatives

[LoudMusic]

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.

Re:Devious alternatives

[robably]

There's a Slashdot like that, too. But we're not supposed to talk about it. ((you're on it now))

Re:freedom of expression

[Darkness404]

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?

Of course they can but it requires a super ultra rare L. Ron Hubbard signed E-meter selling for the ultra low price of $999,999,999.00 along with Scientology literature that costs an extra $99,999.99 plus training at a secret compound for the discounted price of $500,000 per year for fifty years.

I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next

[themeparkphoto]

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.

Re:nice

[leamanc]

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.

Re:freedom of expression

[Antique Geekmeister]

And it takes several rounds from a shotgun, three to the chest, one to the head. Take a look at the death of Mary Florence Barnett, the mother of David Miscavige, the current head of Scientology. (http://www.badcult.info/watd/flo_barnett/coroner.html) Suicide? With multiple shotgun rounds? And _two_ suicide notes? While the suicide of a cancer patient can be understandable, this does seem.... beyond the usual efforts of a cancer ridden person, threatening their church with lawsuits.

\/!@GR@ 4 FREE

[DirtyCanuck]

I'll stab.

Using HUMANS to filter rather than code.

Re:nice

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:nice

[denton420]

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.

Re:nice

[kimvette]

Scientology does not want information to be free though. They want it shrink-wrapped with large price tags to access that information.

Totally understandable

[turing_m]

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?

Re:Of course you are unaware

[mathx314]

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.

Re:nice

[sortius_nod]

level-headed conservatives!

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:nice

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No. I have one right next to my chair with a glass of gin on his head right now. Very useful.

*Spam* is not a Point of View.

[boombaard]

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.

Re:Church?

[jaypifer]

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.

Churches don't exist for charity

[sjbe]

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.