Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Posted by timothy on from the there's-no-pleasing-some-people dept.

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.'"

57 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. The Irony by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:The Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Our E-Meter detects more money in your pocket.

    2. Re:The Irony by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    3. Re:The Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      *picture of Picard facepalming*

    4. Re:The Irony by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    5. Re:The Irony by tuba_dude · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
    6. Re:The Irony by neomunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

  2. Fine by me by zappa86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Fine by me by lindseyp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
    2. Re:Fine by me by Taxman415a · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Fine by me by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

    4. Re:Fine by me by quantax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    5. Re:Fine by me by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Fine by me by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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?

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:Fine by me by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:About Fucking Time by dgcaste · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:About Fucking Time by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:About Fucking Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:About Fucking Time by dgcaste · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  4. Why!? by Nrbelex · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Why!? by Xtravar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Why!? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Why!? by domatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Why!? by Xtravar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
  5. It was only a matter of time by linzeal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  6. xenu by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  7. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now the Scientologists will just edit it from their homes.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like the Congressmen do now.

    2. Re:So what? by DriedClexler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:So what? by Nathrael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    4. Re:So what? by jbolden · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    5. Re:So what? by niney · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  8. It's not their fault! by MacColossus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Their Thetans made them do it. :-)

    1. Re:It's not their fault! by Lueseiseki · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

  9. how many more people have to die? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  10. Good :) by Christmas · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  11. Scientology and earthlink.net by acb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  12. Re:Yay by Omniscient+Lurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Tor already mostly blocked by davidwr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  14. So now it's... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  15. Re:nice by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wikipedia 2 - Rise of the Thetans

    That sounds like something Hubbard would cook up!

  16. What Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  17. Re:freedom of expression by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Operation Clambake by bryan1945 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  19. Re:freedom of expression by Thansal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
  20. Re:nice by Chris+Daniel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  21. Devious alternatives by LoudMusic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
  22. Re:freedom of expression by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  23. I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next by themeparkphoto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. Re:freedom of expression by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  25. \/!@GR@ 4 FREE by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll stab.

    Using HUMANS to filter rather than code.

  26. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  27. Totally understandable by turing_m · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  28. Re:Of course you are unaware by mathx314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  29. Re:nice by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  30. *Spam* is not a Point of View. by boombaard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.