Idol Chatter

Idol Chatter

Wikipedia Bans Scientology Posters

posted by idol chatter | 3:07pm Tuesday June 2, 2009

The Pope may have just launched a Facebook app, but he’s got nothing on the tech savvy Church of Scientology: Wikipedia members posting from Scientology domain IP addresses have just been banned from editing Wikipedia posts after the free encyclopedia website discovered they were using exceptional means to give the church favorable coverage. A big no-no in aiming-to-be-neutral Wikiland.
One Wikipedia administrator told “The Register,” an online tech publication, that “policing edits from Scientology machines has been particularly difficult because myriad editors sit behind a small number of IPs and, for some reason, the address of each editor is constantly changing. This prevents admins from determining whether a single editor is using multiple Wikipedia accounts to game the system.”
This sophisticated form of sockpuppetting–creating a fake online persona for the sole purpose of lauding one’s self or one’s organization, a.k.a. propaganda–goes against Wikipedia’s policies as sock puppets erode the site’s culture of consensus editing “by creating the illusion of greater support for a viewpoint and evading sanctions.”


Critics of Scientology were also called out in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee’s final decision which notes that both sides “have gamed policy to obtain advantage” with notable critics often citing either their own or each other’s self-published material.”
This is the largest ban Wikipedia has ever imposed and closes out its longest-running arbitration, notes “The Register.”
Some message board posters are calling it censorship and wonder why Wikipedia hasn’t done the same for other controversial topics, such as foie gras, while others see it as the only means to keep the site factual and neutral. What do you think?



Previous Posts

UNDEFEATED is an Uncommon Film: Share Your Story For a Chance to Win a $500 Giftcard to Sports Authority
UNDEFEATED, the new documentary from the Weinstein Company (opening in limited release this Friday), is the real deal. It's one of those perfect, real life underdog sports stories that are only captured on film once in a long while (ala Hoop Dreams). It follows the hopes and dreams of the Manassas

posted 12:35:58am Feb. 13, 2012 | read full post »

Exclusive Interview with Rachel McAdams & Channing Tatum, Stars of "The Vow", on Relationships
I had the chance to sit down the other weekend with Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum and talk about their new film (opening this weekend, Friday, February 10th ) called "The Vow." Now, just so you know, I am NOT the target demo for romance films. Maybe, MAYBE, once in a blue moon I'll enjoy the

posted 2:57:16pm Feb. 08, 2012 | read full post »

Is Your Dad the Greatest Dad of All Time?
Dad's are awesome! (although, being one myself, I am a bit biased) And if you think your Dad is awesome - no, if you think your Dad is the GREATEST DAD OF ALL TIME!!!! - then we want to hear about it! Just leave a comment below using a valid email address and tell us in as much detail as you want wh

posted 2:19:28pm Dec. 30, 2011 | read full post »

Show Review: Reaching Generations with Switchfoot
Switchfoot performing on the Tonight Show Switchfoot’s debut album Legend of Chin came out in 1997, it was a fun, anthemic rock album that stretched the boundaries of Christian rock.  Fourteen years later, the band is still bringing it.  Seeing Switchfoot live at the National in Richmond, VA

posted 3:12:06pm Dec. 06, 2011 | read full post »

Mitch Albom's 'Have a Little Faith' Inspires
Mitch Albom is world famous for his moving and inspirational books. “Tuesday’s With Morrie,” “The Five People You Meet in Heaven,” and “For One More Day” have all spent months upon months on the New York Times bestseller list. His latest book, “Have a Little Faith,” has just been a

posted 2:51:06pm Nov. 22, 2011 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
Janey

posted June 2, 2009 at 12:28 pm


This was an excellent move. Scientology has a long history of manipulating government and organizational systems to their own advantage. Cult founder L. Ron Hubbard insisted that Scientology ONLY ever be presented in a positive light, and to that end, leading Scientologists in the late 1970s infiltrated high levels of the FBI, IRS and other agencies in an effort to expunge the files of any negative references to Scientology. Several Scientologists went to federal prison for this, including Hubbard’s wife. Hubbard himself was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator,” which means that the Feds would have brought charges, but they didn’t think they had quite enough evidence to make it stick. Google “Operation Snow White” to learn about this.
The Wikipedia ban has nothing to do with Scientology’s beliefs as a “religion,” except for that one little part about making sure that all portrayals, descriptions and representations of Scientology are overwhelmingly positive.



report abuse
 

LeonK

posted June 2, 2009 at 1:34 pm


Well apparently ‘only the insane’ would attempt to stop scientology lol. ( http://www.newsy.com/videos/religion_in_reference ) So I guess Wikipedia is insane. That said, it appears to only be blocking people from registered scientology organizations, a random scientologist could get on elsewhere so this will probably be an ongoing fight.



report abuse
 

Robert

posted June 3, 2009 at 10:02 am


Clearly, Wikipedia is not clear. This is a tragedy that can be alleviated by Scientology. One can only imagine the tremendous load of toxic pharmaceuticals psychiatrists must be feeding Wikipedia management for this insane outcome to occur. Well, an avatar would know, but you non-Scientologists can only imagine. Tragic indeed.



report abuse
 

winrobaaa

posted June 3, 2009 at 11:58 am


Wikipedia can do what they want just as Scientology can do what they want. Considering both organizations are in Florida, at least Wikipedia is educated on what Scientology is and does. Is this censorship? I don’t think so. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or magazine or a governmental body so I don’t think they are bound by the same constraints as the media or the government. I applaud Wikipedia for doing what it can to try to keep things as objective as possible.



report abuse
 

sandy

posted June 4, 2009 at 11:55 am


Clearly Robert June 3,10:02am has his Hat on straight!So Robert thanks for you and your Viewpoint!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.