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?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clearly Robert June 3,10:02am has his Hat on straight!So Robert thanks for you and your Viewpoint!
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.