Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Num7

Administrator
Staff
Messages
12,608
Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Church of Scientology making information wars on wikipedia lol
May 29, 2009
Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology from editing any articles. It?s a punishment for repeated and deceptive editing of articles related to the controversial religion. The landmark ruling comes from the inner circle of a site that prides itself on being open and inclusive.

In a 10-1 ruling Thursday, the site?s arbitration council voted to ban users coming from all IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology and its associates, and further banned a number of editors by name. The story was first reported by The Register.

Self-serving Wikipedia edits are hardly new. Wired.com readers pulled in an award for discovering the most egregious Wikipedia whitewashes by corporation and government agencies, but this is the first time the site has taken such drastic actions to block those edits.

And the edits are unlikely to stop, now that the user-created encyclopedia has become one of the net?s most popular sites and is often the top result for searches on a subject. Being able to massage an entry about oneself or one?s company has proven difficult to resist, even for founder Jimmy Wales ? despite Wikipedia?s official warnings to the contrary.

The Church of Scientology, founded by sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1953, has had a long and bloody history on the net ? dating back to Usenet groups, where critics maintain that the organization is a cult that brainwashes its members and sucks them dry financially. The Church, which teaches that humans are reincarnated and lived on other planets, says it is a legitimate religion.

The case, which began in December, centers on more than 400 articles about the ultra-secretive Church and its members. Those pages have hosted long-running, fierce edit wars that pitted organized Church of Scientology editors ? using multiple accounts ? against critics of Scientology who fought those changes by citing their own or one another?s self-published material. In fact, this is the fourth Wikipedia arbitration case concerning Scientology in as many years.

The committee also banned a number of editors individually, prohibiting them from editing any Scientology-related articles for at least six months. Those privileges can be reinstated afterward if they show they can play nicely by Wikipedia?s rules.

While most disputes involving the Web and Scientology in the past year have involved anti-Scientology activists who bind together under the name Anonymous, that group is largely not involved in this argument, because only registered accounts are able to edit the articles under dispute.

The Church of Scientology did not immediately return a voice message, asking for comment.
Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology | Epicenter | Wired.com
 

Whitelight

Active Member
Messages
627
Re: Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

I would block them too :p Especially if their editing things in their favour.
 

Num7

Administrator
Staff
Messages
12,608
Re: Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Information wars on Wikipedia always existed, I knew people who changed articles about prime ministers and such at school. I've read somewhere that even people from the CIA were involved in a similar activity, I think they were blocked to.
 

Jeff

Junior Member
Messages
55
Re: Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

hey man scientologists are cool i went and got my thetan level checked and they said i was doing good but i should join anyways to help make my life better and it really works ok its no joke i dont want no daemons in me
 

CarpeNemo

Junior Member
Messages
77
I've never understood the need to be so pervasive so as to need to change public articles on your organization. Wikipedia has always seemed to me kind of impartial to any particular side but slanting things to change public opinion is just wrong on very many levels.

Glad Wikipedia stuck the waffle iron to their face.
 
Messages
474
If that comment is directed at me, I simply dont understand what you are talking about . Do I like the tone, inflection, whatever, that you have added to it.I have nno idea. If not, I do most sincerely apologize for my assumption.
 

CarpeNemo

Junior Member
Messages
77
Jeez man, you're always assuming a post is aimed at you! :LOL:

No, I was just noting that organizations always seem to slant things in their favour. It was aimed at no particular individual.
 
Messages
474
Shame, I was hoping we might have a healthy debate over something, anything. It is so refreshing to be on here with another person...as I find so few up at this time.Appreciate the clarification.
 

Top