Church of Scientology Banned From Wikipedia
Posted 05/31/09 at 02:45:32 PM by Justin Kerr
Comments
Print
Email
In an unprecedented attempt to maintain some form of creditability, the Wikipedia arbitration committee has unanimously voted to crack down on the Church of Scientology by banning all IP address assigned to the organization and its associates. The conclusion of this case marks the longest running dispute proceedings in the websites history, and the full ban goes into effect immediately. The ruling also represents the single largest ban handed down by the encyclopedia monolith, an accomplishment that I doubt the Church will be adding to their entry any time soon.
The accusations made by the Wikipedia board include several counts of failing to maintain impartiality, and using the service to promote its own personal agenda. Multiple editors from the same IP range were logged in and were accused of coordinating their efforts to force through changes. This type of behavior is clearly prohibited in the terms of service, and also prevents people from using the wiki to publish original research that cannot be properly supported.
During the dispute, it was argued by the Church that those editing from Scientology IPs were acting without direction from the Church itself, however, a former member of the Scientology Office of Special Affairs suggests otherwise. "The guys I worked with posted every day all day," Tory Christman tells The Reg. "It was like a machine. I worked with someone who used five separate computers, five separate anonymous identities...to refute any facts from the internet about the Church of Scientology."
So did Wikipedia handle this properly, and more importantly, do you still trust their neutrality.
just the facts, ma'am
Submitted by mdkplus on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 8:13am
"It was like a machine. I worked with someone who used five separate
computers, five separate anonymous identities...to refute any facts
from the internet about the Church of Scientology."Huh? Refute any facts? So we are right... CoS is a bunch of whackos, but they are trying to get us to believe otherwise?
BURN THE WITCH!
Submitted by Zeroblizzard on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 7:14pm
Eh, CoS can suck it. I never thought anything could be more crazy than being Catholic until I looked at the Church of Scientology (who the fuck comes up with that name in the first place? It evens sounds fake/shady.).
Submitted by compro01 on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 8:16pm
You vandelize (and self-promoting lies qualify) wikipedia repeatedly, you get blocked. It's the same regardless of whether you're a COS member, a senator, or some random.
Submitted by worm8199 on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 8:42am
I don't see it as censorship as they were obviously not abiding by the terms of service. And to claim ignorance doesn't work either. Everyone has to agree to the TOS when they sign up for an account. Just because they didn't actually read it (I mean who really does?) doesn't mean they weren't made aware of it.
If you break the rules, you will be banned. End of discussion.
Submitted by popstop785 on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 8:12am
CoS... a group for anyone who lacks common sense. I'm glad wiki did what they did.
Does that mean...
Submitted by Havok on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 4:02am
They're Apple users?!
OMGWTFBBQ
Scientology
Submitted by scabbynacker on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 6:14am
The Church of Scientology is a total scam that has ruined many lives. It's the only "religion" with tax exempt status that I know of which requires you to pay to get the full story of this supposed religion. It was also founded by a science fiction author who once said something like "there's a lot of money in religion."
Scientologists are gullible and sad. The fact that they have to resort to these tactics just shows how insecure they are.
Submitted by Mighty BOB! on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 11:38pm
CoS can suck it.
Submitted by sirxamoc on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 10:25pm
Though I have not nor had a desire to know more than the common definition of what Ron L Hubbard founded, I cannot but be ammused at the hypocrisy that Wikipedia allows.
Was it not just a few mere months ago that during the election that fierce guardians were protecting the candidate who is now President Obama. To the point that his minions savaged anyone who wrote anything deemed unworthy of his stature. Now, we have a Internet Czar.
Be very careful of the slope that you allow others to build because one day you yourself may not be able to stand on and slip into the abyss. There really was a reason for founding fathers to write the first ammendment and the I fear the internet is going to be the final victim before that ammendment is discarded for some moronic excuse.
become part of the answer, stop being the problem
Submitted by jihnn on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 5:17am
just for the record "i like obama i think he is doing as much as any person can do to fix our problems"
this is the wrong forum to push your agenda..... you should go to the orily site for fools ... lol
i jest, being political is a sickness i could say the far right has caused all our problems, the american mainstream took notice, then we told you, that we just thought your were fricken nuts and gave you a sound spanking.
your views just are not valid so get over it, you and your ideas about the country and how it should be ran are just ridiculus
however, i take my pills so i just think those toughts.
did i mention YOU LOST NANANAN HAHAH LOL ROFL
pills pills gotta get my pills
First Amendment Fail
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 1:39pm
Yet another person that doesn't understand the First Amendment - and shockingly enough also one that seems to believe that Obama is part of some left-wing conspiracy. The First Amendment doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the private contract you enter into as a member of the Wikipedia community. Its purpose is to protect the citizen against censorship from the GOVERNMENT, not private parties. Wikipedia not equal government. They are NOT under any legal obligation to let you say anything. Legally speaking, they don't have to be fair or reasonable about how they monitor speech. Hell, if they want to make it so the only thing you can say without getting banned is "Long live Obama" then they have the legal right to do so - and that's in accordance with the law just as the Founding Fathers wrote it (sidenote: you complain about Obama being accorded deity status, and yet the writing of men centuries old is like word from God to you? Hypocrisy, art thou here?).
From Wikipedia: "The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action."
Of course, since Wikipedia is terribly unfair, against the freedom of speech, and basically evil incarnate, we can't believe what they say, right?
Liberal Hippy Fail
Submitted by XSV DBLs on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 7:02pm
This is the internet, it isn't owned by one person, company, trust, or country. Therefore, the laws and constitution of the United States DO NOT APPLY in the same way on the internet as they do on US territory. No one country has jurisdiction over the internet. So don't go spewing your liberal tree-hugging hippy psycho-babble bullshit until you understand that the internet isn't exactly fair and doesn't abide the laws of the US. Think of it as the wild west, like it or leave it.
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 4:45pm
Wikipedia is not the same thing as the Internet. Wikipedia is a private entity - that is why you enter into private contract (terms of service) when you sign up. The Internet as a whole is totally different. In fact, that total freedom is why someone could create an anti-Wikipedia and support whatever their agenda may be.
So the laws and Constitution of the US don't apply to the Internet as a whole? Well, first of all, like I already said, I wasn't talking about the entire Internet, but... That would imply the First Amendment doesn't exist in any form, and therefore there is ZERO implied freedom of speech. Good job proving my point. ;)
Liberal? I neither favored nor supported any inherently liberal policies in that post, nor did I support Obama in any sense other than to suggest that he might not actually be part of a conspiracy (saying that is in no way the same thing as supporting him). Tree-hugging? Since when did I express any environmentalist views? We're not talking about the trees here. Pyscho-babble? Nope, no psychology there either.
The Internet isn't exactly fair? THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. You make the site, you make the rules.
Try posing a real argument next time you go chucking around political innuendos.
Submitted by KaylaKaze on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 2:25am
"Was it not just a few mere months ago that during the election that
fierce guardians were protecting the candidate who is now President
Obama. To the point that his minions savaged anyone who wrote anything
deemed unworthy of his stature."No. No, it wasn't.
Playing the race card and
Submitted by dag1992 on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 7:16am
Playing the race card and suggesting an all out conspiracy are two different things.
Submitted by chaff5150 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 9:24pm
Well hmmm.... all I know and it isn't much is that... people are impressionable... and those that can't seem to think for themselves or are lost in their own little worlds are just the type of people COS want. Is it brainwashing... "No" but there are some wierd excercises that scared me....
"do birds fly" ... ummm... yea
Thetan: FAIL
Submitted by n0ctis on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 8:46pm
Thetan: FAIL
Submitted by foamcup on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 6:46pm
Fucking wackos.
Submitted by mikemckay on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 6:31pm
I dont know a lot about the rankings and structure etc in the CoS but has anyone here thought that maybe this was some douchy low ranking people doing this stuff to make their church look better without the knowledge of the higher ranking superaliens?
And just MAYBE there were bad bad people (Obviously not CoS..) breaking into that CoS network and doing these things online with their IP addresses without their knowledge....Then it would be Wikipedia PROTECTING CoS' reputation and integrity by enforcing the same IP smackdown rule.
But it probably wasnt.
So F*** em
Submitted by bruce805 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 4:30pm
I am a regular reader of Maxium PC, I am a Scientologist, and I am sure that It was not communicated to the staff about the rules of use on Wiki. Scientology is a large church with thousands of staff members at different locations and I am sure not all staff are hatted
or trained in the rules of use! I am sure some executive that approve the use of this will find themself in ethics (The churchs justice)
So my question is how long is the ban? Is there a way to make amends?
Bruce Ward
PS I think this Church is the most important movement on the the planet right now! A cult? LOL! Hardly!!!!!
Submitted by Zeroblizzard on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 7:15pm
Lol. You're part of a cult. Prepare to be slandered.
The most important movement
Submitted by Tekzel on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 4:45am
The most important movement right now? Are you sick? And yes, a cult. A stupid, ridiculous cult. Full of stupid, ridiculous people. I am amazed that you actually admit membership, if I were I would keep that little gem all bottled up. Only crazies join the CoS.
Unless they are all
Submitted by Caboose on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:21am
Unless they are all wearing hats, I doubt they're all HATTED, but I guarentee you that anyone that has had anything to do with this so called church, HATES them. Learn how to spell please, it's the first step to be taken seriously... However, by stating you are a member of this cult, your cred has dropped to near zero!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
Submitted by SpellingNazi on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:12am
It's guarantee, not guarentee.
Learn how to spell please, it's the first step to be taken seriously...
Submitted by grayscare0 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 6:17pm
What a joke. Not communicated to the staff? Whenever you join Wikipedia or any other community, you agree to the terms of service. There simply is no excuse. Should I be able to drive 25 MPH above the speed limit and risk the safety of others because I wasn't informed of the law? No, it's common sense.
While I consider the CoS to
Submitted by Cache on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 4:14pm
While I consider the CoS to be a genius money-making organization, their members consistently broke the terms of service. These members had their chances, and will certainly find ways around the ban to still make changes.
Submitted by einstein1971 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 2:28pm
I think the point here is that a website that claims to be run by the "community" has officially decided that they do not like what one group of people have to say so they are therefore silencing those voices. Stop and think about that for a moment.
Submitted by domih2009 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 2:44pm
"...that they do not like what one group of people..."
I understand your point and we (I hope) are all glad that you can express it
freely but I do not think that it is a case of extreme censure nor a
case of discrimination against a group of people.We are not talking about a group of people here, we are talking about what is considered a corporation and a cult in many places, but not in the US yet.
The methods of this corporation are harassement, legal threats and so on each time someone says something they considered bad about them.
In addition, you can still read about the CoS on Wikipedia. The ban is only about the CoS IPs which is justified because they did not respect the rules of wikipedia.
I have no trouble to see a community excluding people who violate the rules of the community as long as the community is not led by an individual dictatorship. I do not think wikipedia is led by an individual dictatorship.
Submitted by Zefir on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 2:34pm
But that group still has to abide by the rules set for the community, and they don't. There are set rules for editing Wikipedia and breaking them has always resulted in a ban. The only way to stop this was to ban the entire group.
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 2:51pm
Yep. I think if anyone's missing the point, it's the modestly named Einstein. Allowing everyone equal chance to speak is important, but that's not the issue here. Just like you said, you have to follow the rules as stated by Wikipedia. Fact is, we are all bent of shape about protecting Scientology's right to spill bile. We think it's cool to be part of a self-righteous crusade to allow unpopular opinions their time in the limelight no matter what unethical lengths they'll go to promote their own views. This isn't about targetting the scientologists just because they are scientologists. This is about singling them out because THEY BROKE THE FUCKING RULES. It's not hard. You break the rules, you get banned. Simple.
Wow, this was like days old
Submitted by D.E. on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 1:03pm
Wow, this was like days old news guys and you guys are featuring it now? Btw, did you hear that recently, scientists have cloned sheep! Might want to run that story while digging stuff up.
Submitted by jwalch.hawk on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 2:09pm
According to the source material, this was officially passed down on Friday... All of two days ago. Add in the fact that MaxPC doesn't run much in the way of news on weekends (five stories since Friday evening by my RSS) and that this isn't exactly an earth-shattering piece of news (vaguely interesting, but not all that significant so far as I'm concerned) and the *slight* delay is totally understandable. Methinks you were just looking for something to complain about. I'd have rather seen some grammar Nazi whine about the author's inability to use a question mark when ending an article with a question, to be honest.
To answer that question... Yes, I still trust Wikipedia and their neutrality. It's perfectly within the spirit of neutrality to take action against those violating your policies, so long as you would take the same action regardless of who was doing it (and we have no reason to assume otherwise in this case). Kinda similar to the idea of armed neutrality in international politics.
Submitted by domih2009 on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 12:52pm
There is no science nor logos in the CoS.
While the CoS assimilates shrinks to Nazis, their most famous sales guy (see picture above) clearly needs to address his bipolar disorder.
Send the CoS back into the volcano.
Submitted by Digital-Storm on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 4:22pm
So you seem like your against science.
Submitted by n0ctis on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 8:45pm
In the future, please learn the proper usage of your and you're. One is a single word, the other a contraction of you and are. You and the their|they're|there people drive me nuts.
Submitted by scholarwarrior on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 6:03pm
If you actually read the post, he is criticizing COS for not being scientific, therefore clearly not against science.
The COS, styling itself as a superior alternative to psychology, is hopelessly ignorant here. They call psych a 'pseudo-science' which is a gross oversimplification. There are dozens of scholarly journals, thousands of published scientific studies about the many branches of psychology. Scientology is completely secretive about how its own process 'works.' If they are scientific, they can publish studies of what they do, showing its supposed effectiveness and opening it up to scrutiny by others. This is a requirement of any science.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.