Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: Wikipedia, Bans, Church, of, Scientology | Themes: The Internet
The Church of Scientology is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia entries.
In an exclusive this morning, The Register today reports that the anyone-can-edit encyclopedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates. While the banning of one individual is not an uncommon occurrence, admin who spoke to The Reg said the banning of the Church of Scientology’s IP addresses marks the first time Wikipedia has officially barred edits from such a high-profile organization for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the site.
Not everyone is a fan of Wikipedia’s openness and the fact that the site can be edited by every Tom, Dick and Harry means that as a source it’s not the most trusted of websites. That said, Wikipedia tries to make sure only relevant, factual information ends up on the site and apparently, the Church of Scientology weren’t playing fair.
Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests," and the site maintains that whatever their feelings on the subject at hand, neutrality is non-negotiable and all articles must accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to viewpoints in proportion to the weight of those sources.
The Reg reports that according to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running dispute, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities."
Check out the original report here or the Wikipedia entry on the whole sorry story here.
-
Previous News Article
Missing Boy Found on Facebook 27... -
Next News Article
Xbox 360: 30M Sold, Boasts 20M...
Thats awesome. I bet John Travolta logged on to see he was banned and said "Ohhh my gawd!"
Yeah I hear they're perpetuating the myth that Tom Cruise is straight.
B-B-B-Banhammer'd!
There all wacked out of their mind anyway!..
+1 Wikipedia
Woot. Take that, Scilons !!!
Damn, that sci-fi cult can't catch a break these days. France is beating them down too.
For me the final straw was when Chef left South Park.
...the church of scientology wasn't... (not weren't)
Church of scientology worships scientists and money.
Even if they are banned, they could easily edit wikipedia at home, or switch providers.. So it's a dumb move for Wikipedia.
Shouldn't it be every Tom Cruise, Dick and Harry?
@john0857
Actually, I think weren't is correct since the way "Church" is being used refers to a group of people and not a singular body.
Why do these Scientology care anyways what happens on this alien planet. They are waiting for the alien mothership to take to home are they not.
Church of scientology worships scientists and money.
Minus the "scientists" part.
And the banning of Scientology-associated IPs probably does extend to some home users. Read the page to see how they determined who to ban (based more on behavior of certain editors than just if they were posting from a Scientology compound).
Ban the mormons too please
@truth_hurts = ROFLMBO
Honestly, I surprised that it took this long for the scientology ban. This might be some kind of record for them.
Stephen Colbert got banned alot faster than these guys, they must suck.
It sounds like it was completely justified, wikipedia only functions so long as the information is completely neutral. Otherwise anyone can turn it into their own Media propaganda machine. To the guy that said ban the mormons too, why? This isn't about banning religions or groups you don't like. They did it because this group was coordinating with each other to edit information as an organization, so as an organization they were banned.
To the guy that said ban the mormons too, why? This isn't about banning religions or groups you don't like. They did it because this group was coordinating with each other to edit information as an organization, so as an organization they were banned.
For real. This is NOT about banning scientology or in any way discrediting them or ANY other organization. Its simply about trying to keep things neutral, like our own little slice of internet switzerland.
Why do these Scientology care anyways what happens on this alien planet. They are waiting for the alien mothership to take to home are they not.
...most of us non-scientologists are also waiting for that mothership to arrive and get them off this planet
actually the scientology church is really just a bunch of greedy famous people plotting more ways get more money. also as to wiki's "reliability" i dont think this wil ever fix it , online school regularly remind thier students to AVOID this site as refrence since it is a a fairly "open" forum for other people's edits.
For me the final straw was when Chef left South Park.
I though it was because he joined the "Super Adventure Club",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Chef
;-)
by the way, why is a cult allowed to advertise on this website? i thought we had to get rid of all the cults so scientists can finally take control of this giant headless chicken we call humanity.
@techtre2003:
Even though 'Church of Scientology' is referring to a group of people, that group is itself a single entity. Therefore 'wasn't' would be the correct word to use. You would only use 'weren't' if you were referring to 'Churches of Scientology' or simply 'they', since those are plural.
They are fools for thinking they could edit it in their favor and get away with it anyways. Wikipedia keeps backup of the pages and can easily be reverted back.
I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...
Please ban the Mormons too. They are equally freaky and are always going on there and changing stuff to make themselves look wonderful.
not all churches! there is one. you haven't found it yet because you're not searching for it
I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...
Well Wikipedia only bans if the site is abused. All articles are meant to remain neutral. Anyone is free to add or alter a article so long as its the truth and can be backed up with sources. As long as the Churches follow the rules I see no reason for them to be banned.
not all churches! there is one. you haven't found it yet because you're not searching for it
Of course! Everyone knows the Vault Dweller from Vault 13 is the true Messiah!
Why not ban the Churches of Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well? They're all notorious for pushing their own agenda on there.
I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...
That's not how it works, sport. Encyclopedic information can be presented without, say, claiming that any specific religion is true. Historical, biographical, doctrinal issues are described in a secular fashion. It's only when users start to abuse the peer-edited system (vandalism et cetra) that the banhammer starts to swing.
A Catholic priest could edit a Wikipedia entry on St. Jerome: as long as the information is presented in an academic rather than polemic manner, and of course if the information on Jerome checks out, there's no problem. If this priest instead started writing as if Jerome's beliefs were divinely inspired and factually true, then there'd be an issue.
Or maybe you weren't talking about Wikipedia and instead asking why religion isn't banned by society at large. The simple answer is that people generally have freedom of belief and conscience and that to try stamping out all religions by outlawing them would be a blatant violation of their human rights.