Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Posted by timothy on Thursday May 28, @09:49PM
from the there's-no-pleasing-some-people dept.
El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"
internet media xenu news media story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Church of Scientology On Trial In France 880 comments
An anonymous reader sends word that a trial has opened in Paris that could shut down Scientology in France. The organization stands accused of targeting vulnerable people for commercial gain. Scientology does not have the status of a religion there, as it does in the US, and anti-cult groups have pursued it vigorously over more than 30 years. The current case is based on complaints filed by two women in December 1998 and July 1999. Three other former members who had initially joined the complaint have withdrawn after "reaching a financial arrangement with church officials." If convicted, the seven top Scientologists in France face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of €1M. The Church of Scientology-Celebrity Centre and its Scientology Freedom Space bookshop not only face a much larger fine but also run the risk of being shut down completely.
[+] CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree 563 comments
We mentioned on Thursday that Wikipedia has banned edits originating from certain IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology; reader newtley writes now that Scientology leader (CEO and Chairman of the Board of the linked, but legally separate, Religious Technology Center) David Miscavige calls the ban "a 'despicable hate crime,' and asks, 'What's next, will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?' During World War II, Hitler forced Jewish men, women and children to wear a a yellow cloth star bearing the word Jude to brand them in the streets of Europe, and in the Nazi death camps."
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The Irony (Score:5, Funny)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Thursday May 28, @09:49PM (#28133507)

    Does this mean that Scientology now has to do their edits Anonymously?

  • Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappa86 (1288842) on Thursday May 28, @09:54PM (#28133555)
    It still is the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit," nothing has changed. You miss the point of "free" and "open" it doesnt mean that everything one puts will stay there. People make mistakes, people distort the truth, and people Lie. Others, have to correct these errors. If one person "cries wolf" a lot, you're simply not going to listen to them. This is all that it is. If someone had a history of not telling the truth, why would you trust them?
    • Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lindseyp (988332) on Thursday May 28, @10:03PM (#28133635)

      No, but all this does is cracks down on "official" astroturfing. We all know that xenu's followers will simply do their edits from home, from now on.

      This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.

      • Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kjella (173770) on Thursday May 28, @10:22PM (#28133753) Homepage

        This sort of thing cannot be contained if the information is publically editable. I just hope this doesn't mark the beginning of the end for Wikipedia.

        If this was the end, wikipedia has had the fat lady singing since the beginning. There's way too much useful information nobody bothers getting into an edit war about to be killed off by these sorts of things. If I didn't read about them on slashdot, I'd barely know they were there but I guess that's because I already know where to expect them.

  • About Fucking Time (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28, @09:55PM (#28133573)

    The Church of Scientology has a long history of censorship and general Internet fuckery.

    http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html [factnet.org]

    Two things:

    1. Wikipedia should never lift the ban.
    2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.

    • by Mike Buddha (10734) on Thursday May 28, @10:27PM (#28133803)

      Yeah, look what they did to that Shamwow dude.

    • by dgcaste (1230640) on Thursday May 28, @10:30PM (#28133829)
      No it doesn't.

      My brother in law is a practicing Scientologist, and he works at the "Church" in San Diego.

      He's explained to me time and time again that the church's position is "if you're not with us, you're against us", and that they defend their territory without impunity. Even perceived threats are great game.

      When I ask him, "how can you trust an institution that is so legally violent? if it wanted to be judged by its merits, it shouldn't be litigating the hell out of everyone that stands in its way!", he responds "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us". It is quite frustrating to have these conversations with him.

      Even more interestingly is that inter-church issues are not taken to court, in fact, to take an internal quarrel to court is grounds from a church ban. They have their own "ethics committees" that see such cases, but they generally follow their own laws and not those of the locale they're in.

      So I asked him, "if it's a matter of a constitutional issue, why wouldn't you take it up to the Supreme Court?" and his reply is "we don't trust or expect the legal system to understand how we do things."

      I'm quite sure he didn't see the double standard in his views - litigation is good, when it's convenient for the church to litigate.
  • Why!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nrbelex (917694) on Thursday May 28, @09:56PM (#28133579) Homepage
    Hmmm... but according to my research [wikipedia.org], it's just a harmless religion based on love and understanding of others. Why would Wikipedia ban such a group?
      • Re:Why!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xtravar (725372) on Thursday May 28, @10:32PM (#28133843) Homepage Journal

        You know, it's all fine and nice to be anti-religion, but I am so sick of people involving Christianity whenever Scientology comes up. There is a difference between religion and cult, despite trying to lump them together for your own jollies, and this is coming from an atheist.

  • by linzeal (197905) on Thursday May 28, @09:57PM (#28133589) Homepage Journal
    CoS has abused Wikipedia since almost its inception and have been a thorn in the side of the moderators for dozens of articles, but this is not going to stop them until you get a coourt to prohibit them from using the site. CoS specializes in umbrella fpr tax shelters and all sort of even more nefarious things and I bet right now they have a fresh batch of IP address just waiting for this story to die down so they can continue to suppress knowledge by outright censorship and the promulgation from the top to continue their intelligence operations based on their own special brand of disnfo, w extra crazy sauce, threats of lawsuits and calls to physical violence.
  • xenu (Score:5, Funny)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Thursday May 28, @10:01PM (#28133623)
    watch your back jimbo, interplanitary DC9's coming your way
  • by MacColossus (932054) on Thursday May 28, @10:05PM (#28133645) Journal
    Their Thetans made them do it. :-)
  • no criminal organization should be allowed to hide under the thin veil of religion

    if they offer therapy to people for a fee they need to adhere to state guidelines and laws concerning licencing.

    "1 Scientology has attempted to operate its Narconon drug
    "therapy" program outside of required State licensing or
    inspection on a leased "independently sovereign" Indian
    reservation outside of Newkirk Oaklahoma. Just this month, after
    extensive and costly litigation the state goverment of Oaklahoma
    ordered this facility closed."

    http://skull.piratehaven.org/~atman/factnet/scnbond2.txt [piratehaven.org]

    Its amazing how many people have ended up 6-feet under after becoming a member of scientology:

    http://www.badcult.info/watd/ [badcult.info]

  • Good :) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Christmas (1294060) on Thursday May 28, @10:11PM (#28133687)

    They were just way too pushy. OMG and I don't even know how they call themselves a church. I'm Catholic and we just go about our own business and don't try to convert anyone or make people believe what we believe.

  • by acb (2797) on Thursday May 28, @10:13PM (#28133699) Homepage

    Didn't the Church of Scientology own (a big stake in) earthlink.net some years ago? Is this still the case? If so, does this mean that this ISP's users will be banned from editing Wikipedia?

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday May 28, @10:29PM (#28133819)

    Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia many people can edit!

  • What Science? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28, @10:33PM (#28133859)

    Scientology is to science what Al Qaeda is to Islam, total fucktards having hijacked a noble precept.

  • Operation Clambake (Score:5, Informative)

    by bryan1945 (301828) on Thursday May 28, @10:38PM (#28133901) Journal

    For more really really fun and interesting info, go to Operation Clambake. Before you freak about the URL, the URL is real, and so is the guy (Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs this out of Norway, which is why Scientology has not gotten any legal traction against him yet). I recommend a read, for what little that's worth.

    http://www.xenu.net/ [xenu.net]