Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology 665
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.'"
It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Interesting)
squeeze here, ballon-out there (Score:3, Interesting)
Fighting determined organizations like CO$ is like squeezing a balloon.
If your goal is to make them react, you win. If your goal is to stop them from doing something they are determined to do, good luck with that.
I predict within 3 months the CO$ will have found ways around this ban. The most obvious and probably the most obvious is for each editor to start using dialup internet for CO$ edits, and change IPs or even dial-up area- or city- codes if you have national free long distance. Oops I think I said too much already.
how many more people have to die? (Score:5, Interesting)
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]
Tor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientology and earthlink.net (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:1, Interesting)
How funny would it be if the wiki folk got a restraining order and the CoS encouraged followers to utilize home machines to circumvent the IP ban and abuse the court order.
Under some recent legislative changes that would constitute use of a proxy whilst committing a crime which has increased penalties for 'complexity.'
Re:Why!? (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, I am a christian but I do not go to church or have my name on any memberships of any kind. I spend some time studying the teachings of Christ and try and work out what he meant and how to apply it to modern life.
I read Paul's letters and the old testament as well (yes even all the contraversial parts) and try to understand what I am to learn from this.
How much is literal and applicable to today and how much is not.
I consider things like abortion, gay marriage, other religions etc and try and align that to the teachnigs of Christ - the deeper teachings that it - to try and understand how to assimilate these issues (and others) into my world view and value system.
At no point do I carry banners, march, judge or condescend.
But then I know that I would for things like child abuse - but would I for capital punishment?
And if I would do it for child abuse - then what is driving my value system? In medievil times it is reported that some European kings liked the "company" of young boys - if I was alive at that time would I have protested? What is driving my values now - and how do I know I am right and not just "seasonal"? Which values are ALWAYS right regardless of date and time and who decides this? So when the word "christian" is thrown around with contempt I know that is aimed at the institutionailsed members and radicals but also - I suppose - at anyone who believes in invisible fairies
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fine by me (Score:1, Interesting)
While this may be true, other cults (oh ok "religions", whats the difference) that do the same thing are being described in completely different way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints [wikipedia.org] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper editorial so I think the tone and content of the opening 4 paragraphs I think do need some changes. I am afraid to make them though cause I might get banned from the site.
I hope... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, when the conservatives felt that Wikipedia had too much of a liberal bias, they went and founded Conservapedia [conservapedia.com], so maybe COS could start scientolopedia.com or something?
Re:Why!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:4, Interesting)
See this bit: "our opponents deserve litigation because they intend to suppress us"
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Legally violent? They're not above assassination attempts and framejobs for outsiders and raping and murdering insiders.
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
http://community.atom.com/Post/AntiScientologyInfomercials/03EFBFFFF0182C7B8000800AE87F1/ [atom.com]
Wow, I'm pretty impressed. Almost makes me want to buy one of these shitty towels... almost.
the difference between religion and cult (Score:4, Interesting)
A religion is a large, popular cult.
YMMV
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Jimbo should watch his back; Scientology *DOES NOT* play nice when it doesn't get what it wants.
Simple solution to this. Any religion that says you can ignore the law may do so, but must be subject to it's own proclamations. It seems to me that if their own policies were applied to them, they wouldn't have a right to due process, nor would their "enemies" be bound by the rule of law. Good luck defending yourselves and practicing your religion without the law.
I almost never post anonymously but I need a bunch of religious zealot nutjobs with no moral compass harassing me like I need a terminal disease.
Re:The Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting the joke aside, it's not wrong. Anonymity can apply both to IP addresses and Usernames at the same time, or one at time even.
If you use TOR, you are shielding your public IP address from whatever systems you are connecting to. That is providing you anonymity, in that nobody could identify you or your location based on the IP address. You could still post with your real name.
If you post anonymously, like you can on Slashdot, you are shielding your identity from the other members and the site itself. The site would only have your IP address, but not the name you may have given them otherwise. Slashdot itself could still possibly identify you based on the IP address if they were to attempt to obtain the information from another entity that may know who you are, namely the ISP providing you service.
At it's simplest, anonymity can mean "lacking distinguishing characteristics". As a concept it is not restricted to "names" and in the context of the Internet simply means that you have removed the abilities of other people on the Internet to determine your identity, by either the IP address or a username.
Devious alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
I've wondered if it would be feasible to have a dedicated Wikipedia server that is dedicated to 'banned' accounts. Instead of marking the accounts banned, you just mark them to go to this private dedicated server. That way they continue to make edits not realizing that no one else is seeing them. Even allow them to police themselves.
Re:The Irony (Score:1, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chanology [wikipedia.org]
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Auditing is the process through which they clear "engrams" from the subconscious. It is basically untrained hypnosis, and dangerous. They say it's not hypnosis, but a state of high suggestibility. Same thing to me.
It is through auditing that they become better Scientologists. In this process, however, the brainwash sets in. Eventually, subjects believe that the way of the CoS is the *right* way of doing things. It is a misguided but honorable goal. I've met many Scientologists, many of them are very smart and very capable. My brother in law is hilarious and a great friend. He's not weird by any means. He wants to do it to become a better person. Any attempt to steer him away from it gets shut down rather quickly.
The CoS is full of mostly well-intentioned people that got caught up in a dangerous web of lies (and economic loss). They have been psychologically programmed to do things that we find offensive.
It is very interesting to see the defense mechanisms that church policies have. Almost every rule I've heard of can be easily tied to preventing the Scientologist from realizing the harm he's caused himself: psychiatric treatment (especially medication), the "internal law", keeping "suppressive personalities" away, etc.
My brother in law is quite reasonable in his unreasonableness. He understands we disagree so we hardly touch the subject anymore, and he is open to discussion, but is NOT open to finding a middle ground. Any attempts to do so are seen with skepticism.
He's told me numerous time that the "space opera" that you can read about in Wikipedia is just made up by the press, I wonder what's going to happen when he hits OT3 and they serve it to him on a hot dish of shit.
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
The scale and profound history of criminal behavior of the cult throughout its history and among its top leadership. This is coupled with the cult's dangerous and historically criminal attacks against critics to turn mere "astroturfing" into an affirmation of their fraudulent and criminal behavior.
So, no, the Mormons don't do the same thing. Those differences are what make Scientology a cult: the steps are pretty well described by Steve Hassn, and easily reviewed at his Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan).
Re:The Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't say I care for this method of filtering, since it's inherently unreliable. But my opinion is coloured by a series of experiences years ago when Slashdot routinely and capriciously applied this method of filtering to deal with spammers and script-kiddies. My own posts were blocked as collateral damage. I don't know what
I hope they ban the Boy Scouts of America next (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Makes me wonder if the tongue-eating prostitute he encountered was a CoS set up...
Re:What Science? (Score:1, Interesting)
"Noble precept" is a bit of stretch for Islam, but let's see a list of Scientologist scientists that compares to this one. [wikipedia.org]
Re:the difference between religion and cult (Score:1, Interesting)
A cult is a small, unpopular religion.
A religion is a large, popular cult.
By the strict sociological/anthropological definition, yes, that is true. (Well, sort of: if the small religion broke off a larger religion it's a sect and the correct term for a large religion is church).
But out side of academia, the word cult has a very different meaning. It implies, lieing, brainwashing, abuse, and other illegal activities. Scientology certainly falls in this category. It has violated the majority of the fundamental rights outlined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights [studyoftruth.org]. They have killed (eg [lisamcpherson.org]) and invaded governments (eg [wikipedia.org]). They use what essentially amounts to slavery [xenu.net].
Yes, other major religions have done this in the past. In fact, one notes a pattern to these sort of things: one sees religion participate in these sort of things when it becomes entangled with political or economic interests. The often forgot half of the separation of Church and State is that it protects religion from politics.
Yes, nuts have used other religions as a justification to do ${immoral act} but this is fundamentally different from a church sanctioned and led activity. And these nuts would've found some other justification...
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.nysun.com/national/judges-press-irs-on-church-tax-break/70957/ [nysun.com]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hah! Joke's on them! They try to make sure their members are living in Scientology-owned compoundes and so have no separate residence which makes it harder to leave or be persuaded by others!
Bout time that policy came back and bit them in the ass, eh? Not that they'll stop editing Wikipedia, it'll just be more inconvenient.
Btw, is there going to be a big asterisk at the slogan now? "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone* can edit. *not including the Church of Scientology"
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Interesting)
All those who equate Scientology and Christianity obviously don't interact with many Christians, or if they did, they interacted with the fringe minority.
Perhaps back when Christianity started, it was a fanatical cult. Perhaps there are still a few stragglers. However, the majority of Christians just leave people alone and participate in church-sponsored community activities. Think of it as a support/social network where everyone pretends that they have the same imaginary friend. In fact, I have a friend, an atheist, who attends a church group just to meet people. They all accept him, despite his lack of beliefs.
Now, contrast that with the majority of Scientology literature out there where people have lost all of their money or even their lives to Scientology. Where brutal and underhanded tactics are used to quiet dissenters and acquire new followers. Where even the founder is on record stating that religion is the way to make money.
That is the difference. Perhaps it's not obvious to so many here who suffer from Asperger's syndrome.
The same goes with break-away Mormon sects that still practice polygamy and force underage women into marriage. They're differentiated with the label 'cult' for a reason.
Re:The Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it means they have to use other IP addresses. It's stupid of Wikipedia to think this stops anything.
Like security, this is less about stopping and more about inconvenience. If the abuser has to spend time looking for other points of access, then this is a minor victory.
Re:The Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why!? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually no. The *only* difference between a religion and a cult is prominence/influence and/or state recognition as a 'religion'.
Nonsense.
Religion pushes a person into deep self-reflection, while a cult allows for none.
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Having read the article, the Wikipedia has identified sites that robotically edit the wiki pages to suit the Scientologist's agenda. Yes, of course those people responsible can find proxies and new addresses to edit from. But, if there are 5, 10, or 50 people with multiple accounts who sit all day watching for edits that they don't like, they will become apparent as their bot-like behaviour shifts to new IP's. And, they can be shut down again, and again, ad nauseum.
I don't think the Wikipedia intends to put a ban on all edits that might favor this "church", just to stop the corporate style attack on the pages. If I'm wrong, and they really intend to ban all edits favoring the "church", well - more power to them. It will cost them a lot more than a few banned IP's. They better get some help from Anonymous or 4chan, or someone like them that is willing to sabatoge Scientology machines and networks.
Re:Fine by me (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that humor magazines and TV shows give us the best information these days?
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikimedia might have a stronger court case that Scientology is tresspassing on their servers.
That's what I was thinking too. Doesn't the law in the U.S. read such that attempting to bypass ANY security in place on a computer system, no matter how weak, is a crime? If Wikimedia could show that the same edit pattern was being done by the same computers (or possibly even users, I don't know) by proxying around the blacklist, wouldn't that be proof of an attempt at security circumvention?
Re:So what? (Score:1, Interesting)
Tor only has so many exit-end IPs. Last I used it I think there was less than a dozen.. with numbers that small, it's not hard. Fire up Tor and connect to your own site, ban whichever IPs are recorded as hitting your site.
But the best argument I can make is this: if you could still use Tor to edit wikipedia, the /b/tards would be doing significantly more work on wikipedia than they are now.
Re:freedom of expression (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fine by me (Score:2, Interesting)
While I'm no fan of Scientology, my fact-spotting humanist must interject:
The use of hypnosis and other techniquies aimed at the un/subconcious.
There's plenty of other religions with methods to get people into a state of altered consciousness - whether through repetition or ceremony and physical duress.
Claims a scientific validity (and basis... even so far as claiming to be based on earlier, real, scientists work)
Who don't? Google '[religion] scientifically true' for any value of 'religion'.
An attempt to vilify, ostrecize, and isolate people who leave.
Try to convert from Islam to Baha'i in Saudi-Arabia.
Re:Why!? (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either.
Yes they do. They just don't send in the attack lawyers.
My wife's vicar told her she shouldn't be marrying an atheist, which very nearly ended our relationship, partially because she took him seriously, and partially because I was so angry that she took him seriously.
In retrospect, it would have been a good time to leave.
Re:The New Anonymous (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine what would happen if the Catholic Cult, I mean Church, had their IP addresses block-banned from editing Wikipedia.
Re:Yay (Score:2, Interesting)
The evangelicals already took their ball away and now nobody plays with them [conservapedia.com], however if there was a cult of Christians as dedicated to spreading misinformation [wikipedia.org], they too should be banned (as should a cult of atheists with a similar goal)
Can /. ban their ads? (Score:3, Interesting)
I must admit that I don't know how ads in such large size sites are administrated but it really bugs me that Scientology does excessive advertising on Slashdot, especially front page.
It can be also the scientific terms they picked to trigger ads or plain "lets do propaganda to these nerds".
Does /. (or the parent in fact) have right to reject certain advertisements? It has reached a point that I saw couple of people accused /. to be sponsored by them. Ads of any religion (or anti-religion) in a technical site doesn't really make sense to me at all.
Re:Why!? (Score:2, Interesting)
They don't try to seclude followers from their families, either.
Yes they do. They just don't send in the attack lawyers.
My wife's vicar told her she shouldn't be marrying an atheist, which very nearly ended our relationship, partially because she took him seriously, and partially because I was so angry that she took him seriously.
In retrospect, it would have been a good time to leave.
So... you're saying the vicar had a point?
Re:About Fucking Time (Score:5, Interesting)
They're all made up.
Perhaps, but not all as obviously as scientology. Hubbard didn't start out by saying: "God has revealed himself to me", he started out by saying: "If you want to get really rich, you've got to start your own religion." And then he started a religion. He announced that it was fake, and people still believe it.
Re:So what? (Score:1, Interesting)
That's because for 99.99% of people neutral just means their viewpoint.
This is, of course, the essence of postmodern thought. Reality "does not exist outside of observation", so you change the observation for the better ... which obviously mostly leads to bad decisions that cause disasters in the real world.
Also many arguments are considered non-neutral for reasons of political expediency. Because they offend, no matter how true they are, like the fact that Judaism prescribes stoning women for various crimes. Especially the salient detail that just about the entire world, including nearly all Jews, agrees with ... shall we say ... the modification made to the Jewish faith by that unnameable "J" guy. Jews don't want to admit that they follow this guy in any way, and they certainly don't want to admit they prefer that guy over the contents of the Torah. Same goes for 99% of muslims.
Or the fact that the islamic prophet mohamed killed over 12000 people for religious reasons (well he also stole goods, water and money from them). He also raped a 9-year old girl (sources cite ages from 6 to 11, and one extremely unlikely to be true source states 13). The fact that these murders, paedophilic rape and massacrers are celebrated, not denied, by muslims is another one that you will not find on wikipedia, no matter how true.
But these are just some random examples. On a neutral page, these would be considered relevant facts and reported like the important facts they are (since they are not under dispute, they're merely taboo's. Like the fact that women and men are biologically not eachother's equals and that this brings limitations for both sides, or that human races differ in more than merely their skin color. Some races are faster, stronger, better in the cold or hot, or ... gasp ... smarter).
There's also many ways to put facts. If you were to ask, for example, which religion has caused the most death you could state the truth : that no religion ever matched the death toll the communist state-enforced atheism demanded, although islam comes close. You see what goes wrong ? It "hits much too close to home" for many slashdotters, who fear associations, which may or may not exist, between the ideology of either atheism or socialism, and the death toll that's in the historical record.