Comments on: Wikipedia Bans Scientologists

By: Silviu

Silviu — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:06:11 +0000

I just pressed “report profile violation” on the youtube channel of scientology… you think they’ll kick me off youtube? It was their fault, really, i got so bored watching the biography of LRH i just starter pressing random buttons on the page :D

By: Casey

Casey — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:56:56 +0000

I think this is really interesting… I agree with Sampi that I’m not entirely sure this is “censorship” in the most common sense of the word, but I can understand why people are uneasy about it.

I think the key is really how severe the problem was – because it’s true that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encylopedia, and one of the ways that they ensure that is by stopping people from putting false information on it (for which I’m sure students writing term papers all over the world are very grateful). I agree with Sheamus that it shouldn’t matter for censorship if we agree with what’s being blocked, but I’d like to think that’s not what’s happening here. I would be more skeptical if it weren’t for the fact that they’ve also been on the lookout for anti-scieontology edits. But I really don’t know enough about the arbitration to say whether the problem was severe enough to warrant the mass banning.

By: Sampi

Sampi — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:01:54 +0000

I agree with a lot that has been said but I also disagree on certain things.
I agree that censorship is censorship but what you don’t understand is that this isn’t censorship. Wikipedia doesn’t allow anyone to put in any article anything they want (despite what most believe); in theory they do because it is a Wiki but they are also an encyclopedia. The edits go through a certain process to account for they verifiability. An editor that constantly and blatantly (without referencing verifiable secondary sources) pushes a certain point of view is banned and his edits are not welcome.
Censorhsip means that Scientologists can’t make a blog, can’t write an article in their own magazine, etc. Ironically, if you look at Wikipedias entry for Censorship you might learn that:
“Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

Also the Wikimedia Foundation didnt “ban” anything, the Spanish, Turkish, Chinese and other Wikipedias didn’t ban Scientology IP addresses. A behavior was spotted where a number of IP addresses belonging to a certain group were all coordinating a blatant edit attack to push a point of view.
I don’t care if all IP addresses in Turkmenistan start pushing a point of view and you have to ban a whole country, Encyclopedias need to be neutral.

Censoring is what China does, Wikipedia followed policy.

Now, you might find interesting that Scientology is censored in Greece. You can debate about that if you want.

By: thejimgaudet

thejimgaudet — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:13:41 +0000

It is there site for sure, but the problem is that they allow users to add content with their moderation. Ooh, right now I am typing over the girl in the chair’s ACE, haha..

By: Jim Gaudet

Jim Gaudet — Sat, 30 May 2009 14:12:00 +0000

@sheamus – I agree, I think Wiki is going to have their hand’s full.

Censorship is censorship, whether we agree with what is being blocked, or not

I totally agree on this one as well. Why should someone need 5 accounts though? That is the problem on the net. It’s like Investment Bankers blowing up their numbers to get the money and get out, you can hire Minions to look like real clients/subscribers whatever..

And, because companies run NAT in the offices it is hard to determine if the 5 accounts from that IP address are all the same person or 5 people from the 60,000 at MS…

By: Nashville Cabling

Nashville Cabling — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:56:02 +0000

I say it should not be a big deal, wiki has the right to say no to any topic its their site. I like the chick in the chair BTW.

By: Sheamus

Sheamus — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:34:48 +0000

It’s been a hot topic on Twitter all day (my link to The Register’s story this morning got about 500 clicks), and while I have no time at all for Scientologists, I think this is a very dubious decision from Wikipedia, supposedly an advocate of net neutrality, and I think they’re going to get a lot of criticism over this. The reaction might work in the favour of the Church of Scientology, unfortunately.

This might sound like a smart move on Wiki’s part, and one can understand the frustration with controlling these kinds of zealots, but think about it. Is it really the way forward? Censorship is censorship, whether we agree with what is being blocked, or not.

When you get down to it, religions are religions. Be interesting to see the response to Wiki banning Catholic or Muslim groups. Scientology is, of course, total nonsense, but it’s one thing to ban troublesome individuals; quite another to mass-block all. And don’t tell me other extreme religious groups aren’t attempting to edit Wikipedia for their own ends – of course they are.

Loads of sites have to deal with users hiding behind proxies and posting via sockpuppets. Wiki is, IMO, making a bit of an excuse there. And as that article shows, Walmart, ExxonMobil and the frickin’ CIA all edited their own Wikis. Were they banned? No. Link: http://bit.ly/10kRwN

There will be enormous pressure to reverse this Wiki move from all supporters of net neutrality, and the irony is it will give Scientology a more even-footing. Major fail for Wiki, IMO. Huge.