Scientology Barred from Editing Wikipedia Entries

[Pangloss]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=7708616&page=1

 

Interesting.

 

Wikipedia disputes about Scientology have gone on since 2005. This recent case began in December and is the fourth one to reach the all-volunteer arbitration committee, which is elected by people who most actively edit Wikipedia articles.

 

I wonder if they'll be able to effectively enforce this.

[iNow]

I read about this a day or two ago. Who knew that wiki had a supreme court!

 

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/

In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.

 

Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately.

 

The eighth most popular site on the web, Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit." Administrators frequently ban individual Wikifiddlers for their individual Wikisins. And the site's UK press officer/resident goth once silenced an entire Utah mountain in a bizarre attempt to protect a sockpuppeting ex-BusinessWeek reporter. But according to multiple administrators speaking with The Reg, the muzzling of Scientology IPs marks the first time Wikipedia has officially barred edits from such a high-profile organization for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the site.

 

 

Interestingly, Scientology is also on trial in France, and could be totally banned:

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8066743.stm

The Church of Scientology has gone on trial in the French capital, Paris, accused of organised fraud.

 

<...>

 

France regards Scientology as a sect, not a religion, and the organisation could be banned if it loses the case.

[Moontanman]

I just don't understand, Scientology is such a logical, reasonable, religion. The entire premise makes so much sense, I mean the entire religion was made up by a 2nd rate science fiction writer. Who could be a better source of religion?

[ydoaPs]

I just don't understand, Scientology is such a logical, reasonable, religion. The entire premise makes so much sense

 

Just like the rest of them. Although, I'm not sure that the religion is the source of conflict. It seems like the source of conflict was the editing behaviour of people associated with said religion.

 

 

 

And let's try to not focus on the religion aspect. We know the rules. If you don't, go read them.

[Moontanman]

ydoaPs sarcasm is lost on you isn't?

[Sisyphus]

This has nothing to do with its status as a religion or the source or credibility of their beliefs, and everything to do with a persistent and scarily organized effort to directly subvert the stated policies of Wikipedia for purposes incompatible with their mission. What's unprecedented is not this type of action, but the scale of it. It's unfortunate that it came to that, but I think they made the right decision.

[ydoaPs]

This has nothing to do with its status as a religion or the source or credibility of their beliefs, and everything to do with a persistent and scarily organized effort to directly subvert the stated policies of Wikipedia for purposes incompatible with their mission.

 

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.