Wikipedia to Scientologists: Edit this, suckers

It only goes to show how clueless the Wikipedia folks are. I mean, ban Scientology but not the Moonies? Hare Krishnas? World Wide Church of God? Catholics? And if they ban official Scientology domains, how do they stop the Scientologists who use AOL or Roadrunner? Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it should be implemented. I know what parts of Wikipedia are safe to read. I doubt Iain M. Banks twiddles with his page. But I certainly would not look for information on Wal mart or Tiffanys or Rush Limbaugh there. (Not to mention net-savvy tech writers.)

This is the modern evolution of "No good deed goes unpunished" i.e. "No good [Internet] idea goes unexploited."

More useless posturing. I'm sure (wink wink) that NONE of those wacky scientologists have Internet at their home or office (which would NOT be on the IP Blacklist).

It is hardly new news to pretend that yet another group has proven not to be perfect in offering unbiased information. CofS offering their own point of view? Duh. The rest of the world seeking to "correct" what was written? Duh, ditto, Here's the thing: you either commit, 100%, to a free-for-all in which the most-persist editor(s) of each article are best represented, or you commit to having a point of view and abandoning any pretense of truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way. We have seen earlier versions of the magical beings or groups of beings which knew better than the general populace. None of the earlier illusions survive. Why should Wikipedia? I have zero respect or even acknowledgement of Scientology as anything other than a way for those in charge to make a really good living, so this is not about my support of that group. Not at all. What I find nuts is the belief of those in the WAC that they are in charge of determining the good edits so they can obliterate the bad ones. As is always the case, the simple violations of policy are the easy ones to regulate. The areas which are important and involve passionate people and don't seem so clear, the ones which traipse all over the greater authority of the readership vs the all-knowing haughtiness of any group pretending to know better? That's what raises my hackles: anyone pretending to know enough to prevent me from seeing the battle in progress.

I have to just laugh at the "L.Rons". How anyone with 2 braincells could believe such idiotic things is beyond me. But, more to the point, this whole story reveals just how useless Wiki is. I guess it resonates with the "everything-on-the-internet-is-free" crowd, but its still a horse designed by a committee.

Truth is truth and always wins out. The bad news is that it may not happen in your lifetime and that would be a shame in general and a potential disaster for you. People who BELIEVE what they read in Wikipedia probably voted for Obama because they believed in the CHANGE that he promised them. It's change alright, with Bailouts, Bankruptcy and a Tsunami of inflation on the horizon, but are we any closer to the truth? Nope! I don't see anyone of those capitalist criminals going to prison except Bernie Madoff, and he was just caught for being obvious for too long. _____ All the contention that I have seen between the C of S and various nefarious sources on the internet have come in only three categories. One category is the stolen copyrighted materials. Who can defend those who steal and try to propagate those stolen materials? No one! The second category is items of interpretation. The recent extract of an interview with Tom Cruise, wherein things that he said, taken out of context, seemed ridiculous, for example. Haven't we heard enough of David Lettermen's moronic extractions of George W. Bush's speeches for the last 6 years to realize that context is the only valid container in which to intelligently relay information? Are we all now just a bunch of parroting sound bite idiots, capable of little more than tweets? The third category can only be viewed as bile, that form of spleen, that when directed towards one group is frequently defined legally and prosecuted as a "hate crime". _____ I have read "opinions" from individuals that, when taken out of context, would make one sure that they were capable of going postal at any moment. If I lived next door to one of them I'd want an ATF dog in my yard just for some peace of mind. I cannot know why those revilers, e.g. "anonymous", are filled with so much hate, but I can be very concerned when their vindictive communications are given any weight by anyone and that includes the geeks at Wikipedia. _____ For the record, Robert, I resent the term Geek to designate one skilled in Technology, almost as much as the implication that Ph.D. means one knows anything more than how to find classrooms.

After looking over some hot-button articles at Wikipedia, I have not seen any of the mass-edits or vandalism which is being discussed in this blog entry. Wikipedia entries such as Abortion, Creationism, and Holocaust show little or no evidence of any mass-editing or vandalism of any kind. Maybe the WAC has been active in keeping these entries clean, but no group has been accused or banned for the kinds of vandalism said to have been done by the Church of Scientology.

So I conclude that if these accusations against CoS are true, and their members have engaged in organized and persistent vandalism or mass-editing of Wikipedia pages, then this group has committed a uniquely damaging act, and can legitimately be banned.

If on the other hand, other groups, such as holocaust deniers, pro-lifers, or Moonies and Krishnas have engaged in the same type and level of persistent acts of vandalism or mass-editing, then those groups would also be eligible for banning.

The criteria should be consistently applied, and should relate to the amount of time required to clean up vandalized entries. And I am sure the Wikipedia Terms of Service spell out in great detail what is and is not acceptable when editing entries. CoS must have violated the TOS massively to become the only group I can recall being banned from Wikipedia altogether.

(BTW, if people who leave Comments here could please use HTML tags to separate their paragraphs, not just multiple dashes or underlines, the Comments would be much more readable. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, folks.)

Wikipedia has done the sanest thing in barring those who have nothing to do with science - for that matter anything that is in normal parlance.

After all, wikipedia is for ordinary folks like me and Cringely, not for those obscenely rich. They can make a parallel encyclopedia exclusively for themselves and their beliefs.

S.K

eBay built an industry partly based on user feedback. Why hasn't Wikipedia incorporated a system that exposes all authors in a simple contributor log section along with a veracity rating system? How about color coding the text after you've selected a contributor to quickly spot bias or brilliance? They need dunce caps and troll icons...

@Loerps - "...not so fast my friend..." Your nitpick is opinion NOT fact, and you reinforce it by framing your opposition. It is an excellent tactic, but still opinion. If you will call those you oppose by the name they choose then perhaps you will understand that they are attempting to balance harms, not kill. Perhaps you live in a world of black & white, mine is color with many shades (of gray too). @tcapun - define truth (or should we look it up on wikipedia?). Truth doesn't win out, the strongest opinion does. That is not to say that nothing is ever fully known. Facts do get out, as they seem to be dribbling out from the last US administration. You may want to wait a bit before judging the success or failure of the current administration. (Or to be more precise - you may not want to wait but more logical thinkers will.) I've digressed enough. In my opinion, the WAC is in "charge" of Wikipedia and therefore responsible to exercise some control. Banning seems extreme, and at the same time of limited effectiveness. But just because a good idea will only have some positive effects, it should still be pursued. Let's be clear here, just about everything we know is subject to subjectivity with the possible exception of MATH, and perhaps our MOST recent observations. Look what 60 plus years can do for accurately recorded historical fact - ie: the Holocaust.

This is really a nice post, you share good piece of information. In case you might need a paper writing regarding and/or related to this topic, you may follow the link for help.