Wikipedia Blocks Church of Scientology

Banta

Wikipedia, the giant online encyclopedia anyone can edit, has decided to block contributions from computers owned by the Church of Scientology, saying that it has changed copy to advance its own agenda.

In one of the longest-running disputes in Wikipedia's history, the Web site's arbitration committee said, "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies." An IP address is a code that identifies a computer's location on the Internet.

The committee said online contributors, using computers apparently owned by the church, were coordinating to change articles about Scientology and advance a single, specific viewpoint.

"You could imply that there is a conflict of interest," said Dan Rosenthal, a media contact for Wikipedia. "Rather than two unrelated people getting together," he said advocates of scientology were "getting together, saying, 'Let's work together to make this a more pro-scientology article.'"

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

As entertaining as it is to see the CoS get pwned, again, this makes me wonder if this is logically justifiable under Wikipedia's purpose and policies. Granted, I'm not familiar with the written down rules of the site, but doesn't this run against the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place?

*goes to read Wikipedia's rules*

Σπεκωσποκ

If they were disrupting the flow of information enough to be a problem, and were editing pages to suit their own purposes, it is no different than if they had vandalized those pages. Good riddance.

ladyobsolete

Ouch. I dunno about this. I do take real issue with CoS but I'm leery of picking and choosing who can speak and who cannot on Wikipedia.

At least, while they were changing content, they might have had to opportunity to be exposed to some contrary views that might pull them out of the CoS echo chamber. Maybe that's just my wishful thinking.

Apreche

The CoS was not blocked because of an anti-Scientology sentiment. It was simply because many members of the church, and many church-owned IP addresses had a very long history of repeated and blatant vandalism. It has been going on for years, and it took them this long to decide to block them. It's not censorship, or any other such evil.

Omnutia

In-case you didn't hear: The Church of Scientology may be banned in France. They were talking about this on SGU.

Geo

The CoS was not blocked because of an anti-Scientology sentiment. It was simply because many members of the church, and many church-owned IP addresses had a very long history of repeated and blatant vandalism. It has been going on for years, and it took them this long to decide to block them. It's not censorship, or any other such evil.

Such is the fate of all internet-savvy extremists of any religion, group, or organization.

Apreche

Such is the fate of all internet-savvy extremists of any religion, group, or organization.

Uh, no? Even if you are a religious extremist, doesn't mean that you will necessarily vandalize. There is nothing stopping someone from posting legitimate information about what their religion believes on the Wikipedia page for their religion. If some priest wants to post the story of some saint what-his-name, that's actually very much encouraged and helpful. He just has to make sure to respect the line between story and historical accuracy.

Kate Monster

Ouch. I dunno about this. I do take real issue with CoS but I'm leery of picking and choosing who can speak and who cannot on Wikipedia.

Why not? Wikipedia is not a government entity. It is a private company/organization and can set any standards it wants. They can pick and choose who contributes. The CoS was working against the organization's interest and shut them down. I am sure they ban other users that act in the same way. If they didn't enforce some standards, Wikipedia would be worthless (not that it is the most reliable source of information to begin with).