Wikipedia has condemned the Church of Scientology's 'battlefield editing tactics'
Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology editors
/v3-uk/news/1952813/wikipedia-bans-church-scientology-editors
30 May 2009, Shaun Nichols , V3
Wikipedia has formally banned the Church of Scientology from accessing and editing its own pages.
A committee of 11 arbiters voted on Thursday to block all IP addresses connected to the church, and ban multiple accounts believed to be used by church members as well as critics of the religion.
"Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo," the committee said in its decision.
The encyclopaedia site will also allow administrators to exercise tighter control over activity on entries involving Scientology.
The decision comes after yet another row over the editing and administration of pages connected to the Church of Scientology and its members. Wikipedia said that this was the fourth time in as many years that an arbitration committee has had to preside over a case involving Scientology.
Among the accusations are that church members and critics were repeatedly altering pages with misleading or poorly sourced information. Users were also believed to be manipulating the site by signing up multiple accounts which were then used solely to edit articles relating to Scientology.
The Wikipedia episode is the latest in what has been an ongoing internet feud between the Church of Scientology and critics who claim that the group is a dangerous cult.
The most notable online feud erupted between the church and a group of activists known as Anonymous who have held real-world protests against the church as well as web-based activities.
The church has also found itself at odds with Google and YouTube over the posting and removal of anti-Scientology sites and videos.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
burn books too...
I think if Wikipedia could, they would burn Scientology books as well.
Posted by Cee, 01 Jun 2009
Good thing too!
Good thing too! I just can't understand Scientology, especially their arrogant attitude. I can't think of a single other 'religion' or cult that would descend to editing Wikipedia pages to reflect their minority view.
Posted by JH, 05 Jun 2009
So who IS editing the articles then?
If the people who know most about Scientology - the Scientologists - are now banned - then how can any article covering Scientology on Wikipedia, be seen to be accurate? Surely if anti-Scientologists - of which there seem to be a few - edit Wiki in such a way as to reflect Scientology innacurately or falsely, then shouldn't Scientology (or any other organisation similarly falsely portrayed), have the right to amend those comments - if that is how innaccurate entries are edited? Surely you cannot expect any organisation to sit by and be effectively slandered without wanting to redress the balance? How can Wiki now generally be seen to be a decent source of information if its arbitrators - who may or may not have agendas themselves - ban the one group who actually know about a subject, from posting correct material on it or removing inaccurate material posted by others? Many religions in the world cannot factually confirm their doctrines - have they all been banned from editing their pages too - or alternatively, are their pages innacurately edited by others? If not, why not? If Scientology is being attacked via Wiki then it is for the arbitrators to manage the situation, not simply ban. As a religion, Scientology has a more free reign to state what its adherants believe or know, more than its opponents - because its opponents are not in a position to know anything about whether a belief is true or not - because it's a belief. If they have something factual to write and can back it up with evidence then by all means let them write - but I think Wiki had demonstrated at the moment that it has hidden agenda's.
Posted by Neil, 24 Jan 2010