Church of Scientology banned at Wikipedia

[Rastalovich]

Source

Wiki is a great source of information, and it's been said by many that understand the way it works that u do have to take everything on it with an educated lean cos - well u don't necessarily need to put correct information on it to be right.

Banning the Scientologists tho ? Or banning any1 imo - it's a bad step banning in general imo, what I'd rather is to be more +ve in a way to combat the issues they may have.

I like Scientologists myself. Not because I believe in what they believe or do, but out of all the crazy churches and followings in this messed up world, they have a whole load of style about them. Taken too literally imo with the things they say/do, I can personally see past alot of that, but I can see what they're doing by saying/doing certain things. - alas u gotta think about it.

Bannage = the bad. Debate/counter argument = the good.

Is there another reason for it tho ?!?!

hehe

 

[zak4994]

They did the same with my school...

 

[I Hunta x]

short anser scientologists = bad *dons the V mask hung on my wall*

 

[Jeddy]

I dont believe that anyone's views, no matter how bizarre (there are some exceptions), should be censored. It is wrong. People have the human right to freedom of speech and conscience for a reason.

Scientology is barmy and disturbing, so is the theory to do with the illuminati. But these views should be allowed to be held and not censored.

Censorship only goes one way, once you pop you just can't stop, and that is the truth.

 

[zak4994]

But don't forget, Wikipedia has actual owners who have the rights. If it wasn't for them then we wouldn't have it. Just be grateful that they didn't stop most people on the world from being able to edit...

 

[Youngie1337]

But don't forget, Wikipedia has actual owners who have the rights. If it wasn't for them then we wouldn't have it. Just be grateful that they didn't stop most people on the world from being able to edit...

It's not that Zak, it's the fact they ban one thing. That's like we discussed in the other thread, you classed Polish cheaters racist? This is the same since they're censoring one type of religion/belief. Not fair and Muslims/Indians/Christians/Jews have their views, but what if the law was to state that no Muslim religion was to be allowed. Not fair and it would hurt alot.

 

[Rastalovich]

It's a crazy situation that the internet evolves into these days. Organizations being banned from entering sites, countries banning sites from being viewed, services that were once free appearing to not be so free, restrictions being tightened, forms of drm.

It's not the internet as I would have envisioned it years ago.

Private club or not, their arena is public, I would kick up a fuss if they banned a muslim sect or even nazi idealists. Things just don't go away and often come to a head in some fashion or another.

Besides, banning IPs and registered names aye - hmm, that's just a token really isn't it ?

 

[sammytomjohn]

at the end of it all! it is governments f'in us all the time they are greedy

they want's the precious for themselves and they wants to take its away from us

id give it another 10 years and we might see 80%-90% of the web privatised

torrents and any other type of downloads will be history

i mean by then you might even have to pay to download the latest drivers for your hardware

just like the tom-tom's etc..

its all to do with makin the internet a safer place and putting more money in fat cats wallets

 

[Rastalovich]

Downloads were around b4 the internet m8

 

[Youngie1337]

Downloads were around b4 the internet m8

I remember my brother telling me how he used to copy all his games and share them around with his mates, it was as simple as recording or something. He and his mates used to code some nooby games also LOL. Don't have any idea how this was in them days, but I'm sure it rocked lol.

 

[Pseudonym]

Truthfully, I don't see the problem with this and I pretty much agree with everything John Stuart Mills said in On Liberty. (No censorship, no banning or any fire arms, drugs, poisons etc, just good records of who has what. If they use it for illegal purposes, then the full weight of the law comes down).

They aren't banned because Wiki don't like their cult, but because they keep causing trouble and extra work for the mods and editors. Scientology is known for it's hard line stance against anything anti-them. I mean the whole country of Qatar was been banned from editing because one guy was a **** and they had a very narrow IP range. People at every scientology IP have caused trouble, so every IP is banned. They abuse the privilege, they lose the privilege.

EDIT: I have a copy of an old floppy disk based game. The DRM on it is brilliant. The manual has loads of pics of very similar looking people. So similar, you need a very good colour copy of it to be able to answer the pre install checks. IE: What is the name of the girl with blonde hair, light green eyes and a white hair band.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4

 

[Youngie1337]

Truthfully, I don't see the problem with this and I pretty much agree with everything John Stuart Mills said in On Liberty. (No censorship, no banning or any fire arms, drugs, poisons etc, just good records of who has what. If they use it for illegal purposes, then the full weight of the law comes down).

They aren't banned because Wiki don't like their cult, but because they keep causing trouble and extra work for the mods and editors. Scientology is known for it's hard line stance against anything anti-them. I mean the whole country of Qatar was been banned from editing because one guy was a **** and they had a very narrow IP range. People at every scientology IP have caused trouble, so every IP is banned. They abuse the privilege, they lose the privilege.

EDIT: I have a copy of an old floppy disk based game. The DRM on it is brilliant. The manual has loads of pics of very similar looking people. So similar, you need a very good colour copy of it to be able to answer the pre install checks. IE: What is the name of the girl with blonde hair, light green eyes and a white hair band.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4

OH MY, I just watched it all...

So funny LOL. DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

 

[TopSecret]

They aren't banned because Wiki don't like their cult, but because they keep causing trouble and extra work for the mods and editors. Scientology is known for it's hard line stance against anything anti-them. I mean the whole country of Qatar was been banned from editing because one guy was a **** and they had a very narrow IP range. People at every scientology IP have caused trouble, so every IP is banned. They abuse the privilege, they lose the privilege.

I agree. The scientologists were using wiki to promote their cause, and that is not what wiki is about. They also tried to discredit other opinions on wiki and generally abusing the service available to them. It was the right thing to do, and I would say the same of any denomination who were using wiki for their own gain or to try and discredit others.

 

[Youngie1337]

I agree. The scientologists were using wiki to promote their cause, and that is not what wiki is about. They also tried to discredit other opinions on wiki and generally abusing the service available to them. It was the right thing to do, and I would say the same of any denomination who were using wiki for their own gain or to try and discredit others.

But would they ban a religion from Wikipedia? Say for example Christians or Muslims, what if they did the same that has happened. Would anything be said and open to the public? I don't think so.

 

[Pseudonym]

Tey would ban any IPs that abuse the system. If every IP that belonged to a particular denomination of Christianity decided to act this way, I'm sure they would get the same treatment.

Also, as Wiki is an American company, $cientology is counted as a real religion, so yes they would ban a religion from wiki.

 

[Youngie1337]

Tey would ban any IPs that abuse the system. If every IP that belonged to a particular denomination of Christianity decided to act this way, I'm sure they would get the same treatment.

Also, as Wiki is an American company, $cientology is counted as a real religion, so yes they would ban a religion from wiki.

You actually think that would happen? Wiki would get sued, people do not care if it's their website. That's classed as discrimination. They need to find the terrorist sites and ban these, take them offline what ever. This is silly and yes they did wrong but so is the way some religions do things. I can guarantee if Wiki was to ban every IP that muslims used and remove information it would be a big problem to the US and UK.

We would most likely have another war.

I know people don't agree with certain people on topics like this but think about it. You can't get away with anything without being called a racist lol.

 

[TopSecret]

But would they ban a religion from Wikipedia? Say for example Christians or Muslims, what if they did the same that has happened. Would anything be said and open to the public? I don't think so.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not about their religion, it's about the Scientologists abusing wiki to further their cause. They have tried to manipulate the information contained within wiki to suit their purposes, and they have also tried to discredit other people and their opinions in quite a forceful and aggressive manner. This is what lead to the ban, it had nothing to do with their choice of religion. It was about how they were using wiki.

Here's an example. Say for instance I wanted a bit of free advertising for my business. I own an IT sales & support company. So I decide to hit on every page that has relevance to my business activities. I keep creating content which is biased to my company. I also try to discredit my competitors. Now would you say this is fair in the spirit of wiki, or would you cry foul? I know which I would think, and that's why I haven't done it!

You also seem to think that every Scientologist in the world has been banned. That isn't the case and could never practically be. It was the IP range that is used by the Scientologists as an organisation and those IP addresses from where the misuse of wiki was originating from. Individuals who are Scientologists, and who have not abused the wiki authoring features should still have open access to these features.

 

[djw746]

You actually think that would happen? Wiki would get sued, people do not care if it's their website. That's classed as discrimination. They need to find the terrorist sites and ban these, take them offline what ever. This is silly and yes they did wrong but so is the way some religions do things. I can guarantee if Wiki was to ban every IP that muslims used and remove information it would be a big problem to the US and UK.

We would most likely have another war.

I know people don't agree with certain people on topics like this but think about it. You can't get away with anything without being called a racist lol.

They might get sued, but they have every right to say who is and is not allowed to edit (wiki wins a suit). If someone is editing too much and is not benefiting wiki then they can prevent that computer from editing. There is no way to know what religion/sex/race/age... that someone is by their IP so stopping can't be an "-ist" (that and being "-ist" is not illegal for a private institution as long as you don't announce no more ______)

btw, i didn't see in the article if these banned IPs are banned from all editing or just editing that page... makes a difference (to me at least)

 

[Youngie1337]

You seem to be missing the point. It's not about their religion, it's about the Scientologists abusing wiki to further their cause. They have tried to manipulate the information contained within wiki to suit their purposes, and they have also tried to discredit other people and their opinions in quite a forceful and aggressive manner. This is what lead to the ban, it had nothing to do with their choice of religion. It was about how they were using wiki.

Here's an example. Say for instance I wanted a bit of free advertising for my business. I own an IT sales & support company. So I decide to hit on every page that has relevance to my business activities. I keep creating content which is biased to my company. I also try to discredit my competitors. Now would you say this is fair in the spirit of wiki, or would you cry foul? I know which I would think, and that's why I haven't done it!

You also seem to think that every Scientologist in the world has been banned. That isn't the case and could never practically be. It was the IP range that is used by the Scientologists as an organisation and those IP addresses from where the misuse of wiki was originating from. Individuals who are Scientologists, and who have not abused the wiki authoring features should still have open access to these features.

I understand that Stuart BUT like I said this type of 'religion' as people call it has done naughty things but if this happened to a different religion would the same happen to them? This religion doesn't seem very wide spread, I have only heard of it once or twice. I don't know how to say it LOL, hope you can understand my lingo..

 

[Rastalovich]

I'd prefer to see a side be able to attempt to discredit an opinion, then to see those with the original opinion prove their point further.

Thing here that is the key is their a private company that can, in fairness, ban any1 they like. Beit for creating work for their staff (hey, get urself better prepared to face it if ur going to have the tool out there).

Bothers me that in the first instance it's a world-using tool for storing information, and that the point is that any information can be challenged - without people speaking out, points will increasingly remain unchallenged.

It also bothers me that people read an opposing pov on a subject and can't see that 'perhaps' people are trying to get them to think about the content instead of taking it at face-value.

The other side of it is they're not a debating circle, wiki that is, and there would be their argument that whatever is hosted on there is information for the sake of it.

If u have an opposing pov or legitimate want for people not to swallow wholey what they're reading, the editing should be possible. If we/they are deciding that u can edit it as long as ur not from 'this' section of society, then it's more-or-less saying "this is the platform, what it says is 100% correct, if u disagree or know that it's not correct is irrelevant".

I would imagine, going back to the nazi notion earlier, that anything that is host that is perceived to be true and that "officially" is correct will be hosted. But if ur opposing view contradicts it, even if u personally experienced it as an individual or group, u r not allowed to edit cos 'we don't want u to'.

There are a section of society that believes if it's on wiki - it's therefor true or fact.

I prefer the challenge, even if u don't personally believe the challenge, as I'm tired of humans merely taking information they're fed without thinking enough.

But hey as I said, they're priv8, they're not a debating circle, so frankly they can do what they like.