Church of Scientology banned from Wikipedia updates

Published on May 28th, 2009

Tom gets an award for being the greatest Scientologist ever!

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.” … 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.

58 users responded in " Church of Scientology banned from Wikipedia updates "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Ah_Yea said, on May 28th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Oh, this is just too funny.

But it will be interesting to see how Scientology gets around these limits.

BTW, I wonder where the “Science” in Scientology comes from. I can’t see very much “Scientific” in thetans and evil alien overlords.

Of course, this could be said of most religions, but at least they don’t have “Science” in their names.

# 2 Special Ed said, on May 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

When they die, they should leave their bodies to Science Fiction.

# 3 BubbaRay said, on May 28th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

L. Ron Hubbard was a genius. Who else has invented such a successful con out of whole cloth since Joe Smith? He laughed all the way to the bank, rubbish instruments and all.

It’s amazing to me how many people take it seriously, when he didn’t and as much said so throughout his later fiction.

# 4 Ah_Yea said, on May 28th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

I should have gone into business selling those thetan monitor things.

# 5 Zybch said, on May 28th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Straight from the horses mouth:
“Scientology…is not a religion.”
- L. Ron Hubbard
CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

“Don’t break your back scrubbing floors. Get yourself a nigger, that’s what they were born for.”
- L. Ron Hubbard, in a letter to his 2nd wife

“`Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous,’ he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.’ ”

“Better than 90 percent of what my father has written about himself is untrue.”
- Ron deWolf, son of L. Ron Hubbard

# 6 mctea said, on May 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

I want to join.

# 7 Troublemaker said, on May 28th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Well, at least they muzzled a group of utter lunatics worthy of being muzzled.

# 8 Carcarius said, on May 28th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

about time.

# 9 Hyperkinetic said, on May 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Gotta love that the ad left of the article was for, you guessed it, scientology.org!!

Can’t wait to see the scale of the fight this ignites. There’s no way they’re going to take this lying down.

# 10 Hmeyers said, on May 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

@#3 “L. Ron Hubbard was a genius.”

Despite the con nature of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard’s book Dianetics was sheer genius, even if in places scientifically “wrong”.

This IP address ban will stop them maybe for 5 minutes the way it would stop any truly internet literate person for maybe 5 minutes (proxy services, public dynamic IP connection like DSL, etc.).

# 11 John C Dvorak said, on May 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Whatever anyone thinks. This seems to be a violation of the principles of the wiki concept.

# 12 Mal said, on May 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

#11

It sure is, but only in response to likewise violations of the principles of well-behaved participants by Scientology users. Personally i don’t get why they bother anyway.

# 13 The Commodore said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:43 am

The very least Wikipedia could do would be to reserve a page of entries for which further editing has been prohibited. IE a list of “Free Speech Zones” on the site. A brief overview of the Recent Changes and Religion and Philosophy sections don’t mention any of this. Anyway the pattern of types of restricted topics would be interesting to see.

# 14 Hmeyers said, on May 29th, 2009 at 2:06 am

@#11

It maybe a violation of the wiki concept, but even Wikipedia doesn’t have unlimited resources and time to dedicate to needless reversions.

The Wikipedia concept is general consensus truth, not some politician, company or organization continually making edits 24/7 to their own entry to portray ONLY their OWN point-of-view because they have the time and resources to do so.

# 15 Crypto said, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:09 am

Hahahahahahaaaa! Good! L. Ron Hubbard was quoted as saying he could invent a religion and people would follow it. What a load of crap. People are stupid as hell these days and it’s hard for me to feel sorry for them. Dumbasses rejoice…..your moron savior is banned from Wikipedia…..go find a real religion.

# 16 SN said, on May 29th, 2009 at 4:14 am

11. “This seems to be a violation of the principles of the wiki concept.”

The principles of the wiki concept do not allow for a group to dominate and push its agenda via a wiki topic. The entire point of a wiki is to get a neutral overview of a topic, which obviously members of the “church” are unable to do.

This is no different from them hypothetically blocking my view that cancer is caused by insufficient masturbation. If I started changing various pages on cancer to reflect my narrow view, I have no doubt they’d eventually block me too. As they should.

# 17 Sea Lawyer said, on May 29th, 2009 at 4:16 am

#12, haha, “well-behaved” and “Scientology” don’t even belong in the same sentence.

# 18 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2009 at 4:17 am

#15–crypto==”these days?” Why the limitation? Religions based on supernatural beings are stoopid regardless of time or place.

What is the wiki principal? Real base line stoopid to think any process should be corrupted in order to be pure.

# 19 Dajestar said, on May 29th, 2009 at 5:03 am

God I hate Tom Cruise…..

# 20 Dallas said, on May 29th, 2009 at 5:33 am

Ideally there should be FOUR internets:

(1) The free and factual internet
(2) Military and Government
(3) Religion and fantasy
(4) PORN

# 21 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:03 am

#15 said, “go find a real religion.”

There isn’t one.

# 22 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:04 am

#20 – You have them out of order!

# 23 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:07 am

As I understand Scientology:

1. They have an outreach program where they give a “talking therapy” to people to help them with personal issues. “Someone to talk to” is a powerful draw of all religions, therapies, healthy enviornoment.

2. I think a lot of people can hold in abeyance the BS about thetans and all that for the benefit of the therapy and the benefits they see in their own life. I think Tom Cruise and all the other Hollywood stars are in this category.

3. Then there is a group within Scientology who do scam the public for the money.

4. Then assuming this group is hierarchical as most groups are, there is some group getting that money and keeping all the parts operting as they do for the organization to succeed. Tom Cruise gets help in return for good press and maybe his money down the road, the average person gets taken advantage for their tithing just like all sheep do, and someone is living in great wealth and not getting much attention.

I so wonder what exactly the famous/known people in Scientology actually get out of it. Cruise has no need for money. Kinda Interesting. We all fall for something, and if not fall, we make choices about where/how we find meaning and accept the tradeoff’s made to achieve/work towards those goals.

# 24 aslightlycrankgeek said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:34 am

“The principles of the wiki concept do not allow for a group to dominate and push its agenda via a wiki topic.”

This would be nice in theory, but since everyone is biased, the dominant perspective will win out, regardless of truth. Just like Digg.com has been taken over by Huffington Post drones, any user edited content is only as good as the users. If you let someone pick and choose who the users are, there is a chance that it might make the content more balanced, but I would say you have a much greater risk of censoring unpopular viewpoints or beliefs. I understand why Wikipedia did this, but in general this being a “good thing” would imply that the moderators are all-knowing.

# 25 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:42 am

#24–cranky==too wishy-washy. Should wiki allow its website to be corrupted by a known biased group or not?

Deal with issues as the rise and don’t think slippery slope analysis provides any insight at all.

# 26 roastedpeanuts said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:55 am

Question!

Why don’t they just restrict editing to moderators and regular posters (there’s a better phrase for these people)? I seem to remember them doing this for other pages…..

# 27 GigG said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:00 am

#23, Bobbo,

Cruise is there because of CoS say they can de-gay people. That and he is an idiot.

# 28 Mr. Fusion said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:03 am

Since Wikipedia is generally a volunteer organization, they are faced with trying to do a professional job on no budget. Their solution is not perfect. Freezing the pages might end up being the answer if the contributors can’t stop slanting the results.

# 29 righteous indignation said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:20 am

…now if only somebody would muzzle all the evangelists, and baptists, and all the other wacko “do gooders”. Include politicians in this muzzling.

Any time you get two or more people together, moderation of some kind begins. Some individuals have to moderate themselves when alone. LOL

# 30 Patrick said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:29 am

I loved when they froze Obama’s page and removed references to the bomber guy, the Reverends racist comments and Obama stating that it was his spiritual mentor.

Wiki has bigger internal problems than any external threat.

# 31 KarmaBaby said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:35 am

Wikipedia is a place for facts and objective overviews of topics. Its not the place for propaganda or self-promotion. That’s what MySpace or your own website is for.

# 32 soundwash said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:48 am

what happen? -they’re little pyramid scheme run out of money?

-s

# 33 Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:51 am

I wonder if the best solution would have been to have three wiki pages.

The first page, where you first go, would have a simple introduction to Scientology (something so generic that all sides would agree), and then two links. One to the community wiki and the other to a site run by the Scientologist.

Then the Scientologist could be banned from altering the Wiki page, but who would care when a prominent link is displayed for the opposing view?

I don’t see where this would violate the spirit of wiki, and in fact may produce better, more well rounded information if expanded to other articles as well.

# 34 Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:07 am

Change that, make the first page you go to the community wiki, but have a well worded link to the Scientology page prominently placed so you can see it and follow the link from the first screen without having to scroll down.

# 35 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:09 am

#27–Gig==does it say that on the wiki page for Tom Cruise????

“De-gay” – - certainly something every religion should be into. Hah, hah.

# 36 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:14 am

This raises an issue I’ve been wondering about for years. Can anyone answer it for me?

Am I allowed to ban specific people from my web site?

I know that people have been prosecuted for trespassing on computers.

As for myself, I’d like to explicitly ban all law enforcement, justice department and RIAA employees who don’t have a warrant.

I’m not doing anything illegal but I value my privacy and the constitution.

# 37 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:18 am

I mis-wrote:

“Can I ban categories of people from my web site?”

Basically, I want to ban anyone has prosecutorial powers. Benign members of the public are welcome.

# 38 bobbo said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:19 am

#36–Greg==I don’t know, but interesting question. Legally, I don’t see why not, but its probably a tech or a licensing issue?

I’ll bet if we read the cases about people trying to ban their sites against Google accessing them would demonstrate most of the issues?

# 39 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:21 am

>> bobbo said,
>> “De-gay” – - certainly something every religion should be into. Hah, hah.

Not _every_ religion. I wish people would stop misrepresenting us on this issue.

CONSERVATIVES usually don’t like the gays – religious our not.

We liberals — religious or not — are usually fine with them.

# 40 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am

Bobbo,

Thanks. I am totally NOT a lawyer-minded kind of guy or I would have written such a disclaimer myself.

It’s not just a personal issue — I hope to be running a school library web site soon.

I’d like to put TOS agreement on there that any law enforcement members must get permission to enter the site.

But it get’s complicated. I wouldn’t mind, for example, the police officer parent of a child looking at it, as long as s/he’s doing it as a parent.

# 41 NancyDisgrace said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:27 am

When I’m bored I go on Wikipedia and make stuff
up. You wouldn’t believe what micro-chips are
now made of!

# 42 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:27 am

The RIAA is a pretty big issue — I don’t want RIAA employees snooping around on my site fishing for copyright violations.

If they have legitimate reason to think specific patrons are violating copyright, let ‘em get a warrant.

But, until then, I do not want them on my site.

# 43 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:28 am

Now that I think of it, I don’t want Scientology employees scanning our student’s pages fishing for supposed libel.

# 44 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:32 am

>> NancyDisgrace said,
>> When I’m bored I go on Wikipedia and make stuff up.

Why would you do that? Serious question.

It would never occur to me to deface a public or volunteer project, of any kind.

Has this been a thing with you, in other areas of your life, or just on the internet?

# 45 Nimby said, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:56 am

# 38 bobbo said,”#36–Greg==I don’t know, but interesting question. Legally, I don’t see why not, but its probably a tech or a licensing issue?” Hey, Greg and Bobbo: remember when some web pages with “iffy” content would make you accept their terms of use that included things like -you are of legal age -material not illegal where you lived and (my favorite) -you are not law enforcement? Ahhh, those were the good old days…

De-Gay? I find most religions are pretty much a downer. What? Oh, THAT gay. Never mind.

BTW – Don’t you think AlfalfaOne would make a good Scientologist? Just imagine all the thetans in that empty head…

# 46 skunkman62 said, on May 29th, 2009 at 9:22 am

why is everybody picking on scientology? i heard this one religion believes their leader was murdered, three days later he came back to life then teleported all over the place.

# 47 brendal said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

NO COMMENT!

# 48 Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Gregg Allen.

I’ve run a little web site of my own and I’m very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want.

It’s done every day. If there is a “black site” which spews spam or malware, or anything else you don’t like, you can block it. You can even have a “white list” of sites which you can allow to see your site, etc.

It’s not a legal issue. Most website builders have this capability built in.

The real trick is finding which ISP addresses those no gooders are using. That might be outside of your, or mine, or even The Pirate Bay’s ability to discover and block.

# 49 Brian said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

I imagine that this probably has to do with a certain level of turnover in content on the page. I would imagine that most wiki pages that COULD have drastically opposing views represented either find a way to voice both on the same page (such as putting headings and subheadings on the order of “proponents/detractors” or something similar), but I would not imagine this to be true of the scientologists. Just from a quick glance earlier today, I can tell you that the ENTIRE discussion about Thetans and the “origins” of scientology has been drastically rewritten and reduced since the last time I read (and got quite a few rolling laughs out of) it just two months ago. I specifically remember it had a reference to a South Park episode that made me go track down that episode to watch it. now, that reference is nowhere to be found in the wiki page. In fact, the entire page looks to be vastly rewritten from the one that existed then, as well, and with a decidedly “scientology is a benevolent entity” slant. I seriously doubt that regular wiki editors desire to leave it that way, so I imagine it has one of the highest content turnovers on the site.

Incidentally, I seriously doubt that banning IP addresses includes the home addresses of church members, so this ban is symbolic at best. But what a symbol…

# 50 Jägermeister said, on May 29th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

# 51 amodedoma said, on May 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

I think you guys underestimate this ‘whacko’ religion. I think it’s more like a mafia. I remember a small software developer here in Bilbao trying to sell their antivirus and having some success. At one point the boss went to the US (COMDEX i think) and came back ‘converted’ to scientology. In less than 1 year they’d become one of the most successful AV programs in the industry – PANDA. A coincidence? I think not!

# 52 Angel H. Wong said, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Organized Religion = Organized Crime.

# 53 Angel H. Wong said, on May 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

BTW It’s not a true religion until they start killing others in its name.

# 54 Greg Allen said, on May 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

>> Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
>> I’ve run a little web site of my own and I’m very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want.

I could block every *.gov site but I assume that the FBI could get-around that!

My main thing is I want the legal ability to sue law enforcement agents for warrantless spying, most likely using the precedent set by anti-hacker laws.

# 55 Jägermeister said, on May 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

#53 – Angel H. Wong – BTW It’s not a true religion until they start killing others in its name.

Oh, they are…

# 56 ck said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

The Scientologists’ biggest error was showing how easily Wikipedia can be gamed. Can’t have that, of course…

# 57 EvilPoliticians said, on May 29th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Is that an alien guarding and protecting Tom Cruise? By golly it is! It is all true! I saw it on pic on the internetwebitubes so Tom was right!!

# 58 Glenn E. said, on May 29th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Scientology is run by a bunch of low self esteem runts. I already know Tom C. was short. He probably never would have survived his “Risky Business” days, for too long, if he hadn’t had the backing of the cult. But now, seeing the cult’s top exec standing next to Tom, and several inches shorter, that cinches it. They’ve got a Napoleonic complex. A bunch of runts who need this trumped up organization to pump up their egos.

As for the ban. Nice try, but it will probably only serve to give the public a false sense of security (as many solutions do) that the cult’s interference has been stopped. They’ll just allow a couple dozen of their dupes to actually have their own internet accounts (usually they’re not allowed to spend the money). And provide them with scripts to follow to edit Wiki from unblocked IPs.

I wished the solution did work. But I doubt it. And I wish a few other factions could be blocked too. Like Aryan Nation skinheads, various hate groups, extreme Fundamentalist religious groups, the GOP, the FBI and CIA, homegrown Militia groups, and even the Pentagon. But you know that’s never gonna happen. Wikipedia will never be made the pure tool of the people, who aren’t part of some sinister organization, who’s up to spread its propaganda online. Just so long as the lone voices of free thinking and sanity aren’t cut off, as in this blog and others.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!