Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

www.theregister.co.uk

"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."


""The guys I worked with posted every day all day," Tory Christman tells The Reg. "It was like a machine. I worked with someone who used five separate computers, five separate anonymous identities...to refute any facts from the internet about the Church of Scientology."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
en.wikipedia.org
www.telegrap h.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Scientology trial due in France

Well, I know this probably isn't first time that Scientologists have tried pushing their agenda on a highly viewed website, but this is actually pretty funny.

First it's France, now it's Wikipedia? I think they're trying to make the unrealistic, realistic. If I recall correctly, didn't L Ron Hubbard dream up this religion and then go about writing a book about it?

Also, on another note, I think that the symbol for the Scientology 'religion' (cult, more or less) looks a bit masonic to me; with the S representing a serpent figure, and then of course, the triangles or pyramids.

Maybe that's just me, but what are your thoughts?

(Put Wiki link to Scientology for laughs)

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't know about the logic of just refusing to ackowledge things because people don't agree with them.

I remember reading a bunch of stuff a while back on the huge conspiracies surrounding Scientology and the people who were supposedly killed by them for not supporting the "church" anymore.

Don't know about those wackos.

S&F for interesting thread.

(I'll throw a link on here when I can dig it up to the stuff I read.)

reply to post by undefy.gravity


They are trying to seem more compatible with Christianity by using Alester Crowleys crossed out cross... a satanic symbol.

reply to post by undefy.gravity



Yeah, I've actually watched a couple of videos with some Scientologists harassing this gentleman by the name of Mark Bunker. They make some ridiculous statements about this man, (like molesting children? ) and they don't even know him, personally. All they're doing is bashing him for not having faith in their cult.

Have a watch yourself.



[edit on 28-5-2009 by spageeths]

reply to post by undefy.gravity


hmmrphh. S&F for an interesting post. Personally, I think we should refrain from any censorship on the web, period! I think about whom the decider would be, as it were. No thanks! Let's keep open minds and hearts and continue to seek truth.

As a disclaimer, I am not a Scientology advocate, nor do I know much about it. Let us just let any information "flow" and use discernment in our quest.

reply to post by mf_luder


Yeah, and I've also seen this as well. I'll get another video clip on here where these cult followers completely terrorize ex-Scientologists for leaving the church or not agreeing with some of their practices.

Here's a pretty crazy one.

Originally posted by undefy.gravity

If I recall correctly, didn't L Ron Hubbard dream up this religion and then go about writing a book about it?

Not exactly ...

He copied principles from other religious texts and changed the names to attack the innocent.

The craziness however is all his.

Good to see Wiki taking a stand to the insanity.

Co$ is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

For those who don't have a clue to this fact ...
go to www.xenu.net... by far the best expose site ever.

reply to post by Chemley


You know, I agree with your statement. I mean, Wikipedia sort of put itself on the spot by allowing its members to edit the content on their e-dictionary.

But with that being said, there comes a point where a certain group of people bombard and become a bit too pushy with their ideology. Not that I think it's wrong to get your word out there on your beliefs and such, but when you're excessively editing documents on a website that is there to be non-biased and used as an informative page, I think that's when they're in the wrong.

They're using Wikipedia to convert and hide actual facts about their religion, creating falsehoods in a e-dictionary. I'm sure they've got their own website to do that line of work.

I'm pretty sure they will try and fight this with their lawyers, that's how they operate. Scientology is just damn scary in it's corporate efficiency in my opinion.

And they're all a bunch of nutters. Generally I'm a raving free speech advocate, but if joe public wants to smear that cult and make them into baby eaters, that's fine with me.

reply to post by Lazyninja



Free speech is on of the top things that I advocate. But the problem here is that these followers are going on here and editing inputs that other members of Wiki have made that may have put the church in a bad light. So they're trying to make sure that any slander made against Scientology, or anything involved with its members, acts, or beliefs is kept from the public eye.

All I'm saying is that they're infringing on and going against the whole point of Wikipedia. It's there to get out information and all these members are doing is keeping that information from being seen.

Typical religious zealots.

Christians do the same thing, but attacking evolution.

reply to post by Kaytagg


Ain't that the truth?

I'm sick of these extremists trying to hide all of the skeletons in their closets.

Every religion is #ed up, and everyone should know of these issues so they can intelligently follow or break off from their current beliefs.

So many people blatantly and tenaciously follow the Christian, Catholic, Scientology etc, etc. religions as blissfully ignorant children, but don't know of the evils that these organizations hide.

It's time for the truth to be heard.

Originally posted by spageeths
reply to post by mf_luder

 

Yeah, and I've also seen this as well. I'll get another video clip on here where these cult followers completely terrorize ex-Scientologists for leaving the church or not agreeing with some of their practices.

Here's a pretty crazy one.

Awesome - that's the exact one I was talking about. I couldn't remember it to save my life - lol.

Dont you all see that scientology is mearly a proxy for the coming defence against christians and muslims...

anyone? bueller?

I don't think they should ban it altogether. What they could do, is have a responsible person write a basic overview about what's known about Scientology and then not allow future edits from outside sources

reply to post by undefy.gravity


You are absolutely right.

Some of the worst atrocities committed by humans throughout history could have/would have never occurred had it not been for the narrow minded people who were following their "beliefs." Inquisitions, "witch-hunts", crusades, jihads.

Religion is truly a scar on humans and this world.

It pains me sometimes to think I may be "going to hell" for believing the way I do, but then I look around and am able to find more evidence to corroborate the existence of extraterrestrial biological life than I am an overarching deity figure that controls everything.

I don't know.

I think that if you are a good person and if you live your life by the morals you learned as a child, you should be just fine.

Religion is a bunch of mumbo jumbo and boring sitting sessions listening to someone talk.

That is....

unless the lot are out killing people somewhere...

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mf_luder]

Originally posted by undefy.gravity
All I'm saying is that they're infringing on and going against the whole point of Wikipedia. It's there to get out information and all these members are doing is keeping that information from being seen.

Yep. It's a good move to IP ban Scientology assets from Wikipedia. But what bothers me is that they will probably just work around that quite easily. Since Scientology is not a corporation, and is cultish in it's organization. Members can easily just go home and edit Wikipedia from their personal computers. Or they could just use proxy servers. Workarounds to this slap in the face aren't difficult unfortunately, not with that much money behind them.

However, most everybody has already got the message that they are a bunch of nutters, people are not easily fooled. However I don't really think Scientology cares much about the actual numbers of followers they have, what concerns them is how much money and influence their followers have.

reply to post by mf_luder


My thoughts, precisely.

Live your life with good intentions, what more could any 'god' ask of us, anyhow? As long as you're trying your best to do what's right, I think that's all that matters.