Scientology's banishment from Wikipedia comes just days after the opening of a TRIAL.

[bp]

Scientology's banishment from Wikipedia comes just days after the opening of a (real world) trial that could see the dissolution of the organization's French chapter.

Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology     Wikioperating Thetan Level Zero   By Cade Metz in San Francisco

[nerol1st]

Well, I say good luck policing the internet.

[rasputin1963]

Hmm... interesting.

 

Granted, WIKI has rules, and rules ARE rules. They've probably disqualified a whole host of other topics based upon this set of (to me, useful) standards.

 

It's just that this is one of the bigger ones. And because of this, it looks like WIKI has an axe to grind.

 

 

P.S.: I sure did leearn a lot of new vocabulary words from this article. Sockpuppeting.

[blue2blue]

original article in web biz journal, The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/

 

 

Some have argued that those editing from Scientology IPs may be doing so without instruction from the Church hierarchy. But a former member of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs - a department officially responsible "for directing and coordinating all legal matters affecting the Church" - says the Office has organized massive efforts to remove Scientology-related materials and criticism from the web. "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."

 

[Anderton]

>

 

They follow the lead of the Shoe People!

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

the WIKI amateur knowledge CACA is just about the same as that GAGA church

 

that's at least when I read on my area of expertise at WIKI, all half truths mixed with nonsense

[Anderton]

Wiki is a concept that de-evolves over time.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Wiki is a concept that de-evolves over time.

 

 

I blame Jimmy Wales.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I always blame myself. For everything

[Anderton]

...as well you should, Rudolf.

[vintagevibes]

 

I always blame myself. For everything

 

 

I blame you for everything too. Now where did you put my shoes?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

I blame you for everything too. Now where did you put my shoes?

 

I know, Hildesheimer, the pre-stage of Alzheimer, is terrible

 

use the other pair this week

[Ernest Buckley]

I always blame myself. For everything

 

So, you are married! Thanks for sharing.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

well, yes, but it is rather that I was sold to a rich and beautiful women as a young boy

[blue2blue]

There's a good sized compendium of evaluations of Wikipedia's accuracy here -- of course, it's well cited, so you can follow assertions back to their sources:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

 

 

It's been my personal experience that many of the strongest complaints I've read or heard from people about Wikipedia come from people who are actually either unfamiliar with its methodological structure and the effectiveness of its self-policing (cited in an early study by IBM as "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities" that mean that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects.")

 

Vandalism has -- famously -- been at the heart of several news stories, including one of the earliest where a man decided on his own that the idea of such a wiki encyclopedia was just too weird -- so he decided to write a "bio" of his father-in-law -- who had been a civil rights activist and supporter in the 60s -- depicting the older man as a racist, Klan-symapthizer. Apprarently, this hoaxer thought slandering his father-in-law's good name was hilarious -- and felt he had proved his point. The article was corrected, of course, the hoaxer repudiated and banned. And Wikipedia tightened its posting requirements to log IP numbers, later tightening it further to require contributors to register.

 

It's been my impression that, perversely, the hoaxers I have read about have often been such people with an axe to grind about the very idea of a wiki encyclopedia. They simply seem to believe that information should only to be disseminated by established authority.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I love Wikipedia. But dealing with those people and their little Napoleonesque founder bothers me to no end. How many Wiki articles have you submitted, Blue? Was it as fun for you as it was for me?

[blue2blue]

I love Wikipedia. But dealing with those people and their little Napoleonesque founder bothers me to no end. How many Wiki articles have you submitted, Blue? Was it as fun for you as it was for me?

 

I don't think I've initiated any articles -- there may have been one, I know I toyed with starting one or two but, you know, the stated requirements for an article are moderately tight, I couldn't figure out a legit way to write one about myself or my one man band -- but I've certainly edited a few. I didn't have any problems. On one article where I filled in and slightly corrected one slip of a would-be article someone else popped in within a few hours to offer a much better version of the same; I was happy to have, apparently, 'provoked' that enhancement.

 

If it's now a hassle submitting a new article I think we can probably look to the anti-Wikipedia hoaxers and vandals as a major part of the motivation for tightening things up from the initial wide-open concept.

 

Given the realities of human nature and the sheer, hateful perversity of some folks, I don't find that particularly surprising.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I don't think I've initiated any articles -- there may have been one, I know I toyed with starting one or two but, you know, the stated requirements for an article are moderately tight, I couldn't figure out a legit way to write one about myself or my one man band -- but I've certainly edited a few. I didn't have any problems.

 

Editing is easy. Starting articles on absolutely 100% legitimate topics? Forget about it. Their little dictatorship and the cult that Jimmy Wales has raised among his evil minions is like an impenetrable fortress. Basically, you wanna start an article, you have to be "on the team", as far as I can tell.

 

Go try and put up a new article about the world's most well-known music technology expert, Craig Anderton. Then report back to us and let us know what happens... give it a couple of days to allow the Brigade of Propriety a chance to admonish you properly.

[Ponda Boba]

scientology is {censored}ing stupid. marshall applewhite called, he says you're a bunch of posers

[blue2blue]

Editing is easy. Starting articles on absolutely 100% legitimate topics? Forget about it. Their little dictatorship and the cult that Jimmy Wales has raised among his evil minions is like an impenetrable fortress. Basically, you wanna start an article, you have to be "on the team", as far as I can tell. Go try and put up a new article about the world's most well-known music technology expert, Craig Anderton. Then report back to us and let us know what happens... give it a couple of days to allow the Brigade of Propriety a chance to admonish you properly.

 

Well, those posting are supposed to be uninvolved and unaffiliated, so, you know, right there you, Jeff, or I, for that matter, would be out of the official running on that one...

 

 

BTW, I checked, I've apparently contributed to two articles and apparently started none. I also contributed to the talk page for several articles which I did not edit.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Well, those posting are supposed to be uninvolved and unaffiliated, so, you know, right there you, Jeff, or I, for that matter, would be out of the official running on that one...

 

 

But that's the ridiculous part, Blue. You're telling me that I can start a page on wallaby husbandry (since I'm not involved in it and know nothing about it) rather than Craig Anderton (with whom I'm also not involved, but do know a thing or two about)? That's the apparent mindset of the Wikimedia Foundation.

 

I understand them not wanting it to be a blatant tool for promotion, but they end up doing an informational disservice as a major side effect of this philosophy.

[blue2blue]

I don't actually think it's ridiculous. I don't want encyclopedia articles written or dominated by those with direct connections to the subject of the article.

 

Of course, it's not a requirement that the initial author not know anything about the subject, to the contrary. But he must not be the subject of be closely related to it, have a vested interest, etc.

 

Is it inconvenient for guys like one of my clients who really, really wants a Wikipedia article on his company? Sure. He can't write it. As one of his contractors, I can't write it. I can make a case for why there should be such an article. But I can't write it, as I understand the TOS.

 

But, with a little background in journalism, and as a long time observer of human nature, frankly, I think such a rule actually makes sense.

 

 

On the one hand, we have people who have very legitimate concerns about information validity in an encyclopedia that is (still somewhat) open to editing by regular users and, on the other, we have the parochial concerns of those who want to see their favorite subjects covered. Clearly, some sort of balance must be reached.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Fine, I'll write about wallaby husbandry, but I won't like it.

[bp]

Is there a Wiki whistlepig page?

[bp]

Found it.