Anonymous

Leah Anthony Libresco: Wikipedia Removes Semi-Protection from Civil Liberties

Anonynamefag

ITT: Scilons bawwww'ing about 'civil rights' and not admitting that they brought this all on themselves.

Anonymous

Well...to me, Disneyland, Best Buy, insert other physical place of your choice here, are part of the "public square" as well.

But if a I commit a crime in any of them, I can be barred from them in the future.
scientology abused the Wikipedia system so egregiously that Wikipedia is risking be called anti-free speech. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia knows that was not an easy decision.

Anonymous

I have to say, the decision makes me pretty uneasy, but I agree: I don't think that this will have been an action Wikipedia will have taken lightly.

Still a bit troubling though.

ZeLyt

Is this media source a known scilon supporter? If its not, I don't think we should jump the gun. We all know this is win, but if random joe-blow journalist hears, "Giant online encyclopedia blocks all members of a religion from editing pages" it could easily be seen as a very negative thing. (course, the journalist should do some fact checking, but we all know how lazy journalist can be)

Before we jump down this outlet's throat, I vote we should kindly poon their socks off.

*looks for contact page*

Edit: or they have a comment page. durp. Though they are on approval only.

Anonymous

Article tl;dr. Banning Scilon IPs that were gaming wikipedia leads to marching down the street shouting Sig Heil.

LocalSP

I agree. They have been shown to be abusing the rules of Wiki and they continued to do so even though they were warned. Banning was the last option and Wiki had every right to do so.

Take Scientology: It’s basically the kazoo of religions — the few who play it are die-hards, but, to everyone else, it’s little more than a joke.

DWE will be missed.

exOT8Michael

Scientology's OSA has dealt in gaming the internet, using it for their propaganda for many years. Even Tory reported how she was sent out to set up fake accounts online.

The hate by OSA of ANYTHING that is not Scientology runs amok on the web and it is great that a huge reference site shut out their criminality. This a defense of free speech, not a curtailment of it. OSA was not permitting free speech on Wikipedia about Scientology and ran covert operations to inject falsehoods into the Scientology pages.
I am glad they got banned.

SP art (mine!) LOL
www.mpattinson.smugmug.com

DeathHamster

And the Church of Scientology, dumbass! It was in every story about Wikiscanner, so not mentioning it seems to be deliberate forgetfulness.

Online tool identifies who edits Wikipedia August 16, 2007, AP, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

ROTFLASTC! Even if WikiScanner did what he seems to suggest it does (it doesn't), it would still point to a handful of IP addresses which belong to Church of Scientology Inc. The same IP addresses that have been used for years, and they've been warned about in the last Arbcom.

So then what? Block those specific IP addresses and then play whack-a-mole as CoS shifts their proxy within their IP blocks? No, block all corporate Church of Scientology Inc IP addresses.

Oh, that's what Wikipedia did? Never mind...

If the IJC blows, who is terminal?

Anonymous

It is my understanding that the WP's choice was based the breaking of WP rules on an institutional level.

As an entity the CoS is considered to be a "corporate citizen" conceptually a single person.

If any single person were to do the same thing they would be excluded without incident or comment.

This action on the part of WP simply holds the entity of CoS culpable for its actions. You will note that the finding makes possible for the CoS to apply for individual IP address to be allowed to access WP and edit provided they play by the common social rules.

The finding also does not ban pro scientology edits.

Further, particualr accounts on both sides of the argument have been banned awaiting confirmation that the accounts are genuine and the controlers of those accounts commit to playing by the social rules.

As far as i can tell the finding by WP is actually quite well ballanced. Meaning this:

1) If the CoS applies to and askes that particular IP address be unblocked they will be so long as the CoS commits to playing fairly by the common social rules and expectations of being a good community member.

2) Any accounts that have been banned may make ammends to the community and provided they play by the rules and be good community members are welcomed to make edits to the articles in question.

3) The CoS is not only the only entity that this finding bans. A number of con-scientology accounts are also banned.

4) The ban effects ONLY articles concerning the CoS and bio's on individuals involved in the debate about the CoS. One can assume that if an IP address that has been blocked from editing CoS articles IS allowed to make edits to, for example, an article on Pablo Piccasso or any other articles not related to the CoS.

The ball as it were is squarely in the court of the CoS. When they agree that they must play by the social rules and as a citizen and not the leader the ban would probably be lifted after an evaluation.

This is not an exclusion from the commons for the CoS. It is an exclusion from a single courner of the commons for both pro and con scientology commenters until the individuals agree to play by the rules of the common weal.

Ann O'Nymous

As scientology is known to have targeted articles in its agenda, like psychiatric illnesses, a total ban of corporate IPs would have made much more sense IMHO. But I can understand the compromise.

Une histoire d'anonyme - An anonymous story - SwissAnons - Best troll 2008 - SMB rules

anonsoldier

^^^All great stuff made of win. Now, go tell it to the person who WROTE THE ARTICLE. 'poons away!

Dangerous Cult Scientology
Regarding Body Thetans, what have you done?
Regarding Body Thetans, would letting you out be an overt?
Regarding Body Thetans, what are you hiding?
Who is David Miscavige? He is a runty dwarf that beats his staff all through the night.
Proud veteran of the Rant/Rave trenches, now scoured clean of clams: Jack H Remington doesn't count.

ChronicEnturbulator

...which is the result of "black and white" (I.E. lazy) thinking* by the wiki arbitration committee, which, I predict, will be quickly overturned.


*unfortunately, the example wiki uses (being wiki, as usual) is terrible, the real example is: "If one side says 'black' and the other says 'white', the truth must be 'grey'".
The response to the "black and white" false dichotomy is actually: "If one side is telling the (verifiable) truth and if the other side is (documented as) lying, and if you say the answer is 'in the middle', you are full of shit."

Ann O'Nymous

Agreed to a certain extend. Banning corporate IPs will balance the powers. If more and more reliable sources are provided, it will be harder to defend scientology.

IMHO, one has to think in political terms. Take the example of Germany: they made the choice not to ban scientology altogether, as it could create opportunities for scientology.

Showing restrain with the banhammer is a good thing, IMHO.

Une histoire d'anonyme - An anonymous story - SwissAnons - Best troll 2008 - SMB rules

Anonymous

Point well made sir!

This situation is not over by a long shot. Despite the findings short comings it is a good (and big) first step in the community policing itself.

The only way out of this for the CoS is to come to the table as sincere "good citizens" and commit to subjecating itself to the authority of the community.

Where I can easily imagine many of the con CoS contributors coming to the table and sincerely agreeing to modify their behavior I do not see the pro CoS contributors doing the same.

The time sink for WP is IMHO only just begining (I hope I am wrong). I predict that as an institution the CoS will refuse the authority of the community, since they view themselves as the authority, and will attempt to subvert the conditions of the finding.

I have faith in the ability of the technical staff of WP to identify and deal with such activity. Unfortunately, the CoS is quite litigious and WP, i fear and hope to be wrong, may find itself having to waste valuable resources on a CoS legal attack.

JohnnyRUClear

Oh, please, yes. Please attack Wikipedia. David Miscavige, if you love me at all, do this one thing for me.

Please.

anon111265

I simply dont get the free speech argument here at all.

Wikipedia didnt ban all scientologists from their site altogether, They simply banned scientology corporate IP's for making repeated bad-faith edits to the article on scientology. a topic which they quite obviously have a conflict of interest on.

Sorry to godwin this, but if some neo nazis or the KKK were to start making their articles into all sunshine and light, im sure the public would think a topic ban would at least be justified.

Can johnny scieno edit the scientology article on wikipedia, yes he can, so long as the rules and guidelines are followed and he cites good sources for his content.

should david miscavage be allowed to order his task force to vandalise the scientology article and purge anything he doesnt like? no he shouldnt, and this is exactly what wikipedia is clamping down on.

What possible legal footing would the CoS have here. wikipedia is a privately owned company, with their own servers. they can legally restrict access to whoever they like.

Edweird

All I want for (insert holiday) is for the Scilon black PR machine to launch a full scale attack on the repository for free public knowledge known as Wikipedia. Oh how glorious the victory via media an-hero will be for us...

Lets just not fuck this up for ourselves; keep the pressure on the idea that Scientology is using Wikipedia as a place to destroy real evidence of abuse. The marketplace of ideas is just that, and we the internet will not tolerate our shared experience being suppressed.

Anonymous

From TFA:

"[this setsa ] terrible precedent for the regulation of online speech"

Fucking stupid journalist. lrn2wiki. Wikipedia is *not* a soap box for speech, free or otherwise[1]. It is designed to perform a function, and by default, anyone (corporation or individual) can edit it within certain reasonable rules and contribute towards it functioning. It is NOT a soapbox. It is NOT a debating board. It is NOT a "I shout loudest and make the most edits, therefore I am right" chest beating lobby. Community moderation, checks and balances.

Anyone fucking with it, like cult has, deserves what they get. It's a sign of how rabid rontard's cult is that WP has reared on its hind legs and said "fuck you" to an org. You really have to *try* to get WP to act like this. I am very happy that WP has ejected the cancer that is scamentology.

[1] obviously, there is always going to be politics and debate about neutral viewpoints, etc. etc.

JohnnyRUClear

So, 2 out of 2 posters agree with this epically lulzy goal. Having thus formed an ad hoc committee, we must now take up the question of how to make it happen.

You got any ideas?