In this 2008 photo, a new sign is raised over the Church of Scientology mission in Malibu. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia recently decided to block edits to Scientology-related articles from Internet addresses inside church headquarters.
(Jonathan Alcorn/ZUMA Press/Newscom)Photos (1 of 1)
Wikipedia bans edits to its Scientology pages. But at what cost?
By Matthew Shaer | 06.01.09
What ever happened to neutrality?
That’s the question hurtling around the blogosphere this week, days after Wikipedia banned some edits to its entries on Scientology, a religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952. (Editor’s note: The ban only affects addresses based on Church property.) As Marissa Taylor writes in the Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia made its announcement only after determining that the level of “hostility” over the page had reached unacceptable levels.
For months, site administrators have sought to mediate a war between Scientologists and the organization’s detractors. “Some 430 Scientology entries on Wikipedia resulted in constant battles over revisions between the two camps. User accounts were created for the sole purpose of deleting or adding information on Scientology, a practice seen as harmful to Wikipedia’s neutrality principles,” Taylor writes.
A battle on two fronts
It’s been a rough spring for Scientologists, here and abroad. Late last week, leaders of the French branch of the organization appeared in a Parisian court to defend against charges of organized fraud. According to Reuters, if the defendants are found guilty, they could be fined five million euros and ordered to cease their activities. Now the Church is fighting a second battle, one with equally wide-ranging consequences.
On the website Wikinews, Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis said church members had only ever used Wikipedia to “[confront] inaccuracies” on the Internet:
“The story that’s being missed is there were people who were doing non-stop attacks on the church and using Wikipedia to do it. Those people have been banned.” He said there had been no orchestrated campaign by church leaders to have members change Wikipedia articles: “The church is huge. Scientologists are going to say what they’re going to say about their own religion.”
Ruthless?
Others disagree. Writing on the Daily Kos, “Inspector Dim” noted that the Church has been “almost ruthless” in cracking down on unapproved content. “This much is obvious if you go to Scientology’s YouTube page,” he writes. “Ratings are disabled on all of the videos, and in the past, even comments and related videos were disabled. Scientology also has a habit of flagging YouTube videos that are critical of them, citing a copyright violation.” Dim continues:
This is why I’m in support of Wikipedia banning Scientology from editing its pages… Scientology’s attempts to edit certain pages could undermine the website’s claim for neutrality. Whether banning Scientology will prove to be fruitful, or whether it will simply be a symbolic gesture that Scientologists will be able to circumvent, it’s a bold move on behalf of Wikipedia.
A web Switzerland?
This last concept – that of Wikipedia’s purported neutrality – is especially important. The encyclopedia was founded to allow users everywhere to edit and create content – and to flag or delete false or misleading entries. Officially, Wikipedia administrators are supposed to stay out of the fray, and allow the flow of information to flow freely. Unofficially, those administrators often police certain pages. “We aren’t democratic,” founder Jimmy Wales once said. “The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing.”
But who are the experts, and who are the idiots? And who gets the final say? The furor over the Scientology pages has exposed a fundamental shift in the online encyclopedia, some argue. On OSNews, a popular tech-oriented website, one user writes that “Wikipedia becomes less and less open, and more and more the playground of narrow-minded, interest-ridden ‘admins.’ These admins killed Wikipedia. They have too much power and they almost always bring it to bad use.” The user, ido50, concludes:
<< US military tweets, Facebooks from Afghanistan | MainI think people should get banned from Wikipedia if they continually abuse it for their own interests (That includes the so-called admins). If some Scientology followers abuse Wikipedia, they should be banned. But declaring a full ban on Scientology is entirely the opposite of the goals and ideas that once were the shiny beacon of Wikipedia.
Comments
2. QuailHillAnthony | 06.01.09
Only IP addresses from Scientology work computers are being banned from editing, individuals can still edit from home
3. George | 06.01.09
It must be understood, that the critics of scientology are just as much a part of this as the Church is. The church is constantly having to dispell false rumours and data about scientology, that is constantly being uploaded to not only wikipedia and world wide web.
Of course people shouldnt go overboard on the edits, and i think for the sake of neutrality of wikipedia, that the hardcore editors should be banned, but also I think we should look at the basis of why wikipedia is set up in the first place - the give neutrality to people on a certain subject. Unfortunately, scientology doesnt always enjoy this pleasure as it is always the target for a constant hate campaigh.
4. Jeff | 06.01.09
Hmm. I don’t think that the writer understands the scope of Wikipedia’s determination, and also does not understand what the Church of Scientology’s method of operating with respect to information sources such as Wikipedia.
That’s not surprising, since most of the media runs in fear at the very notion of saying anthing negative with respect to the COS. The writer should consider doing some research. For example, Tory Christman, a former head Scientologist, has recently spoken about how she was part of a program within the COS to dominate all internet discussion and news concerning the COS through a program involving COS staff members spamming internet forums and news sites via multiple computers and multiple false identities. The very title of this article infers that that sort of conduct is acceptable on free speech grounds. Needless to say, that’s a patently unsupportable inference.
The writer also misleads because Wicki never banned “scientologists” and only banned a range of IP’s used by pro scientology vandales. In fact, any person behind those IP’s can even apply for a stay from the ban. Yet Wicki was not entitled to defend its integrity in this manner? The writer is also not seeing the 800 pound gorilla in the room by inferring that the COS is akin to a real religion. The writer should consider doing some research in that regard as well because last I checked, child slavery, family disconnection, and finacial fraud was not legal, even in a Church. Does the writer also think that the Catholic Church should not have been bothered with its rampant child abuse problems? Was that an issue concerning freedom of religion also?
5. Xerbla | 06.02.09
Wikipedia takes a pragmatic approach. Anything Scientology-related took up too much resources to police, and resulted in wide-ranging trouble. Wikipedia simply decided that enough is enough.
The CS Monitor should wonder what its reaction would be if somebody took up a bullhorn and started a protest in their editorial offices. I bet they’d get the guy escorted out by the security guards or arrested for trespassing.
6. ellenyhr | 06.02.09
This is such tripe. Why doesn’t Wikiepedia just eliminate the entry of “Scientology”? All of the above just illustrates the bigotry and intolerance to an American religion that isn’t quite like the rest. When you know the truth, why print a lie to have a “balanced story”?
7. AC | 06.02.09
The actual published decision and reasoning are way more useful in figuring out why English-language Wikipedia took this step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Final_decision
The article states “The encyclopedia was founded to allow users everywhere to edit and create content.” The author misunderstands the site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As a means to that end, it allows nearly unfettered editing access by the general public, who are trusted to act constructively in building the encyclopedia. These editors formed an online community, who in turn formed social norms and rules to govern their interactions and weed out transgressors as they work towards the goal of building an encyclopedia. If the community, whether through a general discussion or through the decision of its elected representatives, concludes that a user or group of users is on the site for some reason other than building an encyclopedia, it’s not only logical, but expected, that they take steps to remove the disruptive editors. There is no _right_ to edit Wikipedia, only an access privilege granted by the private Wikimedia Foundation charity that owns the site.
8. Anonsoldier | 06.02.09
The Church of Scientology has a sub-division known as the Office of Special Affairs (OSA). They are responsible for handling all PR matters according to the guidelines set forth by L Ron Hubbard (LRH). This includes PR incidents such as speaking to the media, creating advertising campaigns, and destroying the lives of critics. It is the latter of those three which is a role unfilled by any other PR firm on the planet, to not only try and counter the claims of critics but to actually attack and destroy them as individuals.
Fair Game, a policy set in place by LRH, allows for lying, stealing, and any other acts necessary to destroy people who have been deemed a “Suppressive Person”. Anyone who criticizes the so-called “Church” of Scientology is deemed a Suppressive Person. It is a ruthless policy that has been put into use time and again, most famously against Paulette Cooper (Operation: Freakout) as well as Arnie Lerma, Mark Bunker, Tory Christman, numerous ex-Scientologists, and multiple anonymous protestors who had their identities tracked down by OSA.
It is straightforward CoS POLICY that all information critical of the organization be eliminated a la “1984″. Hence the largest infiltration of the United States government by hundreds of OSA agents in the 1960s. Operation: Snow White was uncovered by the FBI and resulted in 11 indictments and convictions, and L Ron Hubbard was deemed “a non-indicted co-conspirator”. THe Guardian’s Office, the previous version of OSA, was dismantled and immediately reformed with the exact same people from before heading the agency.
Wikipedia was the target of Fair Game because it dared to contain truth about the countless crimes committed by the administrators of the Church of Scientology. Overzealous anti-Scientologists were also banned, but only as individuals. The mass editing in favor of Scientology was not similarly overzealous Scientologists (though all OSA members could be called that), instead it was an act endemic to the organization itself, hence the ban.
Research the facts, read the COURT DOCUMENTS, hear the stories of EX-MEMBERS. Do not let the cult rewrite history.
9. Jimmy Wales | 06.02.09
“Officially, Wikipedia administrators are supposed to stay out of the fray, and allow the flow of information to flow freely. Unofficially, those administrators often police certain pages.”
This is a very deep misunderstanding of the role of administrators at Wikipedia. They are tasked, first and foremost, with the defense of the core principles of Wikipedia, including neutrality. Officially, administrators can and do and always have done policing of pages.
Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. It is an encyclopedia.
11. chrise | 06.02.09
“an American religion that isn’t quite like the rest”
Yes.. I know the Catholic church across the street will still let me talk to my family if they’re not Catholic, I don’t have to pay for their “auditing” and their religion wasn’t written in the 50s by a sci-fi writer who said
“Y’know, we’re all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!”
* As reported to Mike Jittlov by Theodore Sturgeon as a statement Hubbard made while at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society clubhouse in the 1940s.
12. Diamonddille | 06.02.09
The Church would have no need to respond , but the Blatant lies that are spread on the internet are just a joke to a Scientologist. It is there personal Honor that is being questioned when such blatant lies are told.
We are Good people, we are up against the criminal elements of society, which are spreading the malicious lies. If we just say nothing and the average person thinks Scientology is just a cult or believes in Martians or what ever rediculous lies that are spreading, then the average won’t look into it. That is the exact goal of the anti-Scientology groups.
By the experts (the ones that do Scientology for a living) being band from dispelling the lies then that means the criminal elements who are the cause of all the revolutions, wars, riots and problems Mob Mentality always brings about to a society. This element will eventually destroy a society.
In Scientology one can understand why we have had such a bloody past on this planet and one can prevent that from becoming our future.
Scientology’s war is not against the people, it is against the ignorant. The ignorant don’t realize the harm they cause by not understanding. They usually don’t want to change. Misery loves company and they want the rest of the world to remain ignorant to, so they are not exposed for who they are.
They know Scientology will expose them , so they are doing everything possible to destroy it. The sane only need to look for them selves and they will see why we are attacked. Society will win if we win, if we don’t it will become just like any other great society we have ever had on this planet. gone…
We we change the populations thinking only then will we change what continually keeps happening to man.
Sometimes the truth is hard to accept, sometimes it is different than what we are used to, but one must at least to try to understand it and understand why 10 Million people are menbers and will continue to double as time goes on.
One cannot hate what they understand. Hate is from the ignorant who won’t understand. It is the destroyer of civilizations.
The truth of what we are really about, will make you a Scientologist too, I assure you.
If you fix your Mind you will fix your Life. Scientology is an exact Science of the Mind, it is not what our enemys portray it to be.
Our enemies think that you are a piece of meat and thru chemical reactons you think. In Scientology we have the technology to kick you 3 feet behind your head and you will realize you don’t need the body to do things. That you are a spirit, will be real to you, it will no longer be just information OR DAT OR A BELIEF. Knowledge is what give you back your Spiritual Powers and Abilities.
The Trillions made off drugs is only ruining people and ruining society. They don’t want the truth to be known, just realize that. Scientology has to win if we are to have a sane, and able society.
Don’t listen to the ignorant and insane. Look for yourself from Scientology, not from their enemies. The media uses the input from the insane and ignorant as a fact. It rallies an army of ignorant to destroy the good groups out there.
To keep Scientology from putting out the truth will end up hurting us all in the long run. One could know the truth of what Scientology is. When you find out you will become a Scientologist. I am very proud to be a Scientologist as I know what it is and what is is not. This is the truth.
13. Keats | 06.02.09
Banning it would be the easy way out, and then you could really cry censorship. People seem to be split on the topic [ http://www.newsy.com/videos/religion_in_reference is a quick rundown of different opinions ] but I think its really interesting that people care so much about wikipedia. It’s not the only source for knowledge, but as the guy at the end of the vid said it is the place where students go to get a bunch of their info. Is the centralization of knowledge a good thing, and do we undermine the democracy of the internet by giving it such power?
As for freedom of speech, well, Wikipedia is not exactly a public forum and the scientologists are welcome to present their ideas as they wish elsewhere. I don’t see any violation.
14. marco | 06.02.09
80 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE LIKE AND RESPECT SCIENTOLOGY IS ONLY THE OTHER 20 PERCENT THE IGNORANTS, THE ONES THAT HAVE A LOT OF HATE CAUSE BY THEIR MISDEES THE ONES THAT ATTACK SCIENTOLOGIST.
THEY ARE RELIGIOS HATERS SINCE EVEN THA UNITED STATES RECOGNIZE SCIENTOLGY AS A RELIGION.
SCIENTOLOGY DONT HARM ANY ONE.
FINDING SCIENTOLOGY IS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO MY LIFE
I LOVE IT AND I RECOMENDED IT TO EVERYBODY.
MARCO BANDERAS
15. Mike | 06.04.09
Good balanced article!
Media often foster conflicts in their pages and accomplish polarized views, antagonism and even hatred toward certain people, groups and subjects. This is partly the problem with people soaking up only negative information about Scientology and believing all of it.
A lot of the criticisms aimed at Scientology are very simple-simon and these can be seen repeated in many webpages and blogsites. It doesn’t mean these claims are true, but it does mean that people tend forward bias and rumour all too easily without really knowing the facts.
I have been a Scientologist for many years now and have heard and seen many claims against the subject. While Scientology and its members are not perfect and have made mistakes, nor are they evilly intentioned as some wrongly claim.
Scientology does challenge the status quo of Western Society and asks people to look once again at the idea that we are spiritual in nature and that by this understanding we can build a more peaceful world.
If you don’t know what Scientology is, find out for yourself by examining the source materials and make up your mind what it is about.
Wikipedia is wrong to ban a group. It is similar to burning books from one source because you don’t want that information circulated.
16. Tyler | 06.06.09
To the last posters who are Scientologists:
I am a very tolerant person. I am also a mental health professional. When you are willing to openly acknowledge that you have segments of your organization actively seeking to undermine my profession and destroy the federal funding sources available to the mental health profession in this country, I will consider having a conversation with you.
Scientologists believe that psychologists like me are evil, because we helped Zenu enslave the Thetans on this world. Therefore, we are essentially agents of evil. They believe that only their ‘rundowns’ can help people improve their lives — not the clinically-proven and researched methodologies employed by psychologists & psychiatrists. It is their explicit goal to cut funding and destroy psych services. To this end, they have formed dummy organizations such as the Citizen’s Commission for Human Rights (sounds innocuous, no?) that devote member’s donated dollars to attacking a profession that has done far more to improve lives than Scientology ever will. Online articles about psychology frequently have comments decrying the profession and linking CCHR — these are active members of the OSA, bending media sources to sway opinion.
So to the defenders of CoS - when you can honestly admit to me the following facts:
- that Dianetics was brought by Hubbard to the psychological community in the 50’s, and when they suggested clinical trials he got angry and turned against them;
- that CoS spends your hard-earned money attacking psychology through false fronts like the CCHR;
- that CoS would like nothing more to REPLACE any and all mental health services with its own un-tested, non-clinical, un-researched psuedoscience “tech”,
- that you as a Scientologist have no respect for me as a professional, even though I’ve obtained graduate degrees and spend my days helping children live better lives in quantifiable ways,
Then, friend, I will be as tolerant as I usually am, and we can enjoy a nice conversation.
Until then, I will acknowledge that you are seeking to harm the children I help by undermining my profession, and I will respond to you accordingly.
17. WalterBE | 06.21.09
Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. It is not uncommon that people who can not find there point of view expressed correctly in wikipedia start there own project where the can work in freedom.
On of these projects is http://www.conservapedia.com Maybe is that I better home for the Scientologists to work on an encyclopedia.
The web is large enough for all points of view.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Liz | 06.01.09
Those that understand how the $cientology cult operate, understand why it was necessary for wiki to resort to this approach.