Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

[Eddie Dane]

Exclusive 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.

:D

Article here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/).

[Almo]

awesome. Though I gather the Register doesn't really like Wikipeida.

[Brainster]

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but you have to accept that on controversial topics, it's next to useless (although even there you can find links to useful articles).

[thaiboxerken]

It's a nice effort, but shills can find other ip addresses to get their job done.

[geni]

Exclusive 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.

It's not a supreme court (the term is Arbitration Committee or ARBCOM for the owellian touch) and it's not unprecedented. Much the same happened with Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

[geni]

It's a nice effort, but shills can find other ip addresses to get their job done.

Questionable. Remeber most scientologists are not allowed to know about the stuff on wikipedia and those that are mostly live in scientology compounds. In any case we have ways of dealing with that problem.

[Richard Masters]

Exclusive 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.

:D

Article here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/).

I thought this was common practice with some precedent.

[Richard Masters]

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but you have to accept that on controversial topics, it's next to useless (although even there you can find links to useful articles).

I disagree. I contributed to a highly controversial topic for over two years. There were edit wars; you might even call them massacres. People insulted each other on the discussion pages, and admins got involved often unfairly. Over time, as more unambiguous sources were found, the article started to converge, and currently it is an excellent article, and fairly static. I might not like some of the facts presented there, but I can't argue with the evidence; and fortunately, neither can the opposition.

[bigred]

The "Wikipedia supreme court?" :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm sure it has its uses, but I could never put much stock into a site where anyone can come along and change the "facts" any time they want.

[geni]

The "Wikipedia supreme court?" :rolleyes:

It's generaly not a good idea to take the register that literally.


Sorry, I'm sure it has its uses, but I could never put much stock into a site where anyone can come along and change the "facts" any time they want.

From the person who keeps asking questions of random passersbys on this forum that is somewhat ironic.

[AgeGap]

I am also a fan of Wikipedia. For an alternative look at Google's knols and see how much that sucks.
I think of Wikipedia as a sort of public library. The Co$ have been caught too many times drawing knobs in the books.
Good riddance.