Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

That’s the headline from The Register:

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…

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.”

Christman left the Church in 2000, before Wikipedia was created.

This is the fourth Scientology-related Wikicourtcase in as many years, and in addition to an outright ban on Scientology IPs, the court has barred a host of anti-Scientology editors from editing topics related to the Church.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and Online politics.
Advert

4 Comments

  • These people really can’t take criticism can they?

    You don’t see the Vatican masterminding an operation to edit Wikipedia.

  • Matt, you mean by posting links like http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html as an example?

  • Should Scientologists be allowed to use lawyers for their defense in their trial in France or would this be unfair?
    I’m a Scientologist and I’m mailing off a donation to my church this morning because I support it.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Simon R
    @Peter: Accidents on the railway can be caused either because of failures by the infrastructure (as you say, publicly owned since 2002, or by the trains/train o...
  • David Le Grice
    I wouldn't want to tell trans people how they should feel, but if the government was fighting a crusade to prevent me from being allowed to use the toilet and a...
  • Andy Daer
    It's good to see some support for UK government action, but we have gone past the time when a total ban on arms sales would stop Israel. Only full sanctions wou...
  • John Grout
    This is a good start, but the sooner Ed corrects his statement about the Supreme Court judgement himself, the better. Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to do...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Mark, The rail network was only in private hands for the privatisation of British Rail in 1994 up until 2001. The Hatfield crash, which was blamed squarely...