
Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology - Flemlord
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/
======
jrockway
The Reg is really hard to read -- the writing quality is horrifyingly bad.

Why not link directly to the primary source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitrat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology)

~~~
pookleblinky
Indeed. It kind of read like Hunting of the Snark.

"The wikifiddler drew his wikivorpal sword and slayed the terrible wikibeast"

~~~
duskwuff
El Reg has a long-standing grudge against Wikipedia. And they're showing it
here. :)

------
Raphael_Amiard
From france, where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda
organisation, it surely seems like a good move from Wikipedia.

The tone of the register article is really bad tho, what do they have against
wikipedia ?

~~~
weavejester
The Reg has always had it in for Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure why, but it
might have begun as a backlash against the hype surrounding Wikipedia, and
over time it became the norm.

~~~
Confusion
And despite the obvious prejudice, they still do not succeed in making
Wikipedia look like the bad guy. Which goes to show how evil those that wield
power within Scientology are.

------
TJensen
More interesting to me (since Overstock.com and Traverse Mountain are nearby)
was the linked article (
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overst...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/)
).

It is interesting to think about how much power the Wikipedia inner circle has
over public dialogue. Wikipedia is often people's first stop when trying to
find out about something new - if they show bias, it could change that
dialogue significantly.

~~~
graemep
May be it should not be people's first stop. If any one uses Wikipedia in an
argument I ask for an authoritative source.

~~~
omouse
It's an encyclopedia. Would you use Britannica for an argument? No. You would
use whatever materials it cites. Wikipedia is the starting point for an
argument, not the evidence to support one.

------
amichail
Why is this a big deal? They could just contribute from their homes.

~~~
chris11
Technically yes, but Scientology is very paranoid. For one, it has been
accused of censoring internet access for its members, so they might not trust
low-level staff to edit it.

Censorship:<http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/index.html>

~~~
eru
Ok. But how about proxies?

------
verdant
Interesting move, although I'd bet it will turn out to be a challenge to
enforce, if the Scientologists decide to try to fight it. It will also be
interesting to see how this move would hold up in court. I can certainly
understand Wikipedia's point of view - they aren't discriminating against an
organization but rather dealing with a group that has been quite disruptive to
them. It could be interesting to see which way it swings and what the
ramifications are.

~~~
duskwuff
Wikipedia is a private website - it's fully within their rights to decide who
can or can't contribute. Hence, there's no grounds for a suit.

~~~
dfranke
The CoS doesn't often let little details like that get in their way.

See chris11's link in this thread.

~~~
duskwuff
Oh, I'm quite aware. And that's why I said there's no grounds to sue, not that
they won't sue. :)

