I usually avoid the Reg but never quite noticed this when I have been there. I had only skimmed the first couple paragraphs but after reading this I went back to it. Wow. You're right. It is pretty juvenile writing. This writer abuses the use of "and" and "but."
where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda organisation, it surely seems like a good move
"Bad sectarian propaganda organization?" Why not just say "bad church?" And since there's little point in distinguishing between Scientology the religion and the Church of Scientology, you should really say "bad religion."
I'm somewhat being intentionally inflammatory, but it's interesting to examine the difference between what I said and what Raphael said. The line I crossed was saying that Scientology could be bad and still be a religion. Funny that people start shying away from such statements when they stop believing in a particular religion. If atheism is "just one god/mythos further," then what do we call our modern attitude of attempting to feel positively inclined toward all religions while believing in none of them? What do we call the idea that critical appreciation of religion, religion separated from belief and disbelief, is not essentially different from religion as practiced by most people since the dawn of history?
In france there is quite a big difference, maybe hypocritical, between sects and religions. I don't think the distinction would hold against some serious examination, at least, it wouldn't keep all of it's meaning.
But to put it shortly any organisation that isn't one of the big historical churches, and has an heavy propaganda machinery around their religious beliefs and why they are good, is basically called a sect here.
Probably because france is living it's own cult of republic, wich is quite irrationnal in itself, but we have some endemic problem with religion and it's interleaving with power here. I think the situation is very very different in USA, and so there must be quite a "vocabulary gap" in our discussion.
The hidden powers of admins and sockpuppets. They are wary of Wikipedia due to the power it wields. See historical articles on an editor called Jossi I think. They was also a bit of a furore over the article on short selling. Lots of drama in Wikipedia land.
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.
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.
It won't go to court. Nothing of any value stays on w* without proper citation (so there goes libel), and since there's no financial consideration for participation in or use of w* the CoS can't claim injury in the legal sense.