Why not link directly to the primary source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitrat...
"The wikifiddler drew his wikivorpal sword and slayed the terrible wikibeast"
I doubt the writing quality is particularly bad, though: I suspect the author is telling exactly the story he intended to tell.
The tone of the register article is really bad tho, what do they have against wikipedia ?
"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?
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.
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.
See chris11's link in this thread.
They do have awesome videogame-style powerups, though... http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/images/stories/claims/eternit...
"The Church of Scientology has a recorded history of filing frivolous lawsuits, all of which is documented in this Wikipedia article."
"This only proves that Wikipedia is biased against scientology!"
"Your Honor, please review the references to this entry. Clearly no further citations are needed."