Wikipedia Bans Scientology!
By worldwise1
@worldwise1 (14885)
United States
June 6, 2009 12:38pm CST
I cam across an interesting article in the Register this morning. I had to do a double-take when I saw this headline. Wikipedia is known to be a very open source of information where we can go to find out about most anything, so I immediately wanted to find out what "sin" the Church of Scientology had committed. It seems that Wikipedia has a rule against organizations posting material that is self-promotional, and they accused the Scientologists of doing just that. From what I understand there was a lengthy court battle and Wikipedia was victorious. Did you know this about Wikipedia? Do you feel that they were within their rights?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@dloveli (4366)
• United States
6 Jun 09
It amazes me that even in this day and age that a tool such as wikipedia would pick and choose who or what organizations are able to self define or add material about themselves. Isnt the whole point of the site to be for all types of people who have knowledge on a certain fact or organization to be able to share their information? How ridiculous is it for them to form an opinion against something that may interest a great many wikipedia users. They're doing it to show they have power and to be quite honest I have never used wikipedia. If they keep doing this type of thing noone will utilize them. Just my opinion.dl
1 person likes this
@Finality99 (8)
• Ireland
8 Jun 09
They broke many rules self-promoting like they did. What they were putting down was original research (had no verifiability), certainly didn't have a neutral POV and they were unashamedly promoting themselves via it. How was the wikipedia community wrong to ban them from using wikipedia if they were abusing it?
And how will people stop using wikipedia if they keep banning self-promoters? Are you saying the only reason people contribute on it is because they want to plump up their own articles? Let me tell you, hundreds of thousands of people have used wikipedia over the years for a tonne of reasons, and self-promotion wasn't one of them. It's ridiculous to say that them enforcing this rule (which is common sense anyway) is going to cause some massive exodus. The vast majority who are there to contribute properly won't bat an eye at this decision.
1 person likes this
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
8 Jun 09
I use Wikipedia often, dloveli, and I must agree with your co-responder that when the rules are broken there has to be a punishment. Evidently Wikipedia had a solid case against Scientology, otherwise they would not have prevailed.
@Finality99 (8)
• Ireland
8 Jun 09
Definitely within their rights. It's their website they can make whatever rules they want and if you break them you're out. Are you sure this went to court? I remember reading an article about this too but I don't remember any mention of a court battle.
But I guess it's definitely possible it went to court. We all know scientology. From destroying people's reputations to crying out "genocide" when people try and "oppress" them, they're a bunch of nutters that have no limits. So I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
1 person likes this
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
8 Jun 09
I read the article on The Register's website, Finality, yesterday. I have an RSS feed from them which I receive daily. They definitely said that the case went to court.
