Wikipedia blocks edits by the Church of Scientology

[Qwerty 42]

The collaborative online encyclopedia Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology from editing the site. The Register reports Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom, voted 10 to 0 in favor of the ban, which takes effect immediately.

Wikipedia’s innovative free-encyclopedia draws upon the knowledge of millions of users to create and edit articles on every conceivable topic. Edits appear immediately and do not undergo any formal peer-review process.

Wikipedia officially prohibits use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – but the open format makes enforcing such policies difficult.

According to Wikipedia administrators speaking to The Register:

Multiple editors have been “openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities.”

However, Karin Pouw, with the Church of Scientology’s public affairs office, told me she is unaware of any coordinated effort to alter Wikipedia. Instead, she described the edits as individual attempts to correct inaccurate information by impassioned Scientologists and interpreted the ban as a typical Wikipedia response to arguments over content. She noted that even the U.S. Department of Justice received a temporary ban after someone erased references to a controversial scandal from inside the government agency.

One Wikipedia contributor I spoke with that was involved in the Scientology arbitration agreed that some of the edits coming from the church were justifiable, but insisted the ban was necessary after the church refused to follow Wikipedia’s policies:

“The edits coming out of Church of Scientology servers were of the sort that made their organization look better. Up to a point that’s justifiable, when it comes to correcting inaccuracies or removing poorly sourced negative information. There were times when they went beyond that and deleted well sourced information that was unflattering, and there were times when they insulted other editors in a manner that would reflect poorly upon any religion.”

Some see Wikipedia’s decision as a setback to the Utopian goal of Web 2.0 in which every user is allowed to freely contribute.

This is technically in keeping with the stated Wikipedia policy, but I can't help but think that this decision would not have taken place, or at least not been so one-sided, if it hadn't been for Anonymous's nonsense.

[chitoryu12]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to lock the article itself? It's more likely a few Scientologist idiots who decided to make their page conform more to their ideas of Scientology, as opposed to a coordinated vandalism by the church as a whole.

[Hawkwings]

They can't leave pages locked forever. And this was a wide range of articles relating to scientology.

[Tolya]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to lock the article itself? It's more likely a few Scientologist idiots who decided to make their page conform more to their ideas of Scientology, as opposed to a coordinated vandalism by the church as a whole.

This says otherwise:

Multiple editors have been “openly editing Scientology-related articles from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities.”

[Sarevok]

How will they enforce the ban if the scientologists stop making edits from their known ips ? How do we know for example that some random wiki user is not really a scientologists !

[Darth Wong]

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for "Catholic Church", I see mention of the persecution of early Christians in Ancient Rome but not one word about Christian persecution of other faiths once they took power. I see mention of violence against early Christians in an attempt to wipe out their belief system but not one word about violence used by early Christians in an attempt to wipe out paganism.

I find it hard to believe that no one has ever tried to inject those historically indisputable facts into the Wikipedia article on "Catholic Church". It seems more likely to me that the Catholic Church also has people who try to "cleanse" its Wikipedia entry of embarrassing material.

But of course, no one would ever hold Christian churches accountable the way they hold Scientology accountable.

[Singular Intellect]

But of course, no one would ever hold Christian churches accountable the way they hold Scientology accountable.

Hey, but the Catholic Church has been around much longer than Scientology, therefore it's above such criticism, right? ...right?

[Jalinth]

Wouldn't it have just been easier to lock the article itself? It's more likely a few Scientologist idiots who decided to make their page conform more to their ideas of Scientology, as opposed to a coordinated vandalism by the church as a whole.

Given Scientology's past practices, coordinated efforts would be the norm. It seems to treat critiques or criticism as a reason to go to war with the critic. The Church takes ad hominem attacks to the real world rather than just leave it as a debating tactic.

[Tolya]

I find it hard to believe that no one has ever tried to inject those historically indisputable facts into the Wikipedia article on "Catholic Church". It seems more likely to me that the Catholic Church also has people who try to "cleanse" its Wikipedia entry of embarrassing material.

Im not so sure. I've looked at both the article, discussion and change history (briefly) and I couldn't find evidence that someone was cleansing the article. There are bits about Inquisition and mentions of sex abuse scandals. Can't vouch for their quality though, but my impression is that the article is maintained by intellectually honest people, so if you'd put something bad with good sourcing, I doubt it would get deleted.