Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the stable-sane-leadership-cuckoo-cuckoo dept.

Media 567

We mentioned on Thursday that Wikipedia has banned edits originating from certain IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology; reader newtley writes now that Scientology leader (CEO and Chairman of the Board of the linked, but legally separate, Religious Technology Center) David Miscavige calls the ban "a 'despicable hate crime,' and asks, 'What's next, will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?' During World War II, Hitler forced Jewish men, women and children to wear a a yellow cloth star bearing the word Jude to brand them in the streets of Europe, and in the Nazi death camps."

cancel ×

567 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know... (5, Funny)

Hertne (1381263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166315)

I remember saying very close to the same thing quite a number of times to various people when I was... 10?

Nothing wrong with his analogy (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166415)

These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.

Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.

Now, if you want to say that these guys, these mealy-mouthed, race traitor guys, were better than the other Jews because they sought to get along with the establishment... Well, I don't know what that makes you.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

Quinapalus (1335067) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166477)

Persecuted?

From Webster's dictionary:

" to cause to suffer because of belief"

I'm not sure how lack of Wikipedia access is comparable to being thrown in a death camp, but perhaps someone with more perspective can tell me.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166561)

I'm not sure how lack of Wikipedia access is comparable to being thrown in a death camp, but perhaps someone with more perspective can tell me.

The Church of Scientology can access Wikipedia just fine, they just can't edit it. So this is basically analogous to having your story submits summarily rejected by a newspaper because you've submitted so much crap in the past.

And no, that's not really equivalent to being sent to a death camp, but then again, scientologists aren't exactly known for their sanity or truthfulness, that being one of the reasons why they're being banned.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166585)

It's not even that bad is it? They still have access, they just can't edit... from IP addresses belonging to CoS... from home IPs is fine.

So yes, obviously Mr Miscavige is being repellantly disingenuous here.

If any block of IPs - regardless of who owns it - is routinely responsible for sabotaging the encyclopedia then it seems appropriate that the admins should ban that block of IPs.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166479)

The analogy is horribly flawed: The stars identified Jews so they would be discriminated against by other people as well as by the state (e.g. employers, benches, certain events, buildings etc.)

Filtering IPs from the CoS prevents them from contributing or skewing an already established work: it doesn't attach an indelible mark with which others can identify them with (and use against them) and it doesn't promote wide-spread "We hate you" feelings - it's just saying "We don't want your 'contributions'"

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166489)

1) It's clear you are a COS member

2) I can go back 15 generations in my family tree because the Nazi's had a habit of being thorough and making sure people were in now way "jewish", even if they were christian for 10 generations, they had to be christian for at least 15. I have a hard time believing they would hire anyone jewish as a soldier or a member of the police.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166505)

Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed?

The ones with money who fled early.

Frankly, you can take your bad analogies & shove them up your... no, scratch that - you'd almost certainly enjoy that.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166535)

"There is nothing wrong with his analogy" says a user with the name BadAnalogyGuy.

Too perfect.

Your argument is hilarious. What does the existence of Jews willing to slaughter other Jews have to do with anything--or even defend the analogy!

Your deflection of the errant analogy with some sort of pointless note of some Jews working for Nazis during the Holocaust is borderline antisemitic in my book.

Grow up. They can't edit an online encyclopedia! How do you compare that with stripping an innocent of their right to live?

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Insightful)

Meneguzzi (935620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166601)

Hell, if this analogy works then we should all disable our Spam filters and cower in shame for our prejudice, after all, these guys believe in us seeing the best Pr0n on the internet as well as giving us the opportunity to enhance our manhoods.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (4, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166647)

These people are being persecuted because of their beliefs and their willingness to stand up for their beliefs.

Do you know which Jews made it through the Holocaust unscathed? It was the ones that joined up with the Nazis as soldiers and police. Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.

"BadAnalogyGuy". Yeah...no kidding.

Nobody at Wikipedia is forcing CoS members to go against their principles and fellow members and kill them, or even speak poorly of them. They aren't being persecuted for their beliefs. They're being told to leave Wikipedia's private property alone, not even because of their beliefs, but because of their track record of propaganda edits. Which is both completely different, and also legal.
Considering the CoS's history of making promotional propaganda edits to Wikipedia articles about them, I'd say it's also a very good idea.

The only way your analogy would work is if certain CoS members were forced to make derogatory edits to Wikipedia, rather than do nothing at all. And they're not even being forced to do nothing; only to do nothing from their own offices. Members can still make edits from home, libraries, Internet cafes, Starbucks' hotspots, and dozens if not hundreds of other places.

I suppose another way to make your analogy work is if the Jews in Germany/Austria were banned from having loudspeakers in the public square making public service announcements about how Judaism is the salvation to all people and things, and how they're much better than all other religions, and won't sue you for leaving the church, and don't force you to buy ridiculous electronics to practise the religion, and don't keep their most holy books locked up under copyright where nobody can even read them, and loads of other crap. (None of which is true about Judaism, BTW....this is just an example)

But the Jews didn't try to do this stuff, and they didn't get banned from it. So your analogy doesn't work.

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (4, Insightful)

.Bruce Perens (150539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166699)

Wrong. The Jews were persecuted because they were being used as a scapegoat. It wasn't legitimate and entirely made up.

CoS is being "persecuted" here because of a pattern of repeatedly submitting shitting articles. I'd hope Wikipedia does more of this. It's a good step towards establishing legitimacy and reliability.

 

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (5, Funny)

shar303 (944843) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166703)

Through their complicity, these Jews were responsible for the millions that were slaughtered in the camps.
Oh dear, it was the fault of the Jews all along, was it...who'd have guessed it!

So there you are, surrounded by all your technology and information - and still...

Maybe you should try our free personality test...?

Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (1, Insightful)

ponraul (1233704) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166747)

Successful troll is successful. Cool story, bro.

Re:You know... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166559)

is that you L Ron?

Re:You know... (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166627)

There is a big difference between the actions taken by Wikipedia and the holocaust.

There is nothing stopping the Scientologists from using their own channels. They are free to use whatever channel they like.

It's more like a newspaper - the editor can chose to not publish an article on whatever grounds he like.

Godwin! (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166317)

He loses the argument. End of story.

For a real argument, editing Wikipedia is not akin to, say, being able to buy food. IPs can and do get banned for all sorts of reasons.

Re:Godwin! (5, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166363)

Absolutely. Talk about lacking a sense of proportion - any member of any 'banned IP' group - be they MPAAers looking for torrenters or the Scientologists - can just nip round to the local cyber café or wifi hotspot. Not an option for the people Hitler and his cronies persecuted and slaughtered.

Re:Godwin! (2, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166433)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but it just struck me, it actually would be a good idea if the nutjobs were forced to wear some distinguishing badge.
As Churchill said, 'a fanatics is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject'...I'm sick of the nutjobs who bore you to tears while they try to convert you to their cause - and there are plenty of them, of all denominations.
Suggestions as to an appropriate badge or sign to make 'em easy to avoid, please.

Re:Godwin! (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166659)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but it just struck me, it actually would be a good idea if the nutjobs were forced to wear some distinguishing badge.

They already have one. Just look for people who jump up and down on couches and generally look like idiots.

Re:Godwin! (1)

dg5 (442714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166611)

I think CoS is notorious for blowing things out of proportion. It's one of their tactics against what they perceive to be "threats" to their church or suggestions that they're a cult.

ORLY? (5, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166325)

So when does he think that the Wikipedia stormtroopers will march up to the scientology homes and round them all up to labour camps that have a Work is Freedom banner at the front gate? Honestly, it's the first time I've ever seen a conversation Godwin itself from the original argument. Reduction Nazium indeed.

Re:ORLY? (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166423)

This death camp is a stub; edits will make one free.

Godwin (v.t.) (1)

Sad Loser (625938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166441)


never heard Godwin used as a verb before, but if you can google, then why not.

Who said innovation was dead? (not CoS obviously).

Re:Godwin (v.t.) (1)

giles hogben (1145597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166565)

Actually, Godwin's law [wikipedia.org] didn't mention the case where the actual article the discussion is about is already making a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler. I suppose it's what you would call a degenerate case of Godwin's law.

Re:ORLY? (1, Interesting)

stoned_hamster (1531291) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166445)

"Work makes you free" is believe is the correct translation, but I may be wrong. I remember seeing this in my son's history textbook.
But on the other hand, if we did take them and make them actually work, then the world would be better.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT HITLER WAS GOOD, BTW!!! I am simply saying that if these people got off their lazy a$$e$ and worked, our economy/life would be better without these corner preachers.

Re:ORLY? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166739)

I am simply saying that if these people got off their lazy a$$e$ and worked, our economy/life would be better without these corner preachers.

It might be better right now, but it will be so much worse when Lord Xenu's starship comes out from behind Jupiter, and he finds his church has been subverted, messengers silenced, and his wrath rains down upon us.... :)

But, seriously.....what is "work"?
Essentially, in this context, it's doing something that someone finds valuable enough to pay you for. There's not even a question of legality, here. Not that it would matter, anyway. After all, if the mob's hitman gets paid to take someone out, is that still work? I'd argue that it is.

But, we have freedom of religion in Canada and the US, so if this church wants to send members out to preach on street corners, then it's seen as valuable work by somebody. If they're being paid, anyway.
And if they're not being paid, and it's volunteer work, it doesn't make much difference, anyway. That means the person doing the work thinks it's valuable enough to be done without being paid externally. They're essentially paying themselves. So it's still work.

Re:ORLY? (3, Informative)

johanw (1001493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166527)

The scientologists don't have to wait until someone brings them to a camp, they have camps of their own: it's called rehabilitation project force.

Re:ORLY? (3, Funny)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166643)

Looking at Germany's past history of being overrun by a malevolent cult; and considering Germany has barred Scientolgists from serving in public offices and had moved toward banning them all together at one point...

Wait, the Scientology leader compared Wikipedia to what?

Re:ORLY? (5, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166683)

Honestly, it's the first time I've ever seen a conversation Godwin itself from the original argument.

Well, if nothing else, you've got to admire his efficiency....

Re:ORLY? (2, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166771)

Wikipedia is of course exempt from Godwin's Law, for one very good reason [wikimediafoundation.org] .

strawwmen (4, Insightful)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166335)

i suppose when they actually have to wear yellow stars he'll have a point.

Re:strawwmen (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166431)

No kidding. It isn't like Jimmy Wales is sending out his WikiGestapoForces to round them up and send them to Auschwitz if they run down to corner espresso bar and fire up their wifi.

Besides, Wikipedia is private non-profit organization. It's their servers, it's their site, and they are fully within their rights to say who is and who is not welcome to use them. It's no different when the Church of Scientology comes knocking on your door passing out their pamphlets and you slam the door in their face and tell them to get lost. Private property is private property.

or... (5, Funny)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166557)

or six.

*rimshot*

Re:strawwmen (1)

ammit (1485755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166673)

I think you'll find.... he'll have several

Cry me a river... (5, Insightful)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166339)

The CO$ got banned because they systematically abused the PRIVILEGE (not a right) to do edits on Wikipedia because they were doing so to silence criticism.

If they'd made edits to correct factual errors instead of their own (since they have already violated Godwin's Law) NAZI like internet tactics this never would have happened.

Now I wish Wikipedia would start banning other corporate abusers, such as Sony, who also notoriously edits out any criticism of them and their ethics. Go look at all the edits on the Star Wars Galaxies article and SOE liar in chief John "Smed" Smedley.

Re:Cry me a river... (4, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166373)

That's right. If a child won't play nice with his toys, he'll lose his toys, plain and simple. There's no "right" to be able edit Wikipedia, it's a privilege which you keep if you follow and respect the rules

Re:Cry me a river... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166635)

If they'd made edits to correct factual errors instead of their own (since they have already violated Godwin's Law) NAZI like internet tactics this never would have happened.

But they may have a point. Does the Wikipedia do this to other religions?

If you search for "Wright" on the article for the United Church of Christ [wikipedia.org] you'll find two mentions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Neither mention the "God damn America" sermon, and neither mention that the UCC as a whole came out strongly in support of him.

If you check the history, you'll discover that a NPOV violation tag was removed without any fix to the article by someone whose user page identifies them as a member.

Go look at all the edits on the Star Wars Galaxies article and SOE liar in chief John "Smed" Smedley.

The edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article appear to be by fanboys. Never underestimate the loyalty that a monthly subscription manages to put in people - the thought that they've blown hundreds of dollars on a crap game is too unbearable to face, so they'll instead defend it to the death. It can be funny, actually, when someone playing in a non-World of Warcraft MMO tries to justify why their MMO has less than 1% of the subscribers than WoW has despite being "so much better."

Same with consoles - when you have to invest a large amount in a technology, it becomes in your best interest for everyone else to as well.

As far as the Smedley article, it appears that most of the retooling there was done by Wikipedia rule-whores, rather than Sony fanboys.

wigless GOD likens cos to poop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166355)

not really, there's not much judgementalism when operating on the creators' unlimited supply of newclear power. just more&more energy, process, observation, interaction, connection & separation/intervention as needed, usually based on motive.

Really? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166357)

So the Jews had to wear the stars due to the fact that they were pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit?

Being a Jew, I feel strongly that the Jews were treated this way due to the anti-semitism of the times, which is NOTHING to do with the current Church of Scientology situation.

Re:Really? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166605)

No, it was because they kept using "they're" when they meant "their", and Hitler was such a Grammar Nazi.

Dear Mr. Miscavige, (5, Insightful)

Chardish (529780) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166359)

Just because you hate what happened doesn't make it a hate crime.

Hahaha (4, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166365)

Written by Church of Scientology, Clearwater, FL

Hahahaha

If they didn't like what Wiki did, they're going to hate being Slashdotted!

From the article (1)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166367)

"The goal of Scientology is a sane world, without criminals, without psychiatric terror, without war. Ultimately, the goal of Scientology is sanity itself"

Can't even begin to understand where this man is coming from.

Re:From the article (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166401)

Make no mistake: WE are the ones making huge progress in the Global Obliteration of Psychiatry. Wikipedia is acting at Big Psychiatry's beck and call.

This guy needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.

Re:From the article (4, Funny)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166725)

This guy needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.

It's nothing an R2-45 won't cure.

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166803)

LOL!! don't get a scientologist started on psychology! tom cruise much?

Re:From the article (5, Funny)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166449)

Don't forget that part of their goal is expelling the souls of dead aliens from our bodies. Which is, of course, the true definition of sanity, not having dead alien souls in you.

Re:From the article (3, Funny)

iCodemonkey (1480555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166475)

ummmm.... another planet I guess, but let me go ask xenu just so there is no confusion.

Re:From the article (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166617)

The goal of Scientology is a sane world, without criminals, without psychiatric terror, without war. Ultimately, the goal of Scientology is sanity itself. Only the insane would attempt to stop Scientology. With this brutal decision, not only is Wikipedia criminally attacking the world's most ethical people, members of the Scientology religion, but it is preventing Scientologists from presenting our religion in the most positive and truthful light. There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry.

<sarcasm mode="dripping">Whoa! Watch out for the Global Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Anti-Religion Conspiracy! They won't stop at nothing less than global domination!</sarcasm>

Talk about extreme paranoia! This guy's talking about pushing for a sane world and blaming the insane for stopping Scientology, when, obviously, this guy is the insane one.

Mr. Miscaivge: My wife, as a psychologist and therapist, works in the "Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry" and I can tell you with absolute certainty that these guys can't even agree on whether "Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder" is a real disease or not, let alone organize a global anti-religion conspiracy, seeking to destroy any religion (or anything really), let alone the Church of Scientology. You should seek professional help for that, it sounds like you're paranoid-delusional.

Um? (4, Insightful)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166383)

They aren't being forced to wear something or being branded. Their HQ IP block was banned because they were violating the Wikipedia terms by editing their own pages and planting false information.

Yellow stars have been done to death (5, Funny)

Telecommando (513768) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166387)

will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?

Actually I was thinking they should be marked with something like a scarlet letter on their foreheads.

Perhaps a big "I" for Idiot.

It would certainly make them easier to spot.

Re:Yellow stars have been done to death (1)

spydum (828400) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166451)

Clearly you haven't been to Clearwater -- they are already easy to spot..

Re:Yellow stars have been done to death (1)

thebjorn (530874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166471)

Perhaps a big "I" for Idiot.

hmm... an uppercase "I" (for idiot) could be confused with a lowercase "l" (for loser)... so I guess it works :-)

all for it! (5, Insightful)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166393)

I'm all for Scientologists wearing something we can easily identify them by, so we can avoid their ignorance.

Comparing your 'religion' to Judaism is ridiculous. I won't go into detail as to why I think so, because I think all religions are absurd, but it's like comparing pop tarts to a t-bone steak. One company, running a website, decided to block all IPs linked to Scientology. You are not being 'persecuted'. No death marches, no concentration camps, no shootings in the street. But we can all hope for that! Just kidding.

And did he just godwin himself?

Reg Oversimplified Wikipedia's Ruling (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166411)

The Reg article really oversimplified the Wikipedia ArbCom ruling, making it sound more one-sided than it was. If you actually read it [wikipedia.org] , you'll see that it recognizes both pro- and anti-Scientologists as troublemakers, and includes sanctions for some hardcore Scientology critics as well.

This is actually a relief to me, as anti-Scientologists can get as wacked out as the Scientologists themselves. Wikipedia ArbCom has made some bone-headed decisions in the past; it's good that they were level-headed in this case.

Re:Reg Oversimplified Wikipedia's Ruling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166609)

El Reg publishing a story about Wikipedia so one sided it is borderline fiction? No way! Next you will be telling me that they slag off bloggers, open source advocates, Linux, Apple and Twitter while going out of there way to make Microsoft look good. You make them sound like "The Sun" of IT journalism.

Death camps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166417)

David Miscavige ... asks, 'What's next, ... death camps?

Let me get back to you on that idea.

This is only the beginning. (5, Funny)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166419)

Next thing you know Jimbo will be rounding up Scientologists,forcing them into camps near active volcanos, and then blowing them all up with H-bombs.

Re:This is only the beginning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166573)

Epic, epic win.

Re:This is only the beginning. (2, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166767)

Next thing you know Jimbo will be rounding up Scientologists,forcing them into camps near active volcanos, and then blowing them all up with H-bombs.

Ok...when do we get started? :)

They'd know about persecution wouldn't they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166439)

They're masters of fooling idiots into thinking that salvation lies in a hokey lie detector, then using any means at all to keep them from leaving once they wake up to themselves. If you want an analog to Jewish yellow stars look no further than their fucking E-Meter

Don't plead for fairness when you're a sociopath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166443)

A group that uses physical intimidation tactics against journalists [youtube.com] doesn't get to ask for fair treatment.

They had their chance, but preferred to act as sociopaths. Too bad. Civilization is for the civilized.

nonsense (4, Informative)

superwiz (655733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166455)

Wikipedia also regularly bans Congressmans' offices from editing because they try to use the site to create fictional accounts of either their own candidates or the opposition. This is actually a show of integrity by Wikipedia (equal treatment of all). They are preventing a certain behavior from occurring -- not certain group of people from behaving.

Re:nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166593)

But, in the case of the Scientolgists, they throw histrionic fits when they don't get their way.

Let me get this straight.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166465)

Jews where actually allowed to wear clothes to pin their stars on???? We'll have to change that for the Scientologists..... It's just a pity that summer's starting. We'll have to bear the thetan ugliness for 6 months or so.

Yeah, posted AC for obvious reasons.

What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166483)

Is that like the chewbacca defense with a Jewish twist?

lawl! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166493)

That is fucking awesome. Those Scientology people are too stupid to realize they are in a pyramid scheme and the people that do know want to keep it a secret. Sigh, we can only hope and wait the atf goes waco on all those idiots.

Yes but..... (5, Funny)

ammit (1485755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166503)

Jews are from this planet!

Ha, ha! Except that... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166507)

There's apparently ample evidence that CoS members, located within and with specific support of the CoS institution, were doing the questionable editing practices.

This is the normal "help, help, we're being 'religiously' repressed" nonsense that the CoS always appeals to, even if they commit genuine crimes. In the case of Wikipedia, it's a minor little thing, but still pretty annoying. I think what Wikipedia has chosen to do is a bit much, but on the other hand it isn't going to have much effect, so it doesn't matter in the end.

Regardless, I think the comparison to labeling Jews in the Nazi era is pretty demeaning. Banning edits from certain locations is a hate crime? Give me a break. All Wikipedia is saying, really, is that the CoS will have to set up yet another shell company or have their members post from their home accounts rather than being able to do it from CoS facilities. Oh, boo hoo. Pay their home internet bills and you'll be back in business with the same nonsense in no time, and the admins at Wikipedia can play whack-a-mole with individual IPs.

It's not a ban of CoS followers, it is a ban of IP ranges from which there have been consistent problems -- IPs which just happen to be ones sponsored directly by the CoS. If multiple CoS sockpuppets hadn't been playing games while being behind single IPs, then banning ALL those IPs because of the actions of SOME of the individuals behind them wouldn't be necessary.

6 pointed yellow star (1)

Spice Consumer (1367497) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166511)

Please forgive me for the quality. I'm at work and don't have photoshop on this system, but I was inspired to try and design the patch this guy was talking about.

http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?image=6pointedyellowstar.jpg

(Might get modded down for MSpaint, but oh well.)

Dangerous (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166537)

Several comments note that Wikipedia is a private company and it can ban whoever it wants to. Dangerous. Wikipedia is becoming bigger then itself, it is no longer just a website. Many see it is a realiable and impartial source of information. I often use wikipedia before google as I am more likely to get the result I want. For that matter, the first page in a google result is often wikipedia.

Wikipedia claims to have no agenda, to be impartial. Yet it has for CoS now decided that THIS is the truth, not what CoS says. Fair enough, but where does it end? What truths are going to be determined next. The holocaust? Certainly denial of it is lying so ban the deniers. But others are less clear. Other exterminations by other countries. The turks, the chinese, the dutch, the americans, the japanese. All of which have shown less then favourable reaction to being pointed out that they are equally guilty of mass extermination against others. What is the official version of american, australian, canadian history relating to the natives at the moment?

CoS is being banned for two reasons. First, it is claimed they use underhanded tactics like scaremongering, lawsuits to silence opposition. But that is true for any religious group, should all religious groups be banned? They also violated the terms of the site. But that as I said is dangerous because it is effectively one individual/company saying how they think so called impartial information should be gathered.

I don't have an answer. You can't constantly have highly biased information being inserted and neither can you have someone else decide that their truth is the truth even if it is about someone else.

Sadly, the truth is often hard to get at and depends entirely on your point of view. You can easily point at the antics of CoS and call it wrong, but then I would look at the antics of your school of faith and wonder what the difference is.

All you can wonder now, who is going to be banned next for pushing their view on articles relating to them.

Remember, wikipedia was NOT supposed to be a regular encyclopedia with a choosen set of editors who get to decide what the view of the institution is. It was supposed to be open to all. Now it isn't.

Re:Dangerous (4, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166675)

To be clear, there are subtle differences between what you said and what wikipedia said. They didn't say "This is the truth", they merely said, "CoS is unable to behave itself, so it can't post anymore". The rest of the world at large is still free to post new articles or update any current ones.

By banning CoS, they are essentially trying to keep their content 'open' to all, not just a single corporation who can pay enough to keep the articles the way they want them.

Re:Dangerous (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166679)

Nice try to look impartial.

The reason they are banned is because they were trying to stop the openness, by deleting all that they didn't agree with. Your attempt at reversing who's actually doing somethin incorrect here is quite simply wrong. If they would have behaved they would have just allowed the criticism to exist, and simply adding their own stuff as a rebuttal. That is the point of wikipedia. And individual scientologists will still be able to do that, just not while they're working from any of the company's ip's.

Re:Dangerous (1)

zer0that (1418047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166729)

"... like scaremongering, lawsuits to silence opposition. But that is true for any religious group,"
I have never seen a priest outside a church during an abortion protest taking pictures or protesters and people mysteriously ending up with threatening mail the next morning. Crazy people will exist in any religion because religion itself is about blind devotion to a cause, however the antics of the CoS are things real religions do not engage in.

Re:Dangerous (1)

zer0that (1418047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166745)

Just to add I have yet to see the Pope complaining about being banned from a website and claiming its the same as being marched into a death camp ... maybe I missed that news story *shrugs*

Slashdot feeding a troll ... (2, Interesting)

DikSeaCup (767041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166549)

I'm torn between giving someone "equal time" to respond to something done to them by a company, and saying that Slashdot did nothing more than feed a troll by allowing this particular posting.

Weird and ironic... (2, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166563)

...that I see a Scientology ad here. [yfrog.com]

Re:Weird and ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166693)

Hard to say which is more evil, the ad or the fact you seem to be using a mac. Neither makes any sense.

Religion's CEO? (4, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166583)

I'll skip commenting on the "Wikipedia Ban = Nazism" claim. Many, many other people, I'm sure, will point out just how ridiculous it is. After you place that ridiculousness to the side, however, I found something odd. The person making the comparison is "Scientology religion's chief executive officer Mr. David Miscavige". A religion's "chief executive officer"? Since when does a religion have a CEO? Am I just ignorant of the structure of religions other than Judaism (which has a very loose-knit make up - the joke is that if you ask two Jews a question, you'll get three opinions)? Are there other religions with CEO's?

Re:Religion's CEO? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166705)

Only one I can think of is Apple

Whats next (-1, Flamebait)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166587)

will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars

Yes!

OT: Why can't I see subject lines? (4, Informative)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166603)

What hoops do I have to jump through to see subject lines on Slashdot again?

Fake Press Release (1)

skyryder12 (677216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166619)

Fake post is fake..... As much as I find their behavior reprehensible, I can't really say trolling them this way shows any more *cough* maturity.

Ok (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166631)

Hhmm ok I'm just going to say how I feel here, anyone that compares anything to Hitler to make their point needs to be kicked in the head a few times. Due to the reason comparing anything to Hitler and what was done during that time of a monstrous horror it just a cry to make them look good and claim they where not doing anything wrong. They where abusing the system that was out there, so Wikipedia put an end to it.

Haven't we learned anything? (0, Troll)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166639)

As advocates of free software and speech, people in the FOSS community are always saying that censorship on the internet doesn't work. That people will find a way around the "problem". Well now the shoe is on the other foot and we're seeing that the proponents of liberty and free speech fail the first time their principles are challenged - complete hypocrites. While I do not support Scientology (not even sure what it is - it seems to be an american thing, so it doesn't have much effect on the other 95% of the world) as a bystander I can see that censorship simply won't work.

It's also saddening to see how quickly otherwise liberal minded people revert to the old, dictatorial, oppressive and ultimately ineffective ways of trying to silence people they don't like.

Re:Haven't we learned anything? (3, Insightful)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166757)

It's also saddening to see how quickly otherwise liberal minded people revert to the old, dictatorial, oppressive and ultimately ineffective ways of trying to silence people they don't like.

It's not about silencing anyone, Scientologists still have the means to express their views through their own websites (and countless others). They have just lost the privilege to edit Wikipedia, since it apparently has been found that they have been misusing that privilege. It's like telling someone who is shouting in your ear to shut up: technically, it is limiting their freedom of speech, but don't you think it's justified?

Re:Haven't we learned anything? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166789)

What censorship?

Re:Haven't we learned anything? (4, Insightful)

paulmac84 (682014) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166805)

I think you misunderstand censorship:

"the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

In this case, it's the CoS that are trying to censor Wikipedia by editing articles to remove the parts they don't want the public to read.

As you said censorship on the Internet doesn't work, and Wikipedia just proved that by banning the censors - in this case the CoS.

Yellow star? I was thinking DC-8. (4, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166649)

If I were Jewish I'd be really insulted by this. I wouldn't want the genocide of my people compared to getting kicked out of McDonalds for repeatedly setting the restroom on fire.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166655)

Yes, we want them all to have a badge of Xenu on it, have the abbreviated South Park version printed on their back with the text "this is what I actually believe" bellow.

Not a serious article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166657)

You know this is a parody, yes?

It's not real.

Not sure of the validity of the OP (5, Insightful)

wembley fraggle (78346) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166715)

So, I actually clicked through to RTFA, and was stunned by the article. I'm pretty sure it's a fake. Just to quote it - "There is so much nonsense on the internet about Scientology, all of which was written by anti-religion extremists in the employ of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical industry. Many are also being paid by certain depraved, degenerate factions within the German government. You can't believe any of it. If these scumbags had their way, all children would be psych-drugged into oblivion, most eventually becoming high school gunmen; vicious de-programmers would constantly be leaping out from shadowy corners; there would be all-night electroshock parlors on the high street of every village, town and city; and anyone who tried to live an ethical life would quickly receive an icepick lobotomy."

That scans more like Burroughs than anything else. Kind of a satirical send-up of the scientologists, you know? If it *is* real, I think this guy should write more press releases.

I doubt (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166719)

I doubt anyone would ever make them wear yellow stars. However, based on this moronic overreaction we could arrange bright red tattoos on their foreheads that say "Dumbass"!

Better Idea (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166721)

'What's next, will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed stars on our clothing?'

How about T-Shirts that say "I'm with Stupid" with the arrow pointing up? How dare they compare their made up religion to someone else's made up religion.

Comparing Jimbo to Hitler is deeply offensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166727)

Hitler never banned edits from any IP addresses.

Wikipedia's problem is this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166753)

The benefit of censorship of the 'ban' type to clean up poor debates is linear for n banned organisations.

The problems that arise from censorship, the debate and distractions and criticisms, is exponential.

Just wait and see. There will be plenty of articles and discussion around this - next time they ban an entire group of people there will be ten times as much.

Puns (1)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#28166761)

... that Wikipedia has banned edits originating from ... the Church of Scientology... Scientology leader ...David Miscavige

It just makes me wonder, is it a David and Goliath type battle or just a Mascavige of Justice?

Only in France (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166769)

> David Miscavige calls the ban "a 'despicable hate crime,' and asks,
> 'What's next, will Scientologists have to wear yellow, six-pointed
> stars on our clothing?'

Only on France.

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28166783)

I recommend reading it. It's utterly unhinged. Mental.

"If these scumbags had their way, all children would be psych-drugged into oblivion, most eventually becoming high school gunmen..."
That's a lot of gunmen.

"Scientology has also been declared a bona-fide religion by Mr. Frank Flynn, Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas."
If it's cool with Frank, then it's cool with me.

"Many celebrities are Scientologists, and ordinary public Scientologists sometimes get to meet them."
Awesome!

"...Scientologists deserve to be treated fairly, which means that we should be allowed to do things that other groups may not do."
What?

"We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal backgrounds."
I got arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle once. Does that count?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>