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."
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
I remember saying very close to the same thing quite a number of times to various people when I was... 10?
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
If just losing editing rights is as bad as Nazi prosecution then by comparison other forms of prosecution must be like killing kittens with sledgehammers.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Well.... they should come on down to Slashdot, let Kdawson show em' how it's done!
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Informative)
And their members can, in fact, edit Wikipedia from other locations. But this wasn't "members" editing. This was the cult's own staff doing a planned campaign to distort and eliminate the postings of others.
Remember, few "members" are permitted to deal with skeptical outsiders. That's a task reserved for the "Office of Special Affairs", their group that took on dealing with reporters and former members, after the "Guardian's Office" had its leadership convicted of planting bomb threats to discredit the author Susan Meister and convicted of a large array of other crimes. Look it up: this is _precisely_ the material that these astro-turfing censors wanted to eliminate from Wikipedia. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Affairs [wikipedia.org], it's fascinating what this cult has done historically to harass writers and former members.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no obligation to religion/superstition by private groups. It is time anti-religionists went on the offensive to assert ourselves (legally) against superstition.
We don't have to give religionists anything we are not obliged to in law, and we do NOT owe respect to superstition. Scientology in my opinion is a blatant con game, and hence worthy of (legal) denial of support. Supporters should be exposed so those of us who oppose Scientology can (legally) choose the manner of our interaction with them.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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'"
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Funny)
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...?
Parent
Godwin! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Godwin! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
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....
Parent
Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Dear Mr. Miscavige, (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you hate what happened doesn't make it a hate crime.
Hahaha (Score:5, Funny)
Hahahaha
If they didn't like what Wiki did, they're going to hate being Slashdotted!
Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yellow stars have been done to death (Score:5, Funny)
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.
all for it! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This is only the beginning. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that like the chewbacca defense with a Jewish twist?
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Yes but..... (Score:5, Funny)
Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know i'm not trolling, the Institute for Works of Religion [wikipedia.org] is run by a banking CEO.
Parent
OT: Why can't I see subject lines? (Score:5, Informative)
What hoops do I have to jump through to see subject lines on Slashdot again?
Re:OT: Why can't I see subject lines? (Score:5, Funny)
The subject lines are fine, perhaps you are overrun by eyeball thetans that are blocking your ability to see them. Only Scientology can restore your ability to see Slashdot subject lines!!
Parent
Yellow star? I was thinking DC-8. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not sure of the validity of the OP (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
So the church of Scientology actually recognises the Holocaust now? Ah well :)
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
This guy needs to see a psychiatrist ASAP.
It's nothing an R2-45 won't cure.
Parent
Re:From the article (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:strawwmen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
"Oh, but it's Private Property(TM)" (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate seeing this argument pop up again and again. Wikipedia has a lot of de facto power. We gave them this power by using the service and promoting it among our acquaintances. We didn't give Jimmy Wales this power so that he could use it to advance a personal agenda of changing social perceptions or silencing arbitrary voices. There's a certain amount of accountability here.
But the decision to ban Scientology's IP's was perfectly in line with a reasonable prior policy. That's what makes this is OK, not the fact that Wikipedia is private property.
Parent
or... (Score:5, Funny)
or six.
*rimshot*
Parent
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent