Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media

CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree 567

Posted by timothy
from the stable-sane-leadership-cuckoo-cuckoo dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree

Comments Filter:
  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hertne (1381263) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:15AM (#28166315)

    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)

      by Z00L00K (682162) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:49AM (#28166627) Homepage

      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.

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

      by stupid_is (716292) on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:20AM (#28166925) Homepage
      So, it's alright for the CoS to forbid their followers from viewing certain websites [xenu.net] but not alright for others to ban CoS from editing their sites? Hmm - somewhere in there I think there's a double standard (although I admit that the referenced article is rather unlikely to be unbiased, as is the wiki on the topic [wikipedia.org])
      • by Ecuador (740021) on Monday June 01, 2009 @11:55AM (#28169037) Homepage

        Please watch your sources. That site is obviously planted by lord Xenu to undermine the efforts of the great Church of Scientology.You shouldn't be quoting the guy who trapped all these dead souls on earth and enslaved the human race under the evil John Travolta... oh wait, I think I mixed up the Hubbard plots...

  • Godwin! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:15AM (#28166317) Homepage

    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.

  • ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:16AM (#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.
  • strawwmen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JackSpratts (660957) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:18AM (#28166335) Homepage
    i suppose when they actually have to wear yellow stars he'll have a point.
    • Re:strawwmen (Score:5, Insightful)

      by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:28AM (#28166431) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by Roxton (73137) <roxton@gmail . c om> on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:21AM (#28166935) Homepage Journal

        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.

        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.

    • or... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Aurisor (932566) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:41AM (#28166557) Homepage

      or six.

      *rimshot*

  • Cry me a river... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WCMI92 (592436) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:18AM (#28166339) Homepage

    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.

    • by mariushm (1022195) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:23AM (#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

      • by geminidomino (614729) * on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:43AM (#28167199) Journal

        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

        A better analogy:

        If a child won't play nice with someone else's toys, he won't be allowed to play with them anymore.

  • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:21AM (#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.

  • by Chardish (529780) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {hsidrahc}> on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:21AM (#28166359) Homepage

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

  • Hahaha (Score:5, Funny)

    by goldaryn (834427) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:21AM (#28166365) Homepage
    Written by Church of Scientology, Clearwater, FL

    Hahahaha

    If they didn't like what Wiki did, they're going to hate being Slashdotted!
  • Um? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by viyh (620825) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:23AM (#28166383) Homepage
    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.
  • by Telecommando (513768) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:24AM (#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.

  • all for it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Laebshade (643478) <laebshade@gmail.com> on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:25AM (#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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:25AM (#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.

  • by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage.praecantator@com> on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:27AM (#28166419) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by cbiltcliffe (186293)

      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? :)

  • nonsense (Score:5, Informative)

    by superwiz (655733) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:30AM (#28166455) Journal
    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.
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:33AM (#28166483)

    Is that like the chewbacca defense with a Jewish twist?

  • by ammit (1485755) <fizzgiggy@googlemail.com> on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:36AM (#28166503)
    Jews are from this planet!
  • by DikSeaCup (767041) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:40AM (#28166549) Homepage
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dragonslicer (991472)
      I decided to actually read the article for a change, just so I could get the primary source for the quotation before passing it along to people. I'm glad I did, because I discovered that it's just a parody piece. As nuts as the Scientologists are, and as good as the satire is, we really need to be careful about spreading this quotation around as if it were real.
  • ...that I see a Scientology ad here. [yfrog.com]
  • Religion's CEO? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:44AM (#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?

  • by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:46AM (#28166603) Homepage Journal

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

  • by Steauengeglase (512315) on Monday June 01, 2009 @08:52AM (#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.

  • by wembley fraggle (78346) on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:00AM (#28166715) Homepage

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:15AM (#28166865)

    So the church of Scientology actually recognises the Holocaust now? Ah well :)

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Monday June 01, 2009 @09:23AM (#28166959) Homepage

    Is that they did a lot of bad things. Are you only allowed to say "this person is doing this bad thing" if:
    (pick one)
      - Nazis didn't do it
      - Some person more well-known than the Nazis, who was not themselves a Nazi, did it
      - The person you're talking about has ALSO killed six-million jews

    Just because the Nazi's killed a bunch of people doesn't suddenly excuse everything they did leading up to killing a bunch of people, or make it okay.

  • 264 countries? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bazzargh (39195) on Monday June 01, 2009 @10:50AM (#28168131)

    From TFA:
    The Scientology religion is the only major religion to have emerged in the 20th century.

    You're forgetting Jedi - which scored higher than you multiple national censuses. Whats that you say? Its made-up science fiction? Yes, and so is Jedi.

    It is the world's fastest growing religion, found in over 264 countries

    And this is why they don't let you edit Wikipedia. You only get to 264 countries if you include Narnia, Mordor, Ankh-Morpork, Azkhaban, Ruritania, Elbonia, Grand Fenwick, and about 55 other places that are as real as Xenu.

    (sorry if this is a dupe, but my link to /. went down a few hours ago when I was posting this)

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...