CoS Bigwig Likens Wikipedia Ban to Nazis' Yellow Star Decree 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."
ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)
strawwmen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Dear Mr. Miscavige, (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you hate what happened doesn't make it a hate crime.
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.
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
Um? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
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'"
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.
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?
Dangerous (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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.
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.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:1, Insightful)
Successful troll is successful. Cool story, bro.
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a biased edit isn't sufficient for a ban - in fact, admins are incredibly generous in that even outright vandalism won't get a ban on a first try, only a polite "please don't do this" style message to begin with.
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."
As opposed to a WoW fan trying to justify his purchase by mocking a small number of people playing some other game?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
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'"
Then again the CoS is probably worse than the Nazis since their attitude is closer to pinning the yellow star on everyone else.
Recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
So the church of Scientology actually recognises the Holocaust now? Ah well :)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
The problem with Nazis... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Godwin! (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking like an idiot doesn't make you a Hubbardite, even if being a Hubbardite makes you look like an idiot.
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
So you believe that it's censorship for a privately owned website to try to prevent systematic, repeated vandalism of Scientology related articles (said vandalism including removal of (i.e. attempted censorship of) anything negative).
You are either
a) a troll
b) an idiot or
c) a Scientologist (and by implication also an idiot)
Re:Not sure of the validity of the OP (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know any scientologists? Have any friends,or family members who are scientologists?
My friend, that is not satire in the slightest. That is what these people actually believe.
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
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.
Re:all for it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Both are made up. Both use fiction as their reference material.
That one happens to be older than the other doesn't make it more "correct". I mean - is judaism more "correct" than christianity? Granted, the latter believes that some day a benevolent space zombie will come back to save us, but still ...
Re:Dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess size opens you to outside contributions against your will? So GM must allow you to make any car you want? Time Warner must allow you to make a feature film?ÂMonsanto has to make you seedless mangoes because you asked them to?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, did you just impy that killing kittens is worse than killing people?!?
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:3, Insightful)
Very OT, but I just have to comment on this:
As opposed to a WoW fan trying to justify his purchase by mocking a small number of people playing some other game?
As someone who's first MMO was Pre-CU (as in pre SOE destruction) Star Wars Galaxies and who has played EVE for the last 2 years, I have to say I am GLAD the typical WOW player doesn't play my game :)
Re:Cry me a river... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because clearly, popularity is the only worthwhile measurement of quality.
They don't like it when you compare WOW to the popularity of "reality" shows.
Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality. McDonalds hamburgers are undoubtedly the most popular burgers, but is that because they are also the highest in quality? Of course not. There are MANY places you can go and get a lot better burger than at McDonalds.
Getting back to topic: What the CO$ doesn't like is when people point out that what they are selling is (intentionally) fucked up amateur psychological therapy, calling it a "religion" and charging more for it than it would cost to go to a REAL, college educated, trained, certified, psychologist.
Theirs is an organization that MUST present a public face made of smoke and mirrors because the truth isn't an option for them, so they CANNOT tolerate anyone who can blow away some of that smoke screen, exposing the very poorly written science fiction behind the curtain.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with his analogy at all - for people who can't tell horse shit from roses. IF the Jews were only being prevented from trespassing on other people's (intellectual) property, THEN the analogy might fit. CoS has been abusive and arrogant in their dealings with the Wiki. The Wiki isn't exactly "public" property - that is, it is not owned by the government, it wasn't built by the government, and taxpayers don't have a monetary interest in it, in any way. The Wiki, like any private individual, can ban any person or group of persons for almost any reason, and they don't even have to justify it in a court of law. In this case, however, it could be easily justified in any impartial court, without ever once mentioning relious beliefs. CoS needs to change their conduct, plain and simple. Wiki doesn't care that they are a bunch of nutcases, they only care that the nutcases are abusive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not being persecuted for their beliefs at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, I'm guessing you're comprehension is on par with Miscavige. His comparison is absolutely flawed so much that I have to wonder if he's either that stupid or if he knows its bad but just hopes that dropping the term Nazis will make people overlook the enormous gaping logical flaw in his argument.
Religous beliefs do NOT give you the right to blatantly break the rules of a website. If you somehow think thats the case, then I don't know what that makes you.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
I supposed it depends on the people in question.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you are not implying that killing kittens is worse than killing people.
Let's try a thought experiment, just for kicks:
Which one feels worse?
Now, of course it's not an even comparison: the kittens are defenseless from the start.
[citation needed] (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only does the story Godwin itself, but it's pure troll.
Lots of sites are carrying this story, and experience has made us all quick to believe the most ridiculous things about Scientology, but this looks incredibly fake, and I can't find any reliable sources.
Does anyone have any evidence that this is real?
264 countries? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Censorship suggests that a person or group is not allowed to say what they wish. The Church of Scientology had that ability. They could have outlined factual information about their church in the appropriate places on Wiki. But they abused the system and used it has a propoganda tool, editing the contributions of others to further their own agenda.
Another thing to note is that Wiki is specifically meant and designed to be an apolitical, unbiased, and nuetral publication. Everyone agrees to those terms when they post there. Everyone can openly edit so long as they dont hamper the ability for the facts to be presented. CoS chose to disregard those terms and edit out any facts that shed them in an unfavorable light (of which there are plenty of choices).
Wiki isnt an advertising service, no matter how much these people seem to think it is. It is for the passage of information, ALL information, whether favorable to them or not.
Re:Actually, I'm ok with the yellow star thing (Score:4, Insightful)
...half the time. When the wind was southerly, he knew a hawk from a handsaw.
He's an interesting character. He was one of the first Westerners to take an interest in yoga and in Buddhism, and his early writings on these are insightful. Some of his work shows a understanding of ritual magic as psychological exercise -- for instance, in a preface to his and Mather's version of The Lesser Key of Solomon, he wrote that "The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain.... If, then, I say, with Solomon: 'The Spirit Cimieries teaches logic,' what I mean is: 'Those portions of my brain which subserve the logical faculty may be stimulated and developed by following out the processes called "The Invocation of Cimieries."'"
And then he had a nervous breakdown and started top believe that he was "the Prophet chosen to proclaim the Law which will determine the destinies of this planet for an epoch," and "in a class which contains only seven other names in the whole of human history".
Some more thoughts on poor ol' Aleister here [infamous.net].
So: wacky, yes, but I'd take Crowley over L. Ron any day.
April's fool (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
The analogy is horribly flawed
by BadAnalogyGuy (945258)
yathink?
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Repressive systems have no use for facts they can't alter to fit into their world view. Read your 1984 for reference.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Epic troll is epic :). It pleases me to see that some still practice the ancient art; however you failed to get modded up :(. But I'll play along:
When your beliefs include killing all who oppose you [wikipedia.org], it's only fair that you get the same in return, no? Not that Wikipedia banning you from editing is the same, but still.
Actually, it was the ones who escaped early. Nazis weren't interested in having Jews as soldiers or police, or in any other position for that matter. Jews were already being soldiers, police and all other imaginable things prior to Nazis taking power; it was the Nazis who removed them from these positions.
What the heck does this have to do with Scientology, thought?
Re:Haven't we learned anything? (Score:3, Insightful)
For the n-th time, they didn't just say "we don't like your opinion, go away". There is an approved and tried way to deal with controversal topics on Wikipedia, there is the well known discussion page, there's moderators, there's a solution for almost any kind of argument. What is NOT a solution is to simply go and put your view of something on the front page without even considering someone else's opinion. The CoS isn't the first person or group to be banned for repeatedly and deliberately putting "their" view of events and positions ahead of everyone else's while ignoring the mediation and moderation efforts.
CoS decided to break the rules, so they're being banned. What's hard to understand about it?
Missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
'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."
Well, if that's a problem, we could force them to wear a colored arm-band around their right arm. This shouldn't be a big deal, since many of their members already do [exscn.net]. And if they are extra-good, they get the gold-colored band and they can even spend one night per week with their spouse! /Heebie-Jeebies/
Seriously, name a single other "religion" that charges members "donations" individually for services, complete with a price sheet?
Interpreted as damage (Score:3, Insightful)
There are three meaningful differences:
1) Nobody is being identified as CoS. The comparison is ridiculous and specious on its face. However, I can understand how Scientologists wouldn't want people to know who they were.
2) CoS is being removed from a private site with limited reach (admittedly an important one), but this in no way affects them outside that site. This is no more "censorship" than would be being removed from the golf course that senators play at.
3) CoS is being removed for a pattern of poor behavior of editing things in their interest, without providing appropriate sources, removing well sourced material, in the hopes of changing their public image. Each of these is against Wikipedia's stated policy, and the group was warned more than a dozen times over the course of several years.
They are merely Godwinning so that they don't have to accept that what happened to them is the result of their organized campaign of unethical behavior (as were it any surprise, given their other activities.)
Routing around in 3, 2...
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't compare all religions with scientology. Scientology is an insult to christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus -- everyone whose religion is more than measly 50 years old, and whose religion has already went through the "H0ly kruz4des!!1" period. Scientology looks like a bad, but dangerous, brainwashing joke. Thank you.
Re:Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)
Changed how millions of students do research? How do you figure? Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference in any school I'm aware of. You're saying that because it happens to be the first result on Google that it changed the way students do research? I hope not, cause thats just stupid.
Research patterns changed because of the search engine and the web itself itself. Wikipedia provides data for the search engine, but its the search engine that actually changed things. Put wikipedia online with no searchability (internal or from external search engines like google/live/yahoo) and no links and you'd get no visitors. Take wikipedia away, and students will still use search engines to find their data.
The way students changed before Wikipedia existed, its a great priliminary resource for information, but lets not get stupid and elevate it to some level of Holy Grail. Its full of false information, bias by companies pawning their wares there, and ignorance from any random contributor that thinks he knows that an article is wrong when in fact it his he/she that is wrong. Its a good starting point to get some ideas and seek out more information. Thats fine and it does a great job at that, but thats where it ends. I'm happy to get use out of Wikipedia on a daily basis, but its pretty stupid for anyone to consider anything on Wikipedia a fact without outside unrelated references.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it isn't. Europe isn't yet a state and my local law says otherwise.
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing wrong with his analogy (Score:1, Insightful)
But isn't there some rule in Wikipedia about citing FACTUAL sources? Scientology claims to not be responsible for any death, though the evidence for it is mounting.
There is much evidence that Scientology is a fraudulent pyramid scheme to funnel money into its leaders' pockets.
Scientology DOES use psychiatric methods, mainly REGRESSIVE therapy, which can be mentally harmful -- especially when such methods are used by improperly trained people. But they also use a primitive lie detector (roughly $50 in parts, including the case, sold for thousands to its members-- more proof of the profit-based intent of the cult)to 'detect thetans'
Hubbard said not to talk to critics; only to ask about critics' crimes. They believe that everyone critical of Scientology only does so because they have crimes to HIDE.
Hubbard has made statements about how Scientology will BECOME the government. Who wants a State controlled by any "religious" group? I sure as hell DO NOT, and even oppose the amount of action currently based on Christian values.
Scientology CLAIMS to help people. But when videos of "auditing" sessions is leaked, it becomes clear how much of a FRAUD Scientology is.
L. Ron Hubbard made up a LOAD of crap. Dianetics mentions research often, but none is ever cited. Most people in the profession of his claims will refute everything he says.
He lied about his military record, his education, and SO much other stuff.
So can you PLEASE tell me what good there is in Scientology?