Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

[demonhorde665]

actually the scientology church is really just a bunch of greedy famous people plotting more ways get more money. also as to wiki's "reliability" i dont think this wil ever fix it , online school regularly remind thier students to AVOID this site as refrence since it is a a fairly "open" forum for other people's edits.

 

[jsloan]

[citation][nom]fuser[/nom]For me the final straw was when Chef left South Park.[/citation]

I though it was because he joined the "Super Adventure Club",

http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Chef

;-)

 

[ViPr]

by the way, why is a cult allowed to advertise on this website? i thought we had to get rid of all the cults so scientists can finally take control of this giant headless chicken we call humanity.

 

[Guest]

@techtre2003:
Even though 'Church of Scientology' is referring to a group of people, that group is itself a single entity. Therefore 'wasn't' would be the correct word to use. You would only use 'weren't' if you were referring to 'Churches of Scientology' or simply 'they', since those are plural.

 

[NuclearShadow]

They are fools for thinking they could edit it in their favor and get away with it anyways. Wikipedia keeps backup of the pages and can easily be reverted back.

 

[Guest]

I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...

 

[Dave_69]

Please ban the Mormons too. They are equally freaky and are always going on there and changing stuff to make themselves look wonderful.

 

[xpont8]

not all churches! there is one. you haven't found it yet because you're not searching for it

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]nodestiny[/nom]I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...[/citation]

Well Wikipedia only bans if the site is abused. All articles are meant to remain neutral. Anyone is free to add or alter a article so long as its the truth and can be backed up with sources. As long as the Churches follow the rules I see no reason for them to be banned.

[citation][nom]xpont8[/nom]not all churches! there is one. you haven't found it yet because you're not searching for it[/citation]

Of course! Everyone knows the Vault Dweller from Vault 13 is the true Messiah!

 

[Guest]

Why not ban the Churches of Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well? They're all notorious for pushing their own agenda on there.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]nodestiny[/nom]I dont understand why all churches arn't banned? There is NO evidence to ANY claims either way...[/citation]
That's not how it works, sport. Encyclopedic information can be presented without, say, claiming that any specific religion is true. Historical, biographical, doctrinal issues are described in a secular fashion. It's only when users start to abuse the peer-edited system (vandalism et cetra) that the banhammer starts to swing.
A Catholic priest could edit a Wikipedia entry on St. Jerome: as long as the information is presented in an academic rather than polemic manner, and of course if the information on Jerome checks out, there's no problem. If this priest instead started writing as if Jerome's beliefs were divinely inspired and factually true, then there'd be an issue.

Or maybe you weren't talking about Wikipedia and instead asking why religion isn't banned by society at large. The simple answer is that people generally have freedom of belief and conscience and that to try stamping out all religions by outlawing them would be a blatant violation of their human rights.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

[citation][nom]AtheismFangirl[/nom]Why not ban the Churches of Christianity, Islam and Judaism as well? They're all notorious for pushing their own agenda on there.[/citation]
Now how the hell would they do that?

 

[Guest]

@doomsdaydave: They can't exactly stop the Scientologists either, do you think wikipedia has the means to keep up with every prospective IP address and username they could possibly use? Of course not, my point was that Scientology(however ridiculous they are), is being singled out.

 

[doomsdaydave11]

[citation][nom]StillAtheistic[/nom]@doomsdaydave: They can't exactly stop the Scientologists either, do you think wikipedia has the means to keep up with every prospective IP address and username they could possibly use? Of course not, my point was that Scientology(however ridiculous they are), is being singled out.[/citation]
While obviously they can't block every scientologist IP address, they can block the main points... the HQ's...
scientologists have always been notorious for forcing their "religion" down the rest of the population's throat, in this case, it has been noted on Wikipedia.

Christianity (AFAIK), has no such centralized area. Even if scientologists were the same... your point was irrelevant.

 

[ossie]

[citation][nom]ViPr[/nom]by the way, why is a cult allowed to advertise on this website?[/citation]
As long as they pay big $$$, TH/BoM will do anything. Too bad ScC doesn't manufacture IT stuff, so TH could happily skew the reviews.

 

[blackened144]

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests," and the site maintains that whatever their feelings on the subject at hand, neutrality is non-negotiable and all articles must accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to viewpoints in proportion to the weight of those sources.

Wikipedia should follow their own rules about "neutrality". Try to find ANYTHING in Wikipedia that might hint that global warming is not man-made. You wont find it. So much for being neutral.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Wikipedia should follow their own rules about "neutrality". Try to find ANYTHING in Wikipedia that might hint that global warming is not man-made. You wont find it.[/citation]
You were saying?
Ever think that perhaps the overwhelming representation of anthropogenic climate change on Wikipedia might be due to the majority of scientists and scientific papers suggest that humans do contribute to climate change? I mean, it's the current scientific consensus, and actual disagreement from climate scientists is few, far between, and generally lacking in credibility. I hate to tell you this, but in this case Wikipedia is actually going to describe the state of the science according to the consensus instead of the vocal minority. That doesn't mean they don't present the dissent or pretend it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't dominate the wiki information because their objections tend not to dominate the scientific work on the subject.

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]WheelsOfConfusion[/nom]You were saying? Ever think that perhaps the overwhelming representation of anthropogenic climate change on Wikipedia might be due to the majority of scientists and scientific papers suggest that humans do contribute to climate change? [/citation]
OK, so they finally caved in and had to admit that there is at least one true scientist who apposes manmade global warming. This article didnt exist the last time I looked and every mention of any "skeptic" only pointed out how they were not really scientists. However, the only "overwhelming" thing about it is the amount of data disproving the theory that gets ignored in trying to perpetuate this myth of manmade global warming. And the article you point to is useless. It lists a few dozen scientists when in actuality there are thousands. In order to try to appear impartial, they need to put the disclaimer at the top that says "this is not a list of skeptics", because they anyone with a brain who reads it will realize thats what they were trying to do. the link below can point to hundreds and thousands of articles disproving your "current scientific consensus".

http/antigreen.blogspot.com/

 

[blackened144]

I meant to point out that for every piece of data that you can say proves your point, I can find a piece of data that contradicts that point. At best for you its a draw, no where near this "consensus" that I hear most people shouting about.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]OK, so they finally caved in and had to admit that there is at least one true scientist who apposes manmade global warming. This article didnt exist the last time...[/citation]
Well, when was the last time you looked? I'd like a serious answer to that question.