do you agree with Wikipedia's decision to ban the Church of Scientology from amending Wiki entries?

Question

http://newslite.tv/2009/06/01/wikipedia-bans-church-of-scien.html

Wikipedia - the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit - have banned the Church of Scientology from changing entries on their site.

The ban, voted for last week by the Wikipedia arbitration committee, means that all computers owned by the church will be blocked from editing.

Answer 1

Yes.



Wikipedia is great as a resource, but it relies on the information entered being accurate and unbiased.



If someone repeatedly edits an entry with incorrect or biased information then they should be banned from doing so.



Scientology has gotten itself a reputation for trying to silence it's critics and suppressing negative information.

Answer 2

Wikipedia is concerned with facts and factual data. If the Church is putting in factual data about its history, membership, beliefs etc., that is fine. The Wiki article about Scientology is detailed and objective. Some of the stuff is actually quite interesting and thought-provoking.



The problem arises when the Church tries to present some of its beliefs as facts. You can say "Scientologists believe people are immortal". What you can't say is "People are immortal" - this is not a proven fact, nor one recognised as true by the vast majority of rational people.

Answer 3

LOL, marvelous. I hate that "faith" like no different!! it quite is this form of corrupt business enterprise. Wiki probable banned the Scientology IP addresses simply by fact they save attempting to erase the wacky certainty and tenets with reference to the religion. so as that they are able to tear-off human beings into procuring it to be revealed to them. additionally, they desire to objective to conceal up any detrimental press or incidents that makes them seem undesirable.

Answer 4

Yes.



But Scientology will find a way around it in order to continue making biased, self-serving edits.

Answer 5

Yes I do, because they weren't just editting scientology pages, but also any opposing opinions or stories as well. It was essentially convened censorship against opposition to their religion.

Answer 6

It certainly wouldn't stop a scientologist from accessing another computer and switching the facts around.

Answer 7

Yes, that is one whacked out money grabbing bunch of freaks.

They should be banned from society, not just wikipedia

Answer 8

I think they should ban EVERYONE from editing their cyclo - either it's fact or it's fiction, and if it's fiction it's not much good to anybody !

Answer 9

they banned the computers because of biased editing - they as a group, face the same ramifications as any individual who did the same.

Answer 10

all part of the fashionable left. I mean we have muslim inmans in the UK calling for our death, who are responsible for the largest terrorist attacks in Europe, and what happens to them?



They have attacked book shops, banned cartoons and banned democratically elected politicans from entering the UK, calling death to those who insult islam, largest terrorist attack in the UK... etc etc etc

Answer 11

yes cuz they wer tryin to dress the church up to make it biased on the site which is illegal...they shuld be sectioned al lof em

Answer 12

I don't know what went into that decision, so I don't really have an opinion.

Answer 13

What about all those other people who purposely add incorrect information?

Answer 14

Yes I agree!

Answer 15

Yeah cause those are some crazy azz mo-fos

Answer 16

Well it doesn't really concern me, and as someone's already said, it's their website, their choice.

Answer 17

If they are constantly deleting the truth, yes.

Answer 18

They can do what they want its their web site

Answer 19

Really, I couldn't give one.

Answer 20

there not amending there spining there pages

Answer 21

couldn't care less

Answer 22

no, it's discrimination.



no matter what we think of them, to restrict one group because of a biased opinion is wrong.

Answer 23

its their choise