Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Is this a good thing, or a dangerous precedent?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by hornet, May 29, 2009.

  1. Wikipedia has locked the thread on Scientology, to prevent the many enemies of the 'church' from editing it.

    Now there are fewer things I despise more than L Ron Hubbard's evil mix of mind control and pseudo-medicine, but I wonder how the Southern Baptist Church, for example, would react if their entry was locked so it couldn't be edited? Or the Jehovah's Witnesses????

  2. Well im orthodox and i reckon they should all be locked out except for ours, its just unorthodox not to be orthodox :grin:
  3. Sorry Hornet, but go and read the article again.

    The Scientology page has been locked from editing for some time now, to stop the constant vandalism that was occurring - I'm pretty sure if the Southern Baptist Church's page was being constantly edited in a non-neutral way, they wouldn't have any objection to it. The lock on the page is preserve the neutrality of the article and Wikipedia.

    The article states that Wikipedia has gone a step further and blocked/banned known IP addresses that are owned by the Church of Scientology because they were biasing articles towards themselves. It's happened many times before on smaller scales (including politicians), and individuals or IP addresses have been banned as well. It keeps in line of Wikipedia's neutrality stance in all ways and is a good step.

    I whole heartily agree with the ban and the reasons for it.
  4. why is it that this subject barely registers on my meter?

  5. Ah yes, neutrality borne of incorporating the bias of anyone who is motivated enough to contribute. :wink:
  6. They are all whackjobs IMO though.. used to be a big client of where I used to work and got some insight into what they were doing.. What randoms.
  7. [​IMG]

    Enemies of the church?


    WIKIPEDIA has banned members of the Church of Scientology
    from contributing to articles in a bid to stamp out biased information.

    The site's administrators allegedly decided to impose the ban after
    finding members of the church were changing articles related to
    Scientology to promote their interests.
  8. The Scientology issue aside what I find amazing is how people are increasingly refering to Wikipedia as a serious reference source. So much so that Encylopedia Brittanica, the ultimate authoratative reference has given up trying to "compete" with Wiki.

    When anyone can edit an article and where proper research and fact checking isn't conducted, how can anyone seriously consider Wiki as authoratative?

    Sure, it's probably fine for pop culture research, but for anything else, particularly sensitive issues such as politics, religion and history, you have to consider the source when reading it.

    I can only pray (metaphorically speaking) that schools don't allow it to be used in students' studies.
  9. #10 twainharte, May 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015

    starts at about the 1:20min mark. good interview on the subject.

    as for the topic. scientology is utter bullshit.


    this sums it up:

  10. No reason to point a finger at wikipedia simply because people don't know how to do basic research and use more than one source of information.
  11. Blocking IP address doesn't really achieve anything, especially for people with dynamic IP's. :roll: So locking the page makes more sense.
  12. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844
    Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday. (Dec 2005)

    More on the "Nature" article here and here.


    In a move to take on Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica is inviting the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.

    New features enabling the inclusion of this user-generated content will be rolled out on the encyclopedia's website over the next 24 hours, Britannica's president, Jorge Cauz, said in an interview today. (22 January 2009)

  13. for all the effort you put into your usual 'last word' Kishy, the one effort you DIDN'T expend was to read the rest of the thread :roll:.
  14. Wikipedia is fine. I once put a 'Citation Needed' flag beside a fact on New Zealand (something to do with the amount of green energy). Three hours later some guy had put not one, but two references demonstrating the validity of said statement. Needless to say, the people editing wikipedia are very conscientious and are quick to correct any erroneous or un-cited statements. Having said that, if you are relying on wikipedia without checking their sources, you are asking for trouble.

    Personally I think they should just lock (almost) everything from users without accounts (like most forums). This would remove the vast majority of vandalism. Having said that, its easily detected anyway.

    As noted above, they 'Semi-Protected' the Scientology article from anonymous edits and edits from the church of Scientology. I can still edit the page, and rest assured, criticism of Scientology will continue.
  15. this thread is one of the main reasons im Jedi..
  16. I was going to become one, but the whole sister-kissing thing was a bit of a turn off.
  17. well im a bit stuck as i only have a brother.. you should see my cousin though.... :bannanabutt: