In 2009 Wikipedia tightened controls on controversial articles - preventing edits by anonymous contributors.

In May of 2009 Wikipedia banned editing from Scientology IP addresses, and banned specific editors from scientology-related articles for at least six months - a term which is about to expire.

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Wired News/May 29, 2009

By Ryan Singel

Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology from editing any articles. It’s a punishment for repeated and deceptive editing of articles related to the controversial religion. The landmark ruling comes from the inner circle of a site that prides itself on being open and inclusive.

In a 10-1 ruling Thursday, the site’s arbitration council voted to ban users coming from all IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology and its associates, and further banned a number of editors by name. The story was first reported by The Register.

Self-serving Wikipedia edits are hardly new. Wired.com readers pulled in an award for discovering the most egregious Wikipedia whitewashes by corporation and government agencies, but this is the first time the site has taken such drastic actions to block those edits.

And the edits are unlikely to stop, now that the user-created encyclopedia has become one of the net’s most popular sites and is often the top result for searches on a subject. Being able to massage an entry about oneself or one’s company has proven difficult to resist, even for founder Jimmy Wales - despite Wikipedia’s official warnings to the contrary.

The Church of Scientology, founded by sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1953, has had a long and bloody history on the net - dating back to Usenet groups, where critics maintain that the organization is a cult that brainwashes its members and sucks them dry financially. The Church, which teaches that humans are reincarnated and lived on other planets, says it is a legitimate religion.

The case, which began in December, centers on more than 400 articles about the ultra-secretive Church and its members. Those pages have hosted long-running, fierce edit wars that pitted organized Church of Scientology editors - using multiple accounts - against critics of Scientology who fought those changes by citing their own or one another’s self-published material. In fact, this is the fourth Wikipedia arbitration case concerning Scientology in as many years.

The committee also banned a number of editors individually, prohibiting them from editing any Scientology-related articles for at least six months. Those privileges can be reinstated afterward if they show they can play nicely by Wikipedia’s rules.

While most disputes involving the Web and Scientology in the past year have involved anti-Scientology activists who bind together under the name Anonymous, that group is largely not involved in this argument, because only registered accounts are able to edit the articles under dispute.

The Church of Scientology did not immediately return a voice message, asking for comment.

Jason Beghe’s video was back on YouTube shortly after its takedown in April of 2008. It is embedded below this text.

Jason Beghe Scientology video removed from YouTube

Times Online, UK/April 18, 2008

A video interview showing American TV actor Jason Beghe criticising Scientology has been removed from YouTube, writes Veronica Schmidt.

The 48-year-old was the first celebrity to speak out against the religion, telling how his 12 years with the church damaged him and accusing Scientology of being “destructive” and a “rip-off”.

After Beghe’s criticism of the church made headlines yesterday, YouTube suspended the account of the prolific Scientology critic who posted the video, making the clip unavailable to viewers.

But the suspension has angered YouTube users who have thrown their weight behind Mark Bunker, who uses the name XenuTV1 on the site.

By this morning, 45 YouTube members had used their sign-ons to re-post Bunker’s interview with the Cane and CSI actor.

In the clip, Benghe said: “My experience personally, and what I’ve observed for myself, is that Scientology is destructive and a rip-off.”

“It’s very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological and mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution.”

The church insists it brings its members “spiritual enlightenment” and it has helped the world progress towards “the eradication of its ills”, including drugs, crime, violence and intolerance.

…

A spokesperson for YouTube told Times Online: “YouTube takes these issues very seriously but we don’t comment on individual videos. Our general approach is simple: we have clear content policies about what videos are allowed on the site. For example we prohibit clips that infringe copyright or show extreme violence. Videos that breach these rules are removed and we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.”

 

 

Monica Pignotti wrote an  Open Letter to Anonymous: There are worse things than Scientology

Since my statements about Anonymous are being misinterpreted that I am saying that “every” person in Anonymous behaves a certain way, I need to clarify. Of course I am not saying that….

Main Entry:
This may come as a shock to some people to see this statement coming from me but yes indeed, there are worse things than Scientology and one of them is the new amorphous group that has sprung up that has declared a “war” on Scientology that calls itself “anonymous”.  This “anonymous” group is reportedly made up primarily of young people in their late teens/early twenties who became upset with Scientology after a video featuring Tom Cruise… was taken down… In retaliation, people from “anonymous” managed to hack into and shut down Scientology’s website and also began making threats against Scientology. Some of the more seasoned opponents of Scientology…  taught them about peaceful picketing and they managed to pull off peaceful pickets of Scientology… for example, advising people to carry signs saying “Honk if you hate Scientology and referring to the pickets and future planned demonstrations in violent terms such as “raids”. Also, they advised everyone to wear masks.

What is the motive of these young thugs who seem to have no problem breaking the law, hacking into Scientology websites? Based on what first raised their interest in declaring the war, their agenda is an anti-Capitalist, collectivist agenda…. everything should be free and that individuals or organizations have no right to copyrighted material… The message… is that people have the right to goods, whether earned or not. It was only after…that they began to learn about some of the actual abuses … such as their use of pseudoscientific techniques on their members that can and have in some cases been very harmful (e.g. the death of Scientologist Lisa McPherson…) I began by making a posting, referring to an article by … Philip Zimbardo where he had written about the dangers of being anonymous and wearing masks. These kids didn’t get it at all and instantly brushed this off, assuming that this didn’t apply to them because they had no “leader”, completely missing the main point which is that when people are anonymous and hide their faces, accountability goes down…

It was then that I realized that rational discussion was not possible and left the forum. I will, however, continue to monitor this group and report on and criticize their activities…

A few years back, there was a charismatic very wealthy person who decided to declare a “war” on Scientology and developed his own anti-cult cult following. Now it’s “anonymous.” This too shall pass but some people just never learn and just keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over.

Pignotti makes some excellent points. Since these young punks called “Anonymous” have no sense of history, they don’t know about Zimbardo. He made a large error early on with his out-of-control Stanford Prison Experiment, but has redeemed himself many times over since then. If they weren’t so busy being brats, they might read up on Zimbardo and take Pignotti’s point about the use of masks. I should remind everyone that “Anonymous” was incubated in the internet cesspool 4chan.

The fact that “Anonymous” has an agenda regarding Capitalism and copyright indicates its Scientology protests should be ignored, and are improperly targeted.

If they want to protest Scientology, they must first make a coherent statement as to why. I find it absurd that takedowns on YouTube result in protests that appear to be harassment.

If “Anonymous” had a longer attention span than a gnat’s, it might find good reasons to oppose Scientology - but again, unless they understand the laws of the land they will have no clue as to where Scientology is vulnerable. Hint: illnesses are all “psychsomatic” and thus treatable with “head doctors” and not “actual doctors.”  The properties of the “E-machine” are not “magical” and can be tested with regard to its use in a profitable, but fraudulent manner. And lastly, Scientology is about to be ejected from France, as they have not been given the protections of a “religion,” and the Judge recommended the guilty verdict on the charge of being a money-making fraudulent enterprise.