Anonymous: When Crime Has A Face

What’s truly sad about Anonymous is that they have the tools and man-power to do some good in the world, but all they do is destroy decent people or wrong targets. And what’s even worse, now they tie up already overworked human rights organizations to watch over the human rights of 32 Anonymous members rotting in Turkish prisons. You are a waste of good people’s time, Anonymous.

IBT, 13 June 2011

Cyber security: Turkish authorities detain 32 suspected Anonymous members

With Spanish police having just arrested three suspected members of the loose-knit hacking collective Anonymous last week, Turkish authorities have reportedly detained a further 32 suspected members of the Anonymous group. (website)

More background:

2010 Human Rights Report: Turkey

“Prison conditions improved but remained poor, with overcrowding and insufficient staff training.”  (US State Department report)

Advertisements

“Ban” of Scientology? The European Court of Human Rights rules otherwise…

Russia’s ban on the Church of Scientology is illegal, the European Court of Human Rights said Thursday in a binding ruling.

The court said Russia cannot ban the Church of Scientology just because it has not been in the country for long and awarded each of the groups euro5,000 ($7,270) in damages. The groups together also received euro10,000 ($14,500) for costs, which they shared.

The case was brought to the Strasbourg-based court by two Russian Scientology branches that were refused listing as “religious organizations” because they have not existed for at least 15 years as required by Russia’s Religions Act. (Source: Associated Press)

Ban stupidity and arrogance from government’s ranks, I say.

– L

What is this with Scientology & Wikipedia?

In May 2009 a lot of media reports claimed that “Scientology was banned from Wikipedia”. Nothing is further from the truth, as usual, when it comes to reporting about Scientology. It took a while to grasp what happened but here we go. The following is a very short explanation and I preventively apologize to Wikipedians for simplifying things for the sake of a better understanding.

Wikipedia.org is a website that hosts about 2 million English articles about any conceivable subject in the world. Amongst those are several articles that deal with Scientology or related subjects. Anyone can edit in Wikipedia, i.e. change the articles in alignment with a complex set of Wikpedia Policy such as “WP:RS” that says that any fact statement in an article has to be backed up by a reliable source. “Reliable source” (RS) then is defined as secondary literature such as news articles or peer-reviewed expert opinions. Documents such as certificates, diaries, religious scripture are not or only exeptionally allowed as sources for the articles. So far, so good.

In real life articles in Wikipedia are subject to the editor’s opinion, personal viewpoints etc that color his/her edits accordingly. In an effort to control this Wikipedia does not allow representatives of organizations to edit their own articles.

As “anyone can edit” Wikipedia does not require to give any credentials or personal data to become an editor. Nameless editors however get registered with the IP address (internet connection) their computer is using at the time of the edit. Registered users can choose a nickname. The more edits a user does the more “status” he/she gets on Wikipedia (which should indicate that the “top editors” of Wikipedia are either very rich, on social welfare or without a job/student, i.e. they seem to have a lot of time to research and increase article content).

In December 2008 a committee of high status, elect editors of Wikipedia took on a task to investigate why articles about Scientology have a lot of noise surrounding them, for example lots of changes back and forth and hostile “discussions” about the articles. Their investigation revealed a pro- and an anti-Scientology faction heavily violating another of Wikipedia’s Policy: “Neutral Point Of View”. In short this means, editors should be “neutral” about the subject they write about (Not “disinterested” or “careless” though it could be understood that way).

As a result of the investigation the above committee, formally called the “Arbitration Committee”, ruled to ban 13 pro-Scientology and 15 anti-Scientology editors from further editing any Scientology remotely connected with “Scientology” (about 430 if my count is right), with the purpose to remove the debatants from the article area. This ban is enforced by another group of uebereditors (called “Administrators”) that have the power to cancel accounts and block internet computers from logging onto Wikipedia.

Also, the 12 ArbCom members decided to block any edits coming from computers that are connected to internet lines that are rented or owned by the Church of Scientology. This part of the ruling somewhat lacks evidence that the Church of Scientology has been involved in editing articles on Wikipedia (not that the media would care about this minor detail) but consequently IP addresses officially registered by the Church of Scientology are now supposed to be blocked. So anyone working inside a Church of Scientology would be technically blocked from editing the articles (unless he/she uses a wireless internet line or jumps over to Starbucks to log on from there). The whole “ruling” will be reviewed in six months. Meanwhile banned editors could – if they chose to – register under a different name and continue editing as before. This is what seems to be happening in the article now (June 2009).

And what is the viewpoint of the Church of Scientology?

Who cared to ask the Church about their viewpoint on the above “ban” was sent a statement of the Church of Scientology International that said the following:

STATEMENT ON THE WIKIPEDIA CASE

This is a routine internal action by Wikipedia to clean up its editing process. We understand that postings from the Department of Justice and CIA have also been blocked from time to time. This is not new. However, more importantly is the fact that Wikipedia finally banned those who were engaged in unobjective and biased editing for the purposes of antagonism as opposed to providing accurate information. We hope the decision will result in more accurate and useful articles on Wikipedia as the site evolves. Meanwhile, anyone wishing to know about Scientology should visit scientology.org where they can find more than 300 individual videos, totaling over 4 hours of information.

And now what?

The Wikipedia committee took somewhat over six months to decide to restrict the editing rights of Wikipedia editors for somewhat under six month. I say: The Wikipedia concept of anonymous editors does not work for polarized subjects, namely religious, philosophic or political issues. It also does not work for brands whose competitors want to screw their competition.

if you want to learn something about Scientology go to the source, like scientology.org or whatiscientology.org.

References / more information:
The “Arbitration Commitee” ruling, 28 May 2009
The Register “Wikipedia Bans Scientology”, 29 May 2009
The Register, ArbCommember resigns after being caught violating Wikipedia rules, 26 May 2009
Wikipedia about Wikipedia

Scientology.org

Church of Scientology of Milano and Youth for Human Rights Sponsor New School in Ghana

They made it! I am impressed:

“The Milano Chapter of Youth for Human Rights International and the Church of Scientology in Milano Organized Events and Raised Funds to Build and Support an Elementary School in Africa Serving around 300 Students” (Reuters, 16 Feb 2009, cute photos here)

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed