Scientologiorganiasjonen og Wikipedia: er noe nytt i emning?

CoS har, etter en hendelse i 2009, faktisk ikke lov til å redigere artikler på Wikipedia lenger. Men nå ser det ut til at de kan være på ferde igjen likevel. Medlemmer på Ex Scientologist Message Board (ESMB) aner at noe er i emning:

ScottPerry–sp–not-xscn said:
Right now there seems to be some kind of a systematic infiltration of Wikipedia going on by the CoS… I’m an old hand editor for the last 11 years at Wikipedia and some of us are trying to stop this CoS operation over there. If anyone here might either know anything about that, or might have any experience editing for Wikipedia, we might be able to use your help! Any inside info anyone might have about this CoS operation would be especially helpful. I know my last (and first) two posts were about having fun, but hey, helping to keep the CoS to get more on the right track (the track of honesty) can be fun too!



Andre har også lagt merke til aktiviteten:

Anonycat said

Anons have seen the recent edits of scientology pages. Experienced editors are charging-up to cleanse the pages from their damage. As people have other duties in their life, I say the more the merrier. I suggest that all of the pages get examined for inaccuracy in editing. PM the OP to join in.

Noen vettuge spørsmål:

oneonewasaracecar said:

Anonycat, who is very well trusted here has confirmed some key facts, so I have confidence in what you have said. I think this is a good project. Don’t be put off by the lack of response. The board has been a little quiet of late.

I suspect that a little clarification would go a long way. Is the purpose of this project to

  1. Get experienced wikipedia editors to go back through the edit trail to find evidence that can be used by journalists?
  2. To get as many people who know a lot about wikipedia to do as much proactive editing so that the data on the pages is accurate?

Are you able to confirm whether or not you think that organizing a project like this online would technically violate the conditions of wikipedia? Starting a project on the wrong foot might seriously undermine our efforts.

Also, you’ve mentioned that the heads of wikipedia are in denial that there is a problem. Are you in a position to know whether or not their denial is because of
A) Fear of the costs of litigation on a company with limited finances.
B) Fear of the cost of resourcing to deal with the problem of administering all of the edits.
C) Taking a payout.

If C is true, it makes option 2 a waste of time and option 1 a good one.

If A or B is true, then option 2 is preferred.

If posting here online violates the terms of wiki, it might undermine option 2 but not option 1.

I think a lot of people here are knowledgable about scientology, have time on their hands and care enough to do something but they are not experienced editors so they may be lurking. I wanted to help but I’ve never edited a wiki page.

If you are going after option 2, and need an ongoing army, I think you would get a great deal of help if inexperienced people were also welcome.

Enkelte mener at det å publisere en “call to action” for å redigere — på et offentlig forum — kan være brudd på Wikipedias regler.

Anonycat said:

Were ScottPerry approaching this thoughtfully, in a way that might achieve something that’d last more than a day or two, I might feel differently, but he’s already basically suicided the idea by posting it in a public forum, and declining to take it private. Made of fail.

Skaperen av trådes synes å være uenig:

ScottPerry–sp–not-xscn said:
Sorry I was in an all-afternoon meeting, and just now got a chance to try to catch up here. Also, my texts this AM were written rather hurredly as I was running late to an appointment out of town this AM. I thank you all for your most excellent questions. I will try to answer as many of them as I can here as best as I can:

Regarding WP editing rules concerning “outside efforts” like this. Recruiting editors to help restore order in WP is no crime, and there is no policy or rule against it, so long as the purpose is to restore compliance with WP policy, and not to subvert WP policy, and this is clearly an effort to restore compliance, not to undermine it.
This effort is not to try to “out-edit” the current editors, and to thereby restore Wikipedia’s accuracy in the cult articles. It is simply to edit just enough to expose the cult infiltration over there, to the point where the cult infiltration becomes a "journalistically provable fact."
In order to achieve such a “journalistically provable fact”, all we will need is 4 or 5 other already established editors who can understand WP policy, and who can clearly articulate the reasons why WP has been infiltrated.
Articles like the CCHR article are evidence enough of infiltration. The academic community majority opinion on the CCHR is clearly highly negative. Some editors have clearly gotten control of that article and skewed it against WP policy, and nobody over there has been able to stop them. If we could put together a list of say 20 or 30 other similar articles, try to fix them, then document exactly which tactics are used to prevent us from fixing those articles, then that would probably be enough to provide the “journalistically provable fact” that we are looking for.
There is the belief that in order to prevent a “relapse” of the current situation, WP will ultimately have to restrict the editing on any “potentially controversial articles” such as articles on cults, politicians, businesses, or commercial products. Such editing restrictions would ideally require a special process to assure true neutrality in any such articles, and would probably require some kind of “neutrality certified” experienced editors and overseers to edit these articles. This is a long term solution that I think the article about Wikipedia seemed to hint at.

I read the article on Wikipedia about the “implosion” of the number of editors, and I don’t think that article truly got to the core of what is going on at WP. During the first few years, more editors were probably required just to build up a good “core” of articles. Now that those are all mostly written, WP is not as “exciting” for many editors, and probably doesn’t need quite as many editors as before. Also, the article on Wikipedia didn’t seem to touch at all on WP finances, which was a gaping omission in my opinion. WP finances have never been better. Last time I checked (within the last year) I think they had a budget surplus of approx. $50 million. It’s late now for me, but I will check in again tomorrow morning. Thanks to all here for your contributions to this thread, and for your interest in how to best solve this issue.


Ikke vet jeg. Noen erfarne Wikipedia-brukere her?

En liten bonus: Tory “Magoo” Christman mimrer (som vanlig):

Magoo said:
I was in on what happened with Wikipedia,
for a few reasons:

  1. I used to volunteer and helped open up the phony, anonymous accounts
    that Bill Yaude and some OSA ops used to spam the Net back in the 90’s. It was what
    actually brought me to wake UP, once I finally went and LOOKED at what they were doing).
  1. Someone had put up a Wiki article about me, years ago, and I watched it, and Scientology
    articles get twisted and deleted. For years I had helped a man who was working with Wikipedia. (He was and remains anonymous). He would call me for specifics as various things came out.

So after many years of me telling him; "SCIENTOLOGY IS EDITING COVERTLY WIKIPEDIA"
He finally called me to tell me: “They are going to have a council and they want you on it”. I said "No, as IF you all decide they are editing Wikipedia for their own good, they will declare ALL that was done false as an “SP” was on the council.

So they did the “investigation” and the result was “THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IS BANNED FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA”.


Also, I spoke with the 2 who made the documentary. I asked how well it was being received. They told me: “We have it in almost every college, HS, and now Grade schools are asking for it”. WOW! I asked him to actually fix my page with references and he did, so now, for the most part, it IS what happened, with references, so it cannot be deleted or changed, I was told. Then it was down to about 2 paragraphs. Now? Check it out:

However, I’m not surprised they have figured out a way to still covertly edit Wikipedia.
They HAVE to: It’s Policy! How? Well, all they have to do is get armies of people using secret computers to do so. When I was helping Bill Yaude “handle the critics on the Net”…I asked him: “How do you do this? You all don’t know much about computers”. He told me: “We hire computer geeks”.

Also, when I was opening up their phony accounts in the 90’s before I woke up and escaped OUT in July of 2000, believing I was helping the good get rid of the “Evil critics”…I was told to "ALWAYS USE PHONE CARDS WHEN YOU CALL, SO NO ONE CAN TRACE IT BACK TO US. Also, I was told to “ALWAYS USE MONEY ORDERS” (again–no way to trace them back to C of $). Also, Yaude told me they use Routers…so “no one can trace it back to us”.

Sick peeps, thinking they are helping ANYONE. They are liars, phonies, mafia-like.
I attest the above IS true.

Tory Christman
Burbank, CA
(818) 588-3044
IF you are OSA: I dare you to call me and learn the FACTS.

Å redigere scientologi-artikler på engelsk Wikipedia krever en del ekspertise, men alle som er vant til vanskelige debatter der bør kunne prøve seg.