Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Peter Damian » Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:09 am

Catfitz wrote:The entry on the Belarus Free Theater has crazy stuff about Scientology put into it by anonymous persecutors. How can this stand?
I am researching the Scientology thing at the moment. The stuff seems to have been added by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... s.vavokhin . Two questions: (1) is it true? (2) Even if it is, is it relevant enough to be included in an article about a theatre?

There's a very determined insider group of anti-scientologists on Wikipedia who try to get information about scientology into any conceivable subject, even when it is entirely irrelevant. Probably deserves a thread split.
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Who here supports Wikipedia? Why???

Unread post by HRIP7 » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:37 pm

Peter Damian wrote:There's a very determined insider group of anti-scientologists on Wikipedia who try to get information about scientology into any conceivable subject, even when it is entirely irrelevant. Probably deserves a thread split.
Here is an example of the lengths to which this can be taken. Almost the entire biography of this politician came to be about Scientology.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:31 pm

Split off from other thread, because this is a ripe and fallow field of study......

(The Category:Scientology is now up to 787 articles by my manual count, not counting images. Wikiproject Scientology is tracking 549 articles. You'd almost think it was a "major religion", ha ha. Wikipedia is providing those lunatics with a cornucopia of free advertising.)

Catfitz
Contributor
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:45 pm

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Catfitz » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:38 am

Peter Damian wrote:
Catfitz wrote:The entry on the Belarus Free Theater has crazy stuff about Scientology put into it by anonymous persecutors. How can this stand?
I am researching the Scientology thing at the moment. The stuff seems to have been added by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... s.vavokhin . Two questions: (1) is it true? (2) Even if it is, is it relevant enough to be included in an article about a theatre?

There's a very determined insider group of anti-scientologists on Wikipedia who try to get information about scientology into any conceivable subject, even when it is entirely irrelevant. Probably deserves a thread split.
I don't know what the pattern is on Wikipedia re: Scientology. What struck me about this entry is that the insertion of the Scientology stuff was a way of trying to discredit these people (along with a claim they edited their own entry). I think the Lukashenka regime is interested in trying to discredit in the eyes of Westerners this successful dissident theater group that was forced into exile.

I've known the people who run the Belarus Free Theater for something like 15 years. I've spent countless hours with them. In all this time, I never heard them once mention Scientology. I can't believe that they could somehow be Scientologists past or present without mentioning it. What I do think is possible is that in the 1990s, when all kinds of opportunists descended on these former Soviet states with a lot of vulnerable people looking for education and jobs, it's possible that some "management training" caper was made available that the one director got involved in, possibly unwittingly. But I don't see any evidence of anything further and it's bewildering. They also deny that they are the ones making additions to their own entry -- this seems to be a common technique by Wikipedia vandals (or the default of editors of bad will?), where you are accused of being the one who has added favourable things to your own entry, and, as they say in Russian, you have "no way to prove you are not a camel".

I first saw the anti-Scientology movement in the virtual world of Second Life in the groups that went on to become Anonymous. I believe they used it to prototype what were later their real-life demonstrations. The same people who were griefers in SL and involved in somethingawful.com and 4chan.org were the ones who got involved in this cause, and then some of them went on to much bigger offenses (like Barret Brown). I have no use for Scientology whatsoever, but I've always understood this war Anonymous has waged on Scientology not so much about freedom for oppressive religion, so much as a turf war between two cults vying for Internet control. Scientology was among the first users of the Internet extensively.

I realize the Scientology people themselves create fake websites and such.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:37 am

Thanks Cat. I would like to incorporate some of your comments in the book but I will PM you.
Catfitz wrote:I don't know what the pattern is on Wikipedia re: Scientology.
Historically a lot of Wikipedia insiders came to Wikipedia via anti-Scientology usenet groups. I'm not so clear on the connection with the Anonymous and 4chan crowd. It's clear there is much overlap between the two groups - the culture and jargon is so obviously similar (unless it's just the Internet, but I suspect not).
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Anroth » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:09 am

Peter Damian wrote:Thanks Cat. I would like to incorporate some of your comments in the book but I will PM you.
Catfitz wrote:I don't know what the pattern is on Wikipedia re: Scientology.
Historically a lot of Wikipedia insiders came to Wikipedia via anti-Scientology usenet groups. I'm not so clear on the connection with the Anonymous and 4chan crowd. It's clear there is much overlap between the two groups - the culture and jargon is so obviously similar (unless it's just the Internet, but I suspect not).
Anonymous is effectively 4chan for the purpose of that discussion. At least thats where it started and where it gets its traction on issues.

4chan has always hated scientologists. Scientology and its celebrity shills are prime fodder for 4chan (as an image board). So that carries/carried over into the anonymous movement. (While most here probably are aware, for those who are not, 'Anonymous' comes from the default posting on 4chan which signs all posters as 'Anonymous'. Unlike wikipedia, registering for an ID is actually annoying and a barrier, so most dont.)

4chan & usenet - not so much crossover. Usenet (and mailing lists) in general are the province of the older techno-elite. Think the more unhinged members of WMUK for example. As modern geeks tend to come out of a gaming/social background, their route is through IRC & private forums. 4chan is a giant anonymous forum at its basic level remember. They tend to view 'usenet' people as sort of the ageing uncle who refuses to get with the times.

Anonymous flat out does not want control. They want freedom from any type of control. (Government, private individuals, corporations, religious movements) Which is why they are at polar opposites to Scientology. (Which is basically a controlling cult that reduces its members to tools and seeks to silence its critics.)

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:22 am

Anroth wrote:Usenet (and mailing lists) in general are the province of the older techno-elite. Think the more unhinged members of WMUK for example.
lol
Which is why they [Anonymous] are at polar opposites to Scientology. (Which is basically a controlling cult that reduces its members to tools and seeks to silence its critics.)
Did you mean Scientology or Wikipedia?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Hex » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:32 am

Anroth wrote:[good summary]
Don't forget that the chans and Reddit also have a massive crossover. In many ways Reddit is their "legitimate" face. Canvassing for article deletion debates on Reddit is also common.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Anroth » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:41 am

Peter Damian wrote:
Anroth wrote:Usenet (and mailing lists) in general are the province of the older techno-elite. Think the more unhinged members of WMUK for example.
lol
Which is why they [Anonymous] are at polar opposites to Scientology. (Which is basically a controlling cult that reduces its members to tools and seeks to silence its critics.)
Did you mean Scientology or Wikipedia?
Both :D But that is a bit overly harsh on wikipedia. It (as yet) has not left its admins in a room without access to medical care until they die in order to protect itself.

When I use the phrase 'techno-elite' however, I personally use it to describe the highly tech literate technocrats who *think* they are the new elite. Which is why I made the unhinged WMUK comment. The actual techno-elite in society is a much longer discussion and a different pool of people.

User avatar
Peter Damian
Habitué
Posts: 4201
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:14 pm
Wikipedia User: Peter Damian
Wikipedia Review Member: Peter Damian
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Peter Damian » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:51 am

Anroth wrote:When I use the phrase 'techno-elite' however, I personally use it to describe the highly tech literate technocrats who *think* they are the new elite. Which is why I made the unhinged WMUK comment. The actual techno-elite in society is a much longer discussion and a different pool of people.
Yes, spotted that. But who are the actual techno-elite? Is there such a thing?
οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη: εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Scientology insertions where they are not wanted

Unread post by Hex » Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:17 am

Peter Damian wrote:But who are the actual techno-elite?
Image

Oh... not that kind of techno.
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)


Post Reply