Hollyweird Hits Information Highway Roadblock

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology From Editing Entries

by Lee Bains — May 29th 2009 at 6:01PM

Wikipedia, which characterizes itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," might need to tack a slight addendum on to the end of that description: "unless that anyone happens to log in from a computer owned by the Church of Scientology."

According to the Register, the administrators of Wikipedia have decided to ban all editors who log on to the site from IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology. Some of those administrators have claimed, according to the Register, that those spunky Scientologists have been "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality" by delving into biased self-promotion. Scientology, a 55-year-old religion founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, has gained both notoriety and criticism in recent years as celebrity members like Tom Cruise and John Travolta have become increasingly vocal.

This does not mark Wikipedia's first attempt to quelch zealots in the Scientology debate. In the past, site administrators have banned several determinedly anti-Scientology accounts from editing entries related to the religion. Due to the prohibitively time-consuming nature of identifying specific editors and banning them from specific pages, though, Wikipedia has elected to prohibit any and all editorial action taken via Church IPs.

While many Web philosophers are bound to woundedly cry "Free speech!" in response to such an issue as this, we must take a different stance. Whether or not Wikipedia was right in taking such broadly prohibitive measures, Wikipedia certainly has the right to do so. The more dependent on massive media companies we become, the more we need to accept that such companies -- at the end of the day -- are companies, after all, and are beholden to themselves, not the people. [From: The Register]


The Bitter American has long been an opponent to what I believe is an anti-Catholic Hollywood liberal cabal with entirely too much sway in American politics. Good for Wikipedia!