Customize

Deleting names from the Big List?

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Sep 25, 2011.

?

Should people who wish so be deleted from the Big List?

Yes 5 vote(s) 10.6%
No 38 vote(s) 80.9%
Depends, I will post my criteria for doing so or not in this thread 4 vote(s) 8.5%
  1. Anonymous Member

    By now I have had some requests by people on the Big List (TM) to be deleted from it. Until now I think we have done so.

    Is it a good thing though?

    We are using public websites, books and other things to prove (more or less) that people have spoken out, and we are also using public sites etc. to prove that they were once in. "Speaking out" can be done in lots of ways, from openly saying "Scientology and/or COS are BS" to posting on a COS-critic blog like Marty's.

    With the list we are trying to help. We are showing people in and people who are out but silent that they are not alone. The sheer number in itself is amazing and a protective shield, let's just hope COS doesn't have the resources to sue them all.

    On the other hand: people who don't want to be mentioned say they get problems because they are on the list. Not all of them tell what kind of problems.

    Exes do not all have the internet-experience most of us have. I doubt they all understand that by posting their story they give it out of their hands - it gets copied all over the place. So I think we must be understanding in that respect.

    There are also policies on this forum (which I am to lazy to read) that may say something about the subject.

    Thoughts of the hive, mods and/or admins please?

    (I know about Anonymous not forgiving, forgetting, none of us are as cruel as all of us etcetera.)
  2. Anonymous Member

    n1 try OSA
  3. Hmm. If I answer Yes, is that a vote for disposing of them quietly and without sorrow?

    It's a tough choice. But it would be a sort of self-censorship to suppress information that is in the public domain, and it would encourage OSA to target more people.

    It is the exposure of the misdeeds and the publicity generated that protects people from being harmed by these thugs. Keeping silent never stopped the bullies. I would urge anyone who has been targetted to fight back with MOAR reports.

    I vote NO.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Anonymous Member

    /thread
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Anonymous Member

    I vote that those who request their names be removed from the big list are listed on another list.
    • Like Like x 5
  6. RightOn Member

    No the OP is not OSA ~rolls eyes~

    The last person who asked to be removed from the list said thay wanted their name off the list because they felt that having their name on the list was "aligning with protesting". Although this makes no sense to me. Physcially protesting in front of an org or having your story on the net for all to see, is still a form of protest.
    AND A GOOD ONE.

    All names on the list are cullled from the internet. It is simply quoting what was found out there. If someone posts their story on the net for all to see, or if it a court case that is PUBLIC INFORMATION, then they can't pick and choose where their name and story may end up.
    IT IS THE INTERNET FOR CRIPES SAKES. DUH!
    The list is also all over the place now. So even though a name is removed it is not removed eleswhere. How can anyone possibly have control over that? YOU CAN'T.

    When it comes to the ex list, people must put all their differences aside.
    Indies, people who left Scientology all together, exs that stand and protest with Anonymous and Zoners should put eveything aside and keep one thing in common, and that is to stand together to help crumble the evil corporation of the COS.
    Its strength in numbers.

    The list is a wealth of information including documents, videos, interviews and personal stories for the media, reserachers and now can be used for investigative matters. Its all in one little neat package.

    The list has NOTHINHG to do with who created it.
    The list has empowered people to come forward. And it shows that COS is lieng when they say "only a few disgruntled people have left the church".

    So my opinion is, if you put your story out there for all to see, you can't stop people from reading it. ANY people. Including OSA.
    So are people saying it is ok for OSA to go to an Indie site and read your story? but it is not ok to be on a collective list of all people saying the same thing about COS?

    The list is not open for comments. It is not a blog. There are no pictures of cats and lulzy tidbits.
    ITS JUST AN EMPOWERING LIST AGAINST COS.
    If people ask for their name to be removed just because the list was created by WPP users, then I am sorry I don't understand your fight.

    ITS ALL A BIG HELP, NO MATTER WHO DELIVERS IT.

    Plain and simple, if you put your story out there, you can't stop people from reading it.
    If the list ends up on other sites, it doesn't mean that you are for or against that site, it just means you put your story out there, and it is noW PUBLIC INFORMATION for all the world to see.
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

    I beg people to let your name stay on the list for the common goal of seeing the COS go away.
    • Like Like x 5
  7. RightOn Member

    two exceptions to my post above.
    If people put their story out and they are being fair gamed, or it is causing problems in their family and they have decided to remove their story from the site it was on, then I think that is a fair consideration to remove it.
    OR if they went back in COS.

    This is why I had to vote for option #3.
    But mainly, again if the story is out there, then it should be shared.
    So for the most part, I don't think names should be deleted.

    But again, please keep in mind, that if you put your story on the net, all the world can see it.
    And that is exactly what we want. To show COS you have a voice and you cannot be silenced.

    EDITED
    The hive has changed my mind.
    If you put your story out there, you were certianly aware that fair game exists, and it's already out there and needs to be shared.
    If you went back "in" then tough shit, the name stays. And oh! Shame on you for going back.

    Also....
    if someone has their name on an Indie list and doesn't want to be on the WWP Wiki list, then their argument to be removed makes no sense.
    Request for removal will only show how childish your request is.
    We have to work together on this list, no matter what differences people may have.
    All who speak out all have the same goal.
    • Like Like x 5
  8. moarxenu Member

    I voted a resounding NO. Once the story is out there it is public information. While sympathetic to anyone being harassed by OSA, it makes little sense to me to remove someone from the list on that account. OSA is going to harass them anyway whether the public can read their stories or not.

    The only reason imo to consider removing a name is the situation you cite where exes have removed their stories from the sites where they have published them. Even here the stories will be available from Way Back Machine.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    We should fairgame everyone who wants their name off the list.

    That'll teach em.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Nah, just wait till they die then put their name back on the list.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Anonymous Member

    OP here. I really would like mods' and/or admins' thoughts on the subject.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Without publicly announcing their reason to want to be deleted, these people are doing nothing to stop future wikiers from adding their names back on using the same research we used.
  13. Xenu Is Lord Member

    If someone who has left has also spoken out, why would we remove their name? They have done exactly what was required to be on it. It is Orwellian to remove it, like Scientology erasing people from its history. So you don't want to be on the list, tough shit, welcome to the real world. By the way people have the list saved and do you think if one person removes it all will?
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Anonymous Member

    Better question: when wikiers revert unexplained (publicly) deletions, what will the mods do?
  15. Anonymous Member

    Wikifag here, in at least the past 1200 entries I've not seen a single deletion by request. Until last week.
    If the NO votes outnumber the YES votes in this poll by tomorrow I'll be reverting that one deletion unless I'm prevented by mods.
    Hey OSA, looks like you can influence a poll here!
  16. Anonymous Member

    Perhaps a helpful analogy is people publicly coming out of the closet. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is no turning back.

    The only argument that holds any water for removing a name, as far as I can tell, is that by not removing it, it may discourage others from speaking out publicly. Nah. Even this argument is silly since of all the reasons not to speak out publicly: disconnection, and fair game, being on the list is probably the least important.

    The only reason to ever remove a name is that there was an error. It doesn't matter if fair game, the fair game will come anyway. It doesn't matter if disconnection, the disconnection will come anyway. It doesn't matter if the person wants to go back in the closet, you cannot change what happened.

    So a big fat loudNO to removing any information from the list. As someone pointed out, it's Orwellian to try and change history.
    • Like Like x 4
  17. Anonymous Member

    If someone did revert back in, a note can be made of it on the list. Likewise if someone does not wish to be on the list, a note could be made of that as well. It's fine to add information, never fine to remove it.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. RightOn Member

    if a note was left next to a name who wanted to be removed, what would it say?
    "asked to be removed from this list" ?
    It would prolly bring more attention to the name. lol

    And I don't think if someone was out and went back in that it should be noted. I think that would be a win for COS.

    also what someome one else mentioned. Many people do the wiki, and a name can be added back again without any knowledge of prior removal unless they plowed through the Wiki history log.
  19. Anonymous Member

    If we say that we WILL remove names from the list on request, that gives a reason for OSA to fair game the people on it, until they retract their statements / request to be taken off the list.

    If we say that we WON'T remove names from the list, OSA has nothing to gain from fair gaming the people with respect to the list. (Fair game may still occurr for other reasons, but that's irrelevant to this discussion)
    • Like Like x 1
  20. hushpuppy Member

    ^^^all of these^^^
    For me, nothing
  21. xenubarb Member

    Pfffft! Lay down with clams, get up with an OSA infection and your name on a list. Tough shit, you should've done more research before involving yourself with this musty, evil, abusive CULT!

    The names stay, sez I.
  22. Xenu Is Lord Member

    Did these people sign up for the list? Is it a public list complied by others?
  23. amaX Member

  24. RightOn Member

    names were culled off the internet in MANY various places and some did request to be added to the list via PM or posting in the thread.
    Which really made my heart swell!
  25. The Wrong Guy Member

    The Big List is essentially a compilation of documented facts. Obviously its accuracy and scope should not be compromised.

    Perhaps it could include a disclaimer along the lines of "People on this list should not be considered to be affiliated with any group or organization."

    Full disclosure: My main motive in contributing to this thread was so I could be the first one in it to use the phrase "bikini wax".
  26. Anonymous Member

    What has been seen cannot be unseen.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    Also, bikini wax.
  28. Anonymous Member

    If it's really themselves and not OSA, I guess they have legal possibility to request that. What about keeping in that case the initials in the list, as well as keeping (the link to and) the dox in the list?
  29. Strixcoil Moderator

    Ok,since you ask so nicely, OP...
    I think that we should keep the names where they are, and that's on the list.
    Deleting them will not delete the abuses. There is no point of taking them down.

    Also, many times the ones who appear in there also post their stories on Marty's blog, for example. Or ESMB. So no point of taking down the story somewhere when is already in another place. Internet is like a big horrible Mnemonic monster, unable (more than anon) neither forgive or forget. It just stays, sometimes it vanishes, but you can always look at Cache or Way Back Machine.

    RightOn (along many others) just add the names, and we hope that one day he/she will not add any more names. Because one day, I think, it wouldn't be needed...because that day, Scientology would had vanished forever like the horrible stain that it is. A smaller one compared to other stains ,yes...but still a stain.

    So, from my part (I don't know the other mods, though this issue is something interesting to talk about), I say "Let's not delete the names". They are like the names of "Why are they dead"...you can't delete what happened, you can't delete your pain and loneliness when getting out, you can't delete the abuses and harassment of OSA. You can just delete words, but never a name. And that list of names shows the world that stares at it that something is WRONG inside Scientology, and that something must be done about it... lies can't stand forever, my dear.
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Anonymous Member

    Nope. Reporting on public domain material is classic first amendment protected activity.
  31. firebug Member

    So we are adding Barbara Schwarz. Right?
    Barbara's story should make interesting reading
  32. Orson Member

    This is a compelling argument in my opinion.

    However, it does not address any legal issues, and since my internet law degree hasn't arrived in the mail yet, I'd appreciate it if Tikk or someone else with with an actual legal background would chime in on this. As I understand things, there is only a legal liability if WWP is served with notice requesting something be taken down, in which case WWP will comply.

    Other than receiving such a notice, I see no reason to remove any names from the list.
    • Like Like x 5
  33. Anna_Asks Member

    I'd advocate using a flow chart. For instance:

    - Did the person providing the information have a reasonable expectation of privacy when providing the story? (i.e. did they email it to a friend, and did they protest when said friend posted the material? or did they provide the testimony under a pseudonym and were later outed against their will, and removing the information now would stop further spread of that name/pseudonym?) After careful examination, if a reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated, remove identifying information and substitute with [redacted due to OP request] or something. Leave them in the count, though.

    - Is the information in the personal testimony demonstrably false? If information arises later where a reasonable person could then deem the story false (reasonable person = you, not church sycophants) , remove from list and put at the bottom labeling it [questionable information] or similar.

    - If the person is suitably horrified and goes through lengths to remove their name/testimony/story from every other site, including the original, and the Big List is the only place left that provides that information and with removal from the Big List the person will then be in complete Google anonymity, remove from list, but hold on a non-spider/index site so that the information is not completely lost. If someone is so worried about their name being out there, and they demonstrate how important it is to them, and the Big List is the only one causing that previously-given information to be accessible due to the OP being thoughtful, diligent, and doing their own work to erase the name/testimony, then that person is really concerned about their privacy. In these very rare situations, where they've already done the work and are keeping themselves off search engines, etc. I would recommend cooperating (again, while not losing the information altogether). If the person goes public in the future, put it back up and don't give consideration to taking it down again.

    However, if the person simply doesn't want their information on The Big List because of association-type concerns, remind them that it is a catalog of information, not a protest.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. WMAnon Member

    Idea?

    Maybe we could add a star or something next to the names of people who have been contacted about it and support the list. That way folks with no start can play the "WAH SQUIRRELS ON TEH INTERENETS" card with OSA to avoid rape, and the enthusiastic have a way to express their enthusiasm?

    Although, on the other hand that might encourage OSA to fairgame people into removing stars or whatever. I dunno.
  35. Anonymous Member

    So many good reasons why NOT to edit that list, all already stated. A short bullet list.

    (1) it is independent of protesting, verified through "objective" data (e.g., completion list comparison to information in the public record);
    (2) editing would operate as an OSA incentive to fair game;
    (3) cat is out of the bag, can't unring the bell, repercussions, recriminations, disconnection already exercised, threatened, accepted or effed off;
    (4) it provides a service to those still in that they can get out, provides a service to unite those that are out; and
    (5) reversions are noted, which performs a service all unto itself.

    Also, as someone who has felt the repercussions of someone else telling their story publicly, I hope that the following statement carries a bit of weight:

    NO U
    • Like Like x 1
  36. RightOn Member

    I liek the idea a few posts back about adding a disclaimer in big bold letters to the top of the list which states that the people on the list have no affilaition with any particular group and that the names were taken from the internet blah blah blah, and of course not in those words.
    Also add that it falls under the Fair Use act???
    AND MAYBE ADD THAT PEOPLE LISTED MAY HAVE DIFFERENT VIEW POINTS,
    BUT THEY ALL AGREE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE COS END. something like that

    And only TWO people have been asked to be removed in all the years I have been doing this list and I am hoping that is IT.
    The only reason people asked to be removed in the first place was after I asked someone to help by posting names that needed to be confirmed on the ESMB board. That is when the shit hit the fan. (well not really)
    Reasons of not wantig to be aligned with protesting is a pretty silly notion.

    SO.... I say if there are any more requests, then just deny them. In the mean time, a discalimer should suffice for anyone bawing about affiliation with a protest group. rolls eyes

    EXS, WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME GAME! GET IT?
    PUT ASIDE DIFFERENCES.
    IF YOU ASK TO HAVE YOUR NAME REMOVED, YOUR VOICE IS BEING SILENCED AND YOU ARE LETTING COS WIN. ( IN A WAY)
  37. Tangerine Member

    Hi!

    In my opinion, it really doesn't matter if they are removed from the list. Once your information is on the internet, it's pretty much there for good. If they don't understand this, I can very easily see how that would be a request. The thing is - it's too late.

    1) Google cache. It works.
    2) People that have already - or are now, are copying it and can keep it or share it as they please. This thread has assured that.
    3) Sure, take them off. Like I said, it doesn't really matter.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Ackerland Member

    Leave them on that list. We are under no obligation towards them whatsoever. Who is to say Co$ is not sending out fake messages to have particularly bothersome members of that list removed?
  39. tildacity Member

    It is a shame that you have so little respect for others that you would use them for your own propaganda and to inflate your stats. On one hand you try to put forth the list as people opposed to Scn and on the other you refuse to take a moral stance on its merits and instead hide behind what may or may not be strictly legal.

    If you are going to put current Scns and people who are not opposed to Scn on the list why don't you put a big disclaimer up front stating that the list includes practicing Scns and proponents of Scn and Dn?
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Miranda Member

    I will move any derails that tildacity starts.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins