The COS and Wikipedia

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by CommunicatorIC, Jun 5, 2015.

  1. I was asked to cross-post the following ESMB thread to WWP. I'll cross-post the OP and what I think are some relevant comments.

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    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!



    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    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.

    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    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.

    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Incredulicide Member

    The text in the IRS agreement probably can't be used on wikipedia, though I found it curious how Scientology itself admits what "Church of Scientology" covers:
    "we sometimes refer to the Scientology international ecclesiastical hierarchy of churches -- including ecclesiastical support and related social betterment organizations -- as the "Church of Scientology" or the "Church"."

    Now does this mean SOCO Int and ABLE (the Association of Better Living and Education), the organizations in control of front groups like Narconon, CCHR, YFHR, etc., are included under that umbrella term "Church of Scientology"?

    Can an exhibit submitted into a court case be cited on wikipedia articles for each front group?

    • Like Like x 2
  3. BigBeard Member

    Well, the 1993 Closing Agreement says flat out all of the 'fronts' are "Scientology-related entities". In fact the term is used 47 times in the agreement, often with lists of 'fronts' associated with the term.

    • Like Like x 1
  4. BigBeard Member

    Almost forgot, could the text of the Agreement be used if cited in the WSJ article that revealed it??

    • Like Like x 1
  5. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 3

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *
    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn said:

    Dear Scott,

    Can you give us some examples, even one recent example of an edit that somehow hide some truth about Scientology?

    You're the one that brought it up, can you show us?

    I'm still trying to understand what's happening.
    Here are three examples of but countless edits of the types I think you are asking for:
    1. Going Clear example 1 An edit described by the editor as being designed such that "the truth will be allowed" actually systematically deletes key "truths" about the documentary.
    2. Going Clear example 2 An edit described by the editor as a "Synopsis" actually attempts to confuse the readership and distance the "Church" of Scientology from the documentary by deleting the word "Church" throughout the article and replacing it with the somewhat misdirective word, "Organization"? This was a sort of a repeat vandalism from a different IP (but identical vandalism) as seen in this earlier vandalism/ suppression edit.
    3. E-Meter example 1 An edit described by the editor as a mere "fix wording" is actually the deletion of a major source on the topic (though a CoS critical source, of all things!)
    Not-Ok, I hope this is what you are looking for. As we all know the CoS has billions of dollars and thousands of full-time volunteers available to it to "deluge" WP with edits of these sorts, to the point where not all of them are being caught, as is demonstrated in the cumulitive effect of the many articles that now read almost entirely like CoS brochures.

    Thanks for asking,


    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Ann O'Nymous Member

  8. "social betterment" is watching Tom Cruise getting kicked in whatever he has left that he calls balls, by a girl, on repeat, until the stupid fucker wakes up and denounces LRH and rejoins normal, rational and non-Miscavige society.
  9. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 2
  10. Quentinanon Member

    Didn't Wikipedia ban a bunch of editors from editing scientology-related articles several years ago?
    I guess that did not end the scientology article edit war after all.
  11. DeathHamster Member

    They did, but the Scientologists weren't blocked from editing using personal IP addresses.

    Sometimes Single Purpose Account is used to toss obvious Scientology editors (even though SPA isn't a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline).

    The editor who kicked off the most recent fuss seems to be more than slightly nuts. His user name Scottperry seems to be taken from Perry Scott, who was an ARS critic and ex-member. I don't remember if Perry Scott is even still alive, and I doubt there's a link.

    Laval seems to be a reoccurring breed similar to ResidentAnthropologist or perhaps Jossi: Good editors, especially at article clean-up who, never the less, have lists of things that they want to chop out of articles (or the article itself) at all costs.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. DeathHamster Member

    An obvious error in Wikipedia's RPF article:

    The last two PDFs are attributed to Frank Flinn but are obviously statements by CSI:
    Obvious CoS style aside, no one refers to themselves in the third person like that in a real paper or uses such nonacademic language.

    Likely CoS "mislabeled" them when they gave them to ABC:
    And then got CoS editor Sfarney to toss them into the article:

    Tsk, and a couple broken Stephen Kent links, can't be bothered to look how that happened. Here's a good link for one:
    More sources:
    Category:Rehabilitation Project Force
    • Like Like x 4
  13. DeathHamster Member

    ^^ I spoke to a guy in a pub*, and he said, yah, that's probably how Scientology labeled the files that they sent ABC News.

    * Steve Cannane
    • Like Like x 1
  14. anon8109 Member

  15. anon8109 Member

  16. anon8109 Member

  17. DeathHamster Member

  18. DeathHamster Member

    Ah yes, Laval is being a dick running around all the articles removing science-fiction from author Hubbard, even through it's been argued back and forth countless times before, and probably even a few rulings of various sorts.

    I suppose he plans to camp all the articles that he changed, because someone will put it back in a few months. This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. anon8109 Member

  20. anon8109 Member

  21. anon8109 Member

  22. RightOn Member

    another thing you may be interested in DeathHamster.
    Since you are the "guru of digging" IMO, maybe you can shed some light on this.
    I did a search through Bing for the The Big List this morning. I tried several title combos and posted my dismay in the Big List thread and Incred replied and said a link came up on Bing which stated that some of the content has been removed from searches. INTERESTING!
    There are forms you can fill out on that link at the bottom where you can report content to be removed. So who is behind all these removals? hmmmmmmmmm?
    If you go through Yahoo search, the results suck too.

    I've had always said that the Big List does not come up prominently enough in searches or not at all.
    What IS there are some posts, but once you go there, there is a lot of broken links. It almost makes it look like The List is a broken forgotten project with old content.
    The Big List appears "snuffed" on the net to me.

    This needs to be fixed. How can the List be listed and pushed to the top? How can the "snuffers" be found?
    How can this story be reported out in the open?
    Would Tony O think this is news worthy of a mention?
    Should I start a new thread?
    • Like Like x 1
  23. DeathHamster Member

    Do you have a sample of a search string? And are you sure that you're going to the current copy of the Big List? It was copied to a lot of places.
  24. The Wrong Guy Member

    I regularly run searches for the latest mentions of Scientology on Bing News and Google News, and I don't remember ever seeing anything from Tony Ortega's site showing up in any of the search results (or in Google "Past 24 hours" search results)."1",sbd:1
  25. DeathHamster Member

    It's never been included in the Bing and Google newsfeeds. I have no idea why, considering some of the tripe press release sites they do include.
  26. RightOn Member

    like I said, I just went to Bing and typed in The Big List of Ex Scientologists... Scientologists Who Left and Spoke Out ect....and other combos and all they came up was crappy examples with busted links.
  27. DeathHamster Member

    Bing goes through strange phases sometimes. From months, umbraxenu from the second page on and on was some pharmaceutical drug.
  28. The Wrong Guy Member

    For me, it's the third search result, right below a Wikipedia article and the YouTube video you mentioned earlier. List of Ex Scientologists
  29. RightOn Member

  30. Anonymous Member

    I found this today:

    July 13, 2015 | By Jillian York

    How Microsoft Bing Censors the Middle East

    Shortly after Microsoft Bing launched in 2009, researchers at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society found that the search engine was enforcing “safe search” in a number of countries, including across the whole of the Middle East and North Africa (or as Microsoft erroneously called the region at the time, the “Arabian countries”).

    In a paper entitled Sex, Social Mores and Keyword Filtering: Microsoft Bing in “Arabian Countries” [PDF], the researchers claimed that Microsoft was filtering “Arabic and English keywords that could yield sex- or LGBT-related images and content.”1 As a result of the paper, Microsoft pulled back the censorship in certain places and corrected their laughable mislabeling of the region.

    Six years later, it seems the censorship is back. Users in some Arab countries2—as well as a handful of other locales—who attempt to search for such a keyword receive a message that reads: “Your country or region requires a strict Bing SafeSearch setting, which filters out results that might return adult content.

    Following the text above, this is posted showing how Naked Lunch, by William S. Burroughs is censored from searches:

    Screen Shot 2015-07-15 at 00.52.49.png

    To learn more about SafeSearch requirements in your country or region, see How Bing Delivers Search Results.”
    • Like Like x 1
  31. DeathHamster Member

  32. DeathHamster Member

    Jimbo Wales baaawing that he can't find a good IRS tax status timeline article on Wikipedia:
    Gee Jim, maybe if you hadn't let the ARBCOM remove all Scientologist editors and all non-Scientologist editors through some false-equivalence (and maybe a secret deal?), then the Wikipedia articles wouldn't be moldering heaps that are still tampered by Scientologists?

    /facepalm. What a fucking idiot!

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins