When Cults Collide, Scientology vs. Wikipedia Options Rating

[Cedric]

The battle between the cult of Scientology (“COS”) and the Wikipedia cult is now into Round 4. In what now seems to be an annual ArbCom event, a new dispute concerning “POV pushing” regarding Scientology related articles has been brought before the wiki “high court” by one of our favorite dramamongers and defenders of the wiki, Durova. The problem allegedly is that COS editors are removing statements from articles and their talk pages, as well as references, in order to excise information embarrassing to COS. The COS editors claim that anti-Scientology wikipediots are adding inaccurate, libelous and privileged material to these articles in violation of WP’s own policies. In other words, the very same reason as for the first three ArbCom cases.

The present case has been grinding on for nearly four months now, perhaps because the Arbs are looking for some sort of magic bullet to bring this dispute between the cults to a permanent end. The proposed decision makes resort to the r-word (recidivism) and proposes to block all COS-related IP addresses, among other remedies. I think that all of the proposed remedies, plus any others they are likely to come up with, are doomed to fail for the reasons noted below.

Before I continue, I should probably note here that I have never had any contact with or ties to COS, nor to my knowledge has anyone that I am personally acquainted with. Despite this, I independently came to the conclusion that COS is a devious, money-grubbing cult long before I had ever heard of Wikipedia.

The wikipedians cannot to seem to grasp that one of the central and “sacred” tenants of their own cult, the open editing policy, is what renders them so vulnerable to continual edit wars with Scientologists. Unless and until all COS related articles are “locked down” under a “flagged revisions” policy or some similar reform, this dispute will last as long as WP does. Blocking the offending editors and COS-owned IP addresses will not stop COS. It is easy enough to set up alternate accounts and edit from alternate addresses. Besides which, wikipedians are mere pikers compared to Scientologists in the cult department. COS is far more securely financed than WP and its adherents are far more fanatical. They are not going to give up just because ArbCom tells them to piss off.

One thing I find interesting is that it seems that COS is moving away from one of its formerly favored tactics to silence critics: lawsuits. It could be that judges are getting wise to COS’s abusive tactics and that they and their attorneys are becoming exposed to sanctions. Or it could be that they have finally cottoned on to the fact that it does little good to try to shut the barn door when the horse has not only left the barn, but is well into the next county. By the time WP came along in 2001, COS had already essentially lost its war against the internet to keep secret its ridiculous copyrighted “tech”, its even more ridiculous copyrighted “space opera” that serves as the basis for the whole “religion”, and the disturbing stories of abuses perpetrated on its members. These matters were all fairly well known by then. A takedown notice sent a year ago by COS lawyers to Wikileaks failed to result in either the requested takedown or a lawsuit. A similar demand to the website YTMND in 2006 not only failed to result in the requested takedown, but also led to YTMND posting even more copyrighted material. Most famously in 2005, Comedy Central broadcast the “Trapped in the Closet” episode of the series South Park, which was a scathing satire on the cult and on its most notable adherent, Tom Cruise. The episode was later given wider dissemination on several websites.

“I’ll sue you, too! I’ll sue you in England!”

Again, no lawsuit. With regard to WP, in the first ArbCom case in 2005, a finding was made that the COS editor in question had a legal dispute with WP. However, the legal threat was pretty vague and evidently nothing came of it. Legal threats did not figure into any of the three later cases.

It appears that each of these cults has no lack of ability to destroy itself, but also no power to do much of anything to stop the other. Some Scientology critics might disagree me, but it appears the internet has done much to cripple the ability of the COS to get new members. Most of COS’s dirty secrets have been out there for many years, but the internet did much to disseminate them far more widely. I also believe that the way COS carried on its war against the internet did just as much, if not more, to damage its image than did the revelation of their secrets. As for WP’s penchant for self-destruction, I dealt with that in another thread. Because COS has already proved its inability to stop information about itself from being posted on the internet, it similarly cannot stop WP from mirroring that same information. Since WP has proven its inability to enact needed reforms to its editing policy, COS will be able to continue their “POV pushing” for as long as WP exists. The struggle may be utterly futile, but it will go on.

[Jon Awbrey]

Φascinating! — this ought to be turned into a blog posting …

Jon

[quanta]

Φascinating! — this ought to be turned into a blog posting …

Jon

Interesting reading

[GlassBeadGame]

I never understood why COS and WP maintained relative peace. Perhaps there is some inter-cult protocol on comity.

[Jon Awbrey]

I never understood why COS and WP maintained relative peace. Perhaps there is some inter-cult protocol on comity.

Honor Among Dweebs

Ja Ja

[Somey]

One way of looking at this is that for nearly all content disputes, Wikipedia relies on something that might be termed "Disputant Acquiescence Incentive" (DAI). If there's no incentive to acquiesce or give up the fight in an edit-war or whatever, or if the incentive isn't equal to the disincentive (as is probably the case with the Scientologists), then the dispute just goes on and on, indefinitely. It strikes me that DAI could be measured, and given some sort of numeric rating in any given case, though of course any such rating would be inexact at best.

Anyway, assuming they could come up with a reasonable mechanism for determining and applying such ratings over time, then if any given article's DAI rating drops close to zero, that could trigger semi-protection or full protection automatically.

Or, maybe they could just resort to the classic "for every German killed..." technique, as in, "For every pro-CoS POV edit, we will allow the other side to make fifty anti-CoS POV edits." Oops, wait, that won't work because then the anti-CoS people will make a pro-CoS edit themselves in order to trigger the sanction so they can make some anti-CoS edits. Never mind!

[Cedric]

Now at five months and counting. The case has been in the voting stage for nearly two months now (since March 14). I would say that the case is plodding on as before, except for the fact that there are now a whole new set of proposed remedies (topic bans), on which voting started May 2. So far, the only votes are by the proponent, User:Roger Davies. None of the proposed remedies has yet obtained a majority. Despite the fact that this case has a "target date" of May 25, I suspect that we won't be seeing a decision on this until the snow flies. I won't venture to predict what year that will be, though.

[Milton Roe]

One way of looking at this is that for nearly all content disputes, Wikipedia relies on something that might be termed "Disputant Acquiescence Incentive" (DAI). If there's no incentive to acquiesce or give up the fight in an edit-war or whatever, or if the incentive isn't equal to the disincentive (as is probably the case with the Scientologists), then the dispute just goes on and on, indefinitely. It strikes me that DAI could be measured, and given some sort of numeric rating in any given case, though of course any such rating would be inexact at best.

I just read a fascinating artilce about how a hive of migrating bees makes communal decissions by concensus. Awbrey, you might want to stop reading now if you are, due to your eyes glazing over and Greek beginning to fill up your closed mind.

But now (for the rest of you) this is interesting, and I promise it relates to the Somey observation above. When a bee colony fissions, it takes a new pregnant queen and 2/3rds of the workers. They need a new home FAST. They are stuffed with honey, but have no other baggage. They are usually sitting in an exposed ball on a tree limb somewhere, with their collective bee-butts hanging out in the wind. Emergency. New hive site needed NOW.

So they sent out scouts. These are old ladies with plenty of experience, and the genetic set of stuff they're looking for has nothing to do with flowers, but now is a pre-programmed set of criteria for the ideal hive site. Small defensible entrance, cool, ventilated but not too well, high off the ground, etc.

When the scouts return to the nesting-ball, they do a waggle-dance exactly as for pollen/nectar sources, but this time it's for new-hive-sites. Location, location, location, but other real-estate factors come in, too. No single bee is smart enough to evaluate two sites or more, and do an internal comparison-- a bee just doesn't have that many neurons or that much RAM. So each scout comes back with a single report and no comparisons, and does a waggle-dance which is enthusiastic to the degree of the site fitting an internal (genetically set) reference ideal.

Now the fun. Bees who've found less than great sites, quit dancing after a while. There are no site-warriors and crazy bees who won't give up on a possible site just because THEY found it. Bees check their bee-egos at the "door" (not that the nesting ball has one). So after a while, only the best sites have supporters who are still danging. This loss of enthusiasm is key to the process.

At this point, a second wave of verificational scouts goes out to the best remaining sites, to see for themselves. If they like it a lot, they stay. When a minimum consensis number of these votes on a site (roughtly 15), that site gets chosen by the whole colony, and mass movement begins. About this time it becomes impossible to derail the colony's choice even if a new bee comes in with an even more fantastic site-- voting is frozen at some late stage.

Now, all this works sort of the way Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to work. Intelligence is distributed, and so is memory. Comparison is done inter-bee, not inside each bee's tiny head. It's consensus driven, and it's not purely democratic. Nor are there any points given for "expertise" that anyone has found. There is some "fact checking". But again, it works in part because of lack of fanatics.

In tests of ants trying to find locations, they find that ants manage to settle on better sites, even if they are far away. So this is a fundamentally complicated process, and much more complicated than "me see, me want, me take."

Okay, Awbrey, if you read that anyway when you weren't supposed to, I hope it wasn't too confusing. Pretend this message doesn't exist, please.

[thekohser]

Now, all this works sort of the way Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to work. Intelligence is distributed, and so is memory. Comparison is done inter-bee, not inside each bee's tiny head. It's consensus driven, and it's not purely democratic. Nor are there any points given for "expertise" that anyone has found. There is some "fact checking". But again, it works in part because of lack of fanatics.

Some of us are just waiting for the Colony Collapse Disease.

[Milton Roe]

Now, all this works sort of the way Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to work. Intelligence is distributed, and so is memory. Comparison is done inter-bee, not inside each bee's tiny head. It's consensus driven, and it's not purely democratic. Nor are there any points given for "expertise" that anyone has found. There is some "fact checking". But again, it works in part because of lack of fanatics.

Some of us are just waiting for the Colony Collapse Disease.

Good luck. Bees survived the dinosaurs. While the dinos were frying, the bees had good hives and holes. Same for the little rat-like mammals that were our own more direct ancestors.

[Cla68]

I have mixed emotions about the COS situation on Wikipedia. I try to be a big proponent of neutrality, because I know that Wikipedia loses any vestige of credibility if it doesn't at least try to be neutral. It also offends me when people try to use Wikipedia or any other social media for propaganda.

On the other hand, I used to live (about 18 years ago) in Hollywood just a few blocks away from Scientology's big blue building near Fountain and Normandy. I don't know if they still use that building or not. Partly because of its shape, it was half-jokingly rumored among the Hispanic immigrants in the neighborhood that the building housed a rocket to allow the COS leadership to escape into space if it looked like LA was about to get nuked.

Anyway, I had to deal with Scientologists trying to proselytize me and my friends seemingly whenever we walked down Sunset or Hollywood Blvds. Their zany, military-style uniforms combined with their casually condescending, arrogant attitudes rubbed me the wrong way, to say the least. They're condemnation of the social sciences bothered me also, because I had considered pursuing a career as a pscyhologist and have a lot of respect for that profession. So, it's hard for me to get too upset about the beating that they're taking on Wikipedia.

In short, I'm not sure what I should think or do about it.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 12th May 2009, 12:00am

[RMHED]

I have mixed emotions about the COS situation on Wikipedia. I try to be a big proponent of neutrality, because I know that Wikipedia loses any vestige of credibility if it doesn't at least try to be neutral. It also offends me when people try to use Wikipedia or any other social media for propaganda.

On the other hand, I used to live (about 18 years ago) in Hollywood just a few blocks away from Scientology's big blue building near Fountain and Normandy. I don't know if they still use that building or not. Partly because of its shape, it was half-jokingly rumored among the Hispanic immigrants in the neighborhood that the building housed a rocket to allow the COS leadership to escape into space if it looked like LA was about to get nuked.

Anyway, I had to deal with Scientologists trying to proselytize me and my friends seemingly whenever we walked down Sunset or Hollywood Blvds. Their zany, military-style uniforms combined with their casually condescending, arrogant attitudes rubbed me the wrong way, to say the least. So, it's hard for me to get too upset about the beating that they're taking on Wikipedia.

In short, I'm not sure what I should think or do about it.

Old motherfucker Hubbard certainly did leave quite a legacy. If only Jimmy could be tempted away from the Random universe, the psioncologists would be waiting with open arms.

[dtobias]

About this time it becomes impossible to derail the colony's choice even if a new bee comes in with an even more fantastic site-- voting is frozen at some late stage.

That's why they call it the "Clueless Newbee".

[Milton Roe]

About this time it becomes impossible to derail the colony's choice even if a new bee comes in with an even more fantastic site-- voting is frozen at some late stage.

That's why they call it the "Clueless Newbee".

Horrible.

[A User]

How many admins have identified themselves as belonging to CoS?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

... and precisely how many body thetans possess Jimbo Wales anyway!?! Perhaps we should demand that he and the arbcom committee are "cleared" first, otherwise how can we trust the obviously criminal Wogs and SPs to handle the case fairly?

Sorry, I have just watched some of the John Duignan interviews ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScVBJPGeEio. I should imagine Jimbo Wales has such an important role in the demise of humanity that Lord Xenu has his hand up his jacksie operating him as a puppet as we write.

Some of us are just waiting for the Colony Collapse Disease.

Or a hornet attack driven by intellectual property lawyers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M

The system makes it hard enough to deal with one individual grinding their psychosis, never mind an international scifi "tech" drive sect. I suspect this debate is going on over numerous non-English Wikis?

Again, it underlines the lack of accounting for the waste of resources such events cost. The dramas genuinely do "cost" something both in real terms to the individuals (time=money) and the society they happen within (loss of goodwill, waste of content creation time). Its just that the Peed-ia does not have to pay for them, so why should it care?

It all leads to towards locking articles down in fixed states and allowing the flames to consume the talk pages only instead. This was the point the editor of the Britannia made ... what is the point when even if you 'absolutely' get it right ... "right" might only last for a few minutes whilst those with no ENCYCLOPEDIAC intent whatsoever vomit all over it and chew it up again.

OK, so that relates to common bluebottles and not anthophila but it seems to illustrate the Wikipedian feeding frenzy of flies on hot fresh turd far better.

Excuse me for mixing my metaphors.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 12th May 2009, 1:23am

[Cedric]

This whole apian discussion reminds me of the funniest Monty Python song ever (well, funniest to me, anyway):

A one... two-- A one... two... three... four...
Half a bee, philosophically,
Must, ipso facto, half not be.
But half the bee has got to be
Vis-a-vis, its entity. D'you see?

But can a bee be said to be
Or not to be an entire bee
When half the bee is not a bee
Due to some ancient injury?
Singing...


Chorus:
La dee dee, one two three
Eric the Half-a-Bee.
A B C D E F G,
Eric the Half-a-Bee.


Is this wretched demi-bee,
Half-asleep upon my knee,
Some freak from a menagerie?


Chorus:
NO! It's Eric the Half-a-Bee!
Fiddle de dum, fiddle de dee,
Eric the Half-a-Bee.
Ho ho ho, tee hee hee,
Eric the Half-a-Bee.



I love this hive employee-ee,
Bisected accidentally,
One summer afternoon by me,
I love him carnally.


Chorus:
He loves him carnally,
Semi-carnally.


The end.


--Cyril Connelly?
No; semi-carnally!
--Oh.


Chorus:
Cyril Connelly.
[whistling]

[Cedric]

Well, this is bizarre. After 5 1/2 months, the case was finally closed today without a final decision. A clerk error?

[Achromatic]

This ought to make for fun and games:

15.3.2 Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

Passed 10 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[Somey]

Made it into the Register, courtesy of Cade Metz. I wonder if the MSM will pick this up? I wouldn't be surprised, since there's already some tie-in with the CoS trial in France...

I thought about becoming a Scientologist once, but I decided to become a Proctologist instead. It was less stinky...