Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th May 2009 19:17 UTC
Legal Even though we make fun of Wikipedia, and even though any serious scientific piece shouldn't cite Wikipedia, fact remains that the community-created and maintained encyclopaedia has turned into an impressive database of knowledge. Even though I don't think you should trust it blindly, it's usually an excellent starting point for information, especially when used in a casual setting. Still, its open nature is also a threat to Wikipedia, this week exemplified by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee banning Scientology from editing Wikipedia pages.
Permalink for comment 366222
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by mikemikemike
by mikemikemike on Sun 31st May 2009 01:45 UTC
mikemikemike
Member since:
2008-11-14

It is interesting to see the difference between the different language versions of Wikipedia on Scientology. The Spanish language Wiki is more directly critical.

I think Scientology is better at policing English language sites.

I live in Los Angeles: ground central for Scientology. If anyone in LA ever offers you a free personality test, say 'no'. If you say yes, the test will reveal that you could use some counseling, and that counseling is the first step in attempting to convert you to Scientology.

Say what you will about the logic behind Christianity, but, Christianity is open source: all the texts are there to be examined and are free to distribute. Scientology is copyright and closed source. You have to sign a non-disclosure agreement to gain access to higher teachings. You may not share the higher teachings with others.

Reply Score: 7