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.
Thread beginning with 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

RE: Comment by mikemikemike
by wanker90210 on Sun 31st May 2009 10:45 in reply to "Comment by mikemikemike"
wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

Well some Christian brands comes with a pretty heavy subscription pricing scheme (for something that is open source) and they have pretty dubious SLA:s.

While I personally hate Scientologists, I do think it might be somewhat useful in that it serves Darwinism by making sure the most stupid idiots of the gene pool have less money and hopefully less chance of propagation.

Unfortunately it seems much cheaper to be a moron member of YHVH's witnesses or being a moron creationist. But I suppose smart businessmen will arrive there too, helping to prune the gene pool.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by mikemikemike
by Bernhard on Sun 31st May 2009 12:10 in reply to "RE: Comment by mikemikemike"
Bernhard Member since:
2008-11-12

Well some Christian brands comes with a pretty heavy subscription pricing scheme (for something that is open source) and they have pretty dubious SLA:s.


Christianity in and of itself is free. Some christians support their organization with money, because it needs to rent rooms and pay for expenses like electricity, water and even organizational employees.
I'm not saying there are no scammers out there, just that not everyone is a scammer.

But BTT: Scientology shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia entries about the organization. The Vatican shouldn't be allowed to alter entries about Catholicism, the same should apply to Microsoft, the aforementioned "Christian Brands", the Dalai Lama, Siemens, Sony, Apple or anyone with a financial interest in editing stories other people tell about them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by mikemikemike
by siraf72 on Sun 31st May 2009 20:13 in reply to "Comment by mikemikemike"
siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

WOW, I really like this comment. I've had my run-ins with the scientos, in fact i've been been to St. Hill in the UK. Very interesting, ALLOT of name dropping there ("and here is where John Travolta played on the piano"). I'm now an SP ;) .

Putting aside the dubious nature of the founder of this "religion", open source is the point. I'm a Muslim but I respect all major religions and the reason is simple; i can view their texts and contrast and compare. By and large the message is the same. With scientology on the other hand you can't examine all the texts ahead of "joining" and you pay and you sign contracts. And, btw, its not a religion, unless of course their applying for tax status. At any other time its just a "philosophy".

</rant>

Reply Parent Score: 3

B12 Simon Member since:
2006-11-08

There's a lot of information in this book:

http://www.eason.ie/look/9781903582848/Complex/John-Duignan

When I bought it a few months ago it wasn't available from UK booksellers, hence the .ie link.

It's well worth a read if you're interested

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by mikemikemike
by coolvibe on Mon 1st Jun 2009 12:36 in reply to "Comment by mikemikemike"
coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

Oh yes, the personality test, also known as the Oxford Capacity Analisys or OCA for short. It's a big sham. The validity of that test is as much as the tests you see in girly-mags like cosmopolitan and the like. It works similar too. With the difference that there are no right answers. What ever you answer on the test, they always claim you need scientology.

Look around on the web for the OCA. There is a cgi floating around that will let you take that test without scientology involvement. You can cheat with it too ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1