The CoS and Wikipedia

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn, May 31, 2015.

Tags:
View Users: View Users
  1. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    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!:yes:

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
  2. This is NOT OK !!!!

    This is NOT OK !!!! Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for your post and update.

    Can you inform us about what's going on?

    What are they up to?
     
  3. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    It seems that the majority of the articles that are related to the CoS, though not all, are now dominated by CoS members, and this is also happening to most of the other cult articles as well. The open invitation that Wikipedia makes for "anyone to edit" seems to have become an open invitation for the CoS and other cults to encourage their members to take control of the articles on these organizations, and to flood Wikipedia with member-editors in order to out-maneuver out-number and over-power us older editors over there. Has anyone here ever heard of the CoS encouraging CoS members to try their hand at editing Wikipedia?

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
  4. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    Any info on this at all would be really helpful, even third hand.... But eventually we would probably need to track it back to first hand info....

    The one thing that for me seems to be a dead ringer, in showing me that this is actually going on is the fact that since I and a few others began trying to fix this, the woo-woo's (read yo-yo's) from the CoS seem to have been trying to play games with all of our phone lines and what-not. I've noticed that those folks seem to have absolutely the worst sense of humor! I don't seem to amuse them at all. But on the other hand, I do find them to be just a bit funny myself! Imagine that, some folks still believe that "The Truth" actually requires such keystone-copery to survive!! Eeegads!!!

    PS: I really like my initials, no joke.:eyeroll:
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  5. Wants2Talk

    Wants2Talk Silver Meritorious Patron

    I thought they were banned from editing.
     
  6. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    ..

    You are absolutely right. Scientologists are banned from editing.

    I think what is being described is a "covert operation" where (perhaps) one or more Scientologists have somehow wrangled their way INSIDE wiki as editors. In other words, with the ban on Scientologists being prohibited from editing, the "insider" would have a higher administrative clearance that would allow them to make changes a "Scientologist" would not. That is my understanding of it, in any case.

    If true, that would not be surprising. It is the identical strategy that the COS used when they were powerless to do anything about the Cult Awareness Network ("CAN"). So, just like the IRS caper, they filed countless LAWSUITS versus CAN until it went bankrupt. Then, at the bankruptcy sale, they bought CAN for pennies and thereafter PLACED SCIENTOLOGISTS INSIDE OF CAN ANSWERING THE PHONES AND GIVING ADVICE ABOUT CULTS. Truly insane, isn't it, for a concerned parent or loved one to call CAN to help someone being enslaved by Scientology--only to have a SCIENTOLOGIST covertly taking their call and giving them advice!

    If Scientologists have somehow gained access to the editing function on the many various WIKI articles about Scientology, this would be a bombshell story to investigate, document and blow the whistle on!

    QUESTION: If this is possible, may I inquire if there is some way to show the BEFORE and AFTER of any Wiki articles to document the fact that someone is "vanishing" unfavorable information and inserting Scientology-favorable spin, shore stories, acceptable truth, propaganda or plain everyday Scientology lies in their place? Being able to track and show the CHANGES that were somehow made to Scientology articles would be the smoking gun.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  7. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    The church's internet obstruction tactics are already the subject of a Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet

    Scientology computers are recognized and banned but this will not stop circumvention.

    This is a news story in itself in the making and it should be carefully documented for the time it is added to the above article.
     
  8. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    Isn't it possible to screen capture all previous versions and post it as evidences ???

    One question: Isn't it possible for the admins to lock the automatic publishing of editing for such subject ( hijacked by culties), and to assign a specific reviewer\comitee to OK before it is published ????


    Good post to expose them, once again and thank you to the Wiki people who watch it!:yes:
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  9. Little David

    Little David Silver Meritorious Patron

    Are Scientologists on their personal computers and IP's banned?
     
  10. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    I'm not fit to comment on the internal workings of Wikipedia, but if I'm not mistaken, every article has an Edit history and a Discussion thread which both can be accessed via a special link.

    Maybe Scott can comment on that?
     
  11. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    >You are absolutely right. Scientologists are banned from editing.


    Actually, there was never a specific Wikipedia ban on all Scientologists per-se. The ban was specifically against Scientology owned computers. With Wikipedia’s lax rules of editing, all the CoS editors had to do was switch to non-CoS owned computers, take out new editor accounts, and claim that they were “new editors”. I think the CoS intentionally spread the rumor that all CoS’ers were banned in order to try to lull the Wikipedia staff into letting their guard further down. You can read all about this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia#Arbitration_Committee_ban .




    >If Scientologists have somehow gained access to the editing function on the many various WIKI articles about Scientology, this would be a bombshell story to investigate, document and blow the whistle on!


    Yes.




    >QUESTION: If this is possible, may I inquire if there is some way to show the BEFORE and AFTER of any Wiki articles to document the fact that someone is “vanishing” unfavorable information and inserting Scientology-favorable spin, shore stories, acceptable truth, propaganda or plain everyday Scientology lies in their place? Being able to track and show the CHANGES that were somehow made to Scientology articles would be the smoking gun.[/QUOTE]QUESTION: If this is possible, may I inquire if there is some way to show the BEFORE and AFTER of any Wiki articles to document the fact that someone is “vanishing” unfavorable information and inserting Scientology-favorable spin, shore stories, acceptable truth, propaganda or plain everyday Scientology lies in their place? Being able to track and show the CHANGES that were somehow made to Scientology articles would be the smoking gun.


    ANSWER: Yes there is, and actually we have reason to believe that all of the other major cults are in on this as well, just like the Germans and the Japs were allies in WWII (unless and until the allies were beaten, then they would have probably declared war on each other.) 2009 seems to be a “watershed year”. 2009 was the year of the “Cosmetic-Ban” against Scientology. More specifically answering your question about jumping back, there is a fairly simple way to jump back to the edition of any given article on the last edit of any given year. I suggest going back to the last edit of 2009 and comparing it to today on any CoS article. The differences are very notable. In the four or 5 main articles about the CoS the difference is not so big, but in the 400 or 500 other related articles, the differences are absolutely huge. You can start checking out the more "minor articles" by checking out the articles about the CCHR (go back to 2006) or on Psychiatry (go back to 2009).

    Here is how you can jump back in time like that:

    1. Click on the “View History” tab.
    2. At the top of the “History” page, you will see a “Browse history from year (and earlier): box. Insert the year you want to go to in that box: e.g. 2009.
    3. If 2009 may still show an article heavily slanted towards the CoS, then try going back a few years further yet. BTW, WP only really got off of the ground in 2003.
    4. Click on the ”Go“ button.
    5. Click on the topmost edit-date-link on the ”results list" which will then take you to the very last edit of that given year. The topmost edit-date-link should look something like this: 19:52, 31 December 2009. You will then get the older article edition.



    PS: This reply was written while my iPad was being seriously tampered with via the internet, and could only be written while fully offline. Funny guys, huh? I think they're hilarious!
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  12. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    >One question: Isn't it possible for the admins to lock the automatic publishing of editing for such subject ( hijacked by culties), and to assign a specific reviewer\comitee to OK before it is published ????

    Four important points:

    1. As is typical for the OSA, this is no hairbrained scheme. It is a highly planned and choreographed operation.
    2. Wikipedia's Cosmetic-Ban of 2009 must have clearly demonstrated to the OSA that the prize was theirs for the taking. Wikipedia really had no idea what they were in for. All the OSA needed was the commodities of time and money, and Wikipedia was theirs. Both commodities of which the OSA thought they had ample supplies.
    3. I'm not exactly sure how they did this, either through subliminal things, or through outright blackmail, but somehow all of the uppermost eschelon staff over there now seems to be either in a total state of denial, or scared out of their wits, or both, but none of the upper eschelons over there are willing to do a thing to stop the very blatant infiltration.
    4. The biggest problem over there now is their refusal to limit who can edit the cult articles. We have begged the upper management to do this, and they adamantly refuse, stating that we are loony to suggest that there is any infiltration!! Speaking of looney, I do feel sorry for the terrible position they are in. I really don't yet know exactly how to help them, but it now seems that some good news coverage might be best. Before we break the story though, certain things need to be in place.

    We need a few more good editors to help us with this story, before it will be something that the press will be ready for.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  13. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    Anyone here who knows anyone who can be trusted who might have some experience editing Wikipedia, or who might be an experienced copy editor with a little computer programming ability and would be willing to learn Wikipedia, might be able to help us with this. Also, anyone who might ever have heard anything from the OSA about their plan to infiltrate Wikipedia, that info would further this story immensely, but such info would have to be credible and essentially somehow verifiable by a journalist. Clearly there is an infiltration plan, otherwise the keystone boys wouldn't be on our tails like this.

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  14. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    mine bold

    I am not at all surprise with such impression you have.
    Chances are that they control uplines. This is the usual modus operandi as Hoaxy mentionned with CAN.

    Suggestion: There is certainly wiki contributors here on the board.
    1. they could certainly review $cientology articles and make screen captures of previous versions ans post them there
    2. then we can all together locate editing with false favorable cult pr and relate to specific contributors
    3. contributors, on this board, can submit a new editing (with help of members here to locate proofs to supports facts to be submitted)
    4. screen capture any discussion or suspect activity of any editor being concerned with the removal of false pr in favor of the cult and interferring with the adding of true facts (verified)
    5. a thorough report of findings and petition to correct wrong can be submitted up-lines and depending of actions taken\ denial - it can be adressed to another level with a public alert...

    This is only a raw draft of how we can together make sure true fact are reported in wiki for public not being mistaken.
    This is certainly a story that few would like to know,in the event is is evident that CO$ is controlling at upper level. They will certainly have the ressources to investigate. :wink2:

    Thank you for reporting it here and providing the infos.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  15. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    Since you are asking for insiders info - I suggest you leave an e-mail adress and any info you gather would be easy to counter verify with a few guys here...

    OSA has the same Achilles heel than any organization....and their weakness is that they refuse to admit it...they believe they are powerfull in total secrecy and total control... so it makes them more vulnerable! :coolwink:
    And the worst, as you experienced, they don't have any sens of humor..which is like wearing a big '' I am OSA' sign'' :biggrin:
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  16. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    Thanks Lotus for helping to get this ball rolling. I think your suggestions are all good, except for the last one, since we've already provided a rather thorough report upline and had it thoroughly rejected without any hint of interest. The next step now, as you say, is to assemble a group of good Wikipedia editors who can understand what is going on and who can also clearly and convincingly explain their understanding of what is going on to the proper journalists. We already have some very good contacts in the world of journalism.

    I would be happy to work together with the other Wikipedia editors here under this thread. I would only want established and trusted editors with a good and proven history on this board. (I really like and respect what you folks have done here in supporting one another here. I think that's why I chose this board to bring this issue to.) Actually Lotus, if your were interested, perhaps you could help us with knowing who might be good for this.

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  17. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    I would certainly be happy to message out my email to anyone who asked, via this Board's messaging system. As for publicly listing my email on this thread, I hesitate to do that, as OSA would probably automatically deluge that email with spam, and all I could say was I made my email public, silly me!:eyeroll: Though they've already hacked my email and know it well, they still do have certain "appearances" that they try to maintain (imagine that, the OSA concerned about their appearance?)
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  18. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    Going to bed now.... Will visit again tomorrow evening. Thanks Lotus and all!

    Scott
     
  19. ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn

    ScottPerry--sp--not-xscn Patron with Honors

    Was hoping I could stay away from this for this AM, but I couldn't do it. What I have just done is what we have been threatening to do for a few weeks now. I have just begun to rattle and poke at the hornet's nest that is the CoS infiltration operation at Wikipedia (WP). Hopefully when I'm done with this little poking episode I won't have too many "stings" on me. I'm just hoping I have a good enough "bee-suit" on, but we shall see. The battle is now "fully engaged" over there. Those "keystone boys" (see posts #4 & #13 above) have been poking at us and our personal lives for the last 3 weeks, so as far as I'm concerned, this battle actually started three weeks ago, not really today.

    I just posted two suggestions over at WP that the two articles I mentioned above should be reverted back to their pre-takeover stage.


    1. I did the suggestion for returning the CCHR article at: CCHR-Talk: This page is in violation of ... policy....
    2. I did the suggestion for returning the Psychiatry page back at: WP:Due and WP:Undue need to be restored to this page

    Personally I don't think psychiatry is exactly all that it's cracked up to be either, but nonetheless, the enemy of my enemy is my friend in this one. Psychiatry is certainly nothing like the CoS! I posted the discussion points before making any changes, as informing others what you want to do in advance like this is standard protocal in WP. We shall see how the other editors respond now. The things I pointed out are in fact undeniable facts, that these two pages flagrantly violate current WP policy. We shall see how the cards now fall.

    We need other editors who might eventually be able to assist me in these types of arguments over there. I would be more than happy to teach anyone who seems to have the ability, time and patience to do this with me. You would need to have a pretty good writing ability, combined with at least some level of comfort with very simple software programming like HTML or BASIC. Anyone who is good at law would also be exceedingly helpful, even if you don't do any programming, (we could work with you and help you). Currently, while I have non-Wikipedia support from outside sources, I am the lone editor over there who is yet crying "wolf!" and I need others to help me badly, pleeease!

    I will be returning later today to see if anyone has yet sent me any messages to that effect.

    Thanks,

    Scott
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  20. idrizomare

    idrizomare Patron with Honors

    I looked at the CCHR page you referenced. The last two versions are dated December 2014 and May 15, 2015. The differences between the two versions are minute. I then looked at a version of the page from the end of 2009. Although there are many edits between now and then, at a high level, the two versions don't look that different.

    Since I'm lazy, I didn't look at the psychiatry page.

    I'm not sure what you're saying is going on as reflected in the article content. Could you be more specific?