Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology from editing its site to prevent propaganda

Mail Online:

Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology from editing its site to prevent propaganda

The Church of Scientology may have the support of global celebrities such as Tom Cruise to spread its message.
But it can no longer rely on the worldwide web to be so supportive.

Wikipedia - the online encyclopedia and world’s eighth most popular website - has banned members of the Church from editing its own information on the site.

It claims the information that is being posted is ‘self-promoting’ and devoid of any criticism and thus breaches Wikipedia’s rule that its material should be neutral.

At an unprecedented hearing at Wikipedia’s Supreme Court today, members voted unanimously in favour of banning members of the Church from posting or editing any more self-serving material.

It will now no longer accept contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.
The move is the first time a high-profile organisation has been banned.
No one from the Church was available for comment.

I didn’t know Wikipedia had its own Supreme Court – as for the ruling, I wonder how many other groups the same principle might be applied to?
Check out your congressman’s Wikipedia entry for example.

Wikipedia leans to the left and also prohibits inconvenient things about obama as well.

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,507244,00.html

Critics noted over the weekend that President Obama’s page on the free online encyclopedia had been edited to remove any mention of his links to former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, and to allow only a brief citation of his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — though pages for Ayers and Wright are heavily peppered with references to the president, including subsections on both pages that detail their past affiliations with him.

And of course the leftist bias:
politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0808/Wikipedia_bias.html

I’ve heard plenty about mainstream media bias over the years – whether from the left or right. But in the Washington Times, Matthew Sheffield writes about Wikipedia bias, claiming that conservatives get a raw deal in many of the site’s 10 million-plus entries.

And he calls on them to go beyond creating alternative sites like Conservapedia.

"There is nothing wrong with such efforts, but they are incomplete -- incomplete because they fail to recognize that liberal bias at Wikipedia isn't like bias at ABC or CBS. These institutions are dominated by liberals, true, but their systematic structure is such that the ability for people on the right to push for fairness is severely limited.... That is not the case with Wikipedia, a participatory medium in which those who are most active enjoy the most influence.

I wouldn’t trust it with a ten foot pole.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.