Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

The Church of Scientology has long had a controversial history on the Internet and had initiated campaigns to manipulate material and remove information critical of itself from the web.

Wikipedia administrators presented evidence during the case that Church of Scientology-controlled computers were used to promote the organization, using multiple user accounts.

Many Scientology critics were also banned; the committee concluded that both sides had "gamed policy" and resorted to "battlefield tactics", with articles on living persons being the "worst casualties" of edits.

[19] Writing in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, author Mike Godwin noted, "In one of the earliest widely publicized sets of cases involving intellectual property on the Net, the Church of Scientology has been exploring the uses of copyright and trade secret law when it comes to silencing its critics, many of them former members of the church.

"[17] The Guardian noted, "According to insiders and security experts, Scientologists have been conducting concerted campaigns for more than a decade to remove online information critical of the organisation.

"[12] In response to criticism over its actions on the Internet, Scientology has stated its efforts are aimed at defending the copyrights over its secretive spiritual documents.

[13][14] Legal cases have involved a newsgroup focused on the topic called alt.religion.scientology, which revealed information from advanced Scientology methods including the Operating Thetan (OT) levels that describe the story of Xenu.

[13][15] This maneuver had the opposite impact for Scientology, serving to drive up popularity of alt.religion.scientology and resulting in a "declaration of war" from the hacker organization Cult of the Dead Cow.

[15] Professor David S. Touretzky of the computer science department and Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is a critic of Scientology and proponent of freedom of speech on the Internet.

[21] Author Jonathan Zittrain noted in The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It, his 2009 book published by Yale University Press, that "as Wikipedia grew it began to attract editors who had never crossed paths before, and who disagreed on articles they were simultaneously editing.

[24] Journalist Alan Bjerga of McClatchy Newspapers reported in August 2006, "Wayne Saewyc, a Wikipedia spokesman, said debates on controversial topics can become incredibly time-consuming and sometimes maddening.

"[3] The development of the WikiScanner software by Virgil Griffith in 2007 revealed changes made to Wikipedia articles by Scientology organization computers.

[26] CBS News reported, "Many of the edits are predictably self-interested: PCs in Scientology officialdom were used to remove criticism in the church's Wikipedia entry.

"[27] The Independent noted, "Computers with IP addresses traced to the Church of Scientology were used to expunge critical paragraphs about the cult's world-wide operations.

"[30] Der Spiegel reported in more depth on some of the edits revealed by WikiScanner to have been made on Wikipedia by computers associated with the Church of Scientology.

For example, the article "Kurt Cobain" was edited by a Scientologist in order to include a link to the Scientology-founded "Citizens Commission on Human Rights" (CCHR),[4] putting forth the notion that "the singer's childhood Ritalin prescription led him to suicide".

[56] The committee ruled that the Scientology organization had a responsibility to "ensure appropriate use of its servers and equipment",[1] and pointed to a conflict of interest involved with edits from Scientology-associated computers.

[57] The block on IP addresses includes those originating from the Church of Scientology's offices in Los Angeles, California;[58] the organization additionally maintains headquarters in Clearwater, Florida.

[60] Fox News Channel reported on the decision, "The encyclopedia's administrators found that Scientology computers had been repeatedly changing more than 400 pages related to the Church, deleting negative references and adding positive ones.

"[62] Wired News reported that the ban on the Scientology organization was triggered by "repeated and deceptive editing of articles related to the controversial religion".

[64] Der Spiegel noted that skeptics doubted the efficacy of the ban on the Scientology-controlled IP addresses, and commented on the likelihood of individuals creating multiple account names.

"[8] He noted there was a recurring pattern of disputed editing on controversial topics, "One of the problems we keep bumping into is what I call core belief issues — politics, religion, nationalism.

[66] Walsh emphasized to Bloomberg BusinessWeek that edits which serve the interests of organizations are acceptable, but must be within the procedure of "adding valuable context" to articles.

[9] In a statement to The Wall Street Journal, Walsh said, "This is about people reducing the hostility around the topic, and getting the articles back to a state where they make sense.

"[67] When asked by Ross Reynolds of National Public Radio affiliate KUOW-FM why the arbitration decision included a "ban on IP addresses at the Church of Scientology", Walsh answered, "So the simple answer is that within looking at these computers and where these edits were coming from, the decision is that ultimately most of the edits within these ranges have been from single-user-accounts, people who have a single intention to change or move or in some cases remove information, which could be considered censorship, which is really something that doesn't work out well on Wikipedia.

"[69][70] Rosenthal said that approximately 300 users are blocked or banned per day from Wikipedia in order to stop vandalism, or for violating regulations created to prevent propaganda.

[74] Pouw emphasized, "More importantly is the fact that Wikipedia finally banned those who were engaged in unobjective and biased editing for the purposes of antagonism as opposed to providing accurate information.

"[78] In an interview with ABC News, sociologist of the University of Alberta, Stephen A. Kent commented, "Historically, Scientology has tried to control what critics say about it.

"[23] Evgeny Morozov of Foreign Policy wrote a blog post critical of the arbitration decision, and stated, "I am no fan of Scientology, but I think that banning them from Wikipedia is going to be counterproductive.

"[79] In an August 2010 article in The Guardian, journalists Rachel Shabi and Jemima Kiss observed, "Editors can remain anonymous when changing content, but conflicts are passed to Wikipedia's arbitration committee.