[[User:I'M4aNPOV]], who also edited as [[User:205.227.165.11]] but signed with the user name. Without mentioning that 205.227.165.11 is in a CoS-allocated netblock. I expect this was completely inadvertent, of course.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Scientology&diff=4616961...
The answer there appears to my jaundiced eye to be looking for procedural loopholes. ("No, no, I'm editing Scientology articles from a CoS IP, but I'm strictly NPOV myself. Of course.") I may have had a bit much experience of dealing with CoS representatives in the past. What do you think?
- d.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:56:48 +0000, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[User:I'M4aNPOV]], who also edited as [[User:205.227.165.11]] but signed with the user name. Without mentioning that 205.227.165.11 is in a CoS-allocated netblock. I expect this was completely inadvertent, of course.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Scientology&diff=4616961...
The answer there appears to my jaundiced eye to be looking for procedural loopholes. ("No, no, I'm editing Scientology articles from a CoS IP, but I'm strictly NPOV myself. Of course.") I may have had a bit much experience of dealing with CoS representatives in the past. What do you think?
I don't see any reason for our Scientology articles not to be informed by criticisms, suggestions, and edits from Sc. practitioners. Anything unverifiable will have to stay on Talk pages... (and maybe this user can help us flesh out the article on [[Mission Earth]] so that it passes FAC next time. ^ ^ ) + sj +
On 07/14/04 00:26, Sj wrote:
I don't see any reason for our Scientology articles not to be informed by criticisms, suggestions, and edits from Sc. practitioners. Anything unverifiable will have to stay on Talk pages... (and maybe this user can help us flesh out the article on [[Mission Earth]] so that it passes FAC next time. ^ ^ ) + sj +
Not 'practitioners', but the organisation itself. That's different.
- d.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:32:25 +0000, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 07/14/04 00:26, Sj wrote:
I don't see any reason for our Scientology articles not to be informed by criticisms, suggestions, and edits from Sc. practitioners. Anything unverifiable will have to stay on Talk pages... (and maybe this user can help us flesh out the article on [[Mission Earth]] so that it passes FAC next time. ^ ^ ) + sj +
Not 'practitioners', but the organisation itself. That's different.
Hmm. How does one distinguish? I'm going to suggest this person look at the mission earth article, in any case; let me know if this also seems objectionable to you. ++sj
David Gerard wrote:
Not 'practitioners', but the organisation itself. That's different.
I recently told a reporter that representatives of the Chinese government are welcome to edit zh.wikipedia.org if they like. I think we can extend the same courtesy to representatives of the Church of Scientology.
Of course, as with any highly ideological and controversial topic, a careful approach to NPOV is warranted. Particularly given the fact that many Scientologists feel that they have been portrayed unfairly in the media, I think they will welcome the chance to participate in a truely neutral forum.
Of course, just as with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Catholics, Jews, Athiests, whatever, there is the chance that overly partisan people may have a rough emotional time of it. But we can proceed with professionalism and love in all cases, towards a solid outcome.
--Jimbo
On 07/14/04 14:43, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Not 'practitioners', but the organisation itself. That's different.
Of course, just as with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Catholics, Jews, Athiests, whatever, there is the chance that overly partisan people may have a rough emotional time of it. But we can proceed with professionalism and love in all cases, towards a solid outcome.
Indeed. The poster I'm referring to has just claimed that I am editing the article in question as a "professional critic". I've asked for an explanation of this novel assertion ...
- d.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Not 'practitioners', but the organisation itself. That's different.
I recently told a reporter that representatives of the Chinese government are welcome to edit zh.wikipedia.org if they like. I think we can extend the same courtesy to representatives of the Church of Scientology.
Of course, as with any highly ideological and controversial topic, a careful approach to NPOV is warranted. Particularly given the fact that many Scientologists feel that they have been portrayed unfairly in the media, I think they will welcome the chance to participate in a truely neutral forum.
Knowing where David is coming from, I understand his wariness; it is to his credit that he asked for a sanity check concerning his disagreement with this contributor. The CoS does not want equal time to explain their POV -- unless you define "equal time" as meaning "we're the only ones who can speak on this topic."
I took a look at the latest contributions said Wikipedian made to [[Scientology]], & felt that there wasn't anything deceptive in what was contributed -- although I removed a couple of links because I sincerely felt that they were unneeded. (The material they linked to would offer the discerning reader an accurate accessment to the beenfits of the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard; however, I would much prefer to listen to the sermons of one specific gay minister ordained by the Church of the Nazarine.)
Of course, just as with Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Catholics, Jews, Athiests, whatever, there is the chance that overly partisan people may have a rough emotional time of it. But we can proceed with professionalism and love in all cases, towards a solid outcome.
I dunno. This is an organization that managed to go toe-to-toe with the IRS & win a questionable case concerning tax exemptions, simply thru brute force. Their continued struggle against alt.religion.scientology is not only legendary, but instructive: I'd be happier if Wikipedia had mirrors in the Netherlands & other European countries before any of us smiled & said "bring them on."
Geoff