wikipedia, scientology, and 'anonymous'

Bumping around the wiki a couple of months or so ago, I came across the whole series of articles on scientology - including several related 'featured' articles on pop culture topics, like Battlefield Earth 'the movie' (must check that out one day - can it really be worse than my personal worst film of all time 'Licence to Kill'?)

Anywhoo... to cut a long story short, I've now browsed around the subject online fairly extensively, and found some interesting stuff, in a sort of 'a few threads coming together' sort of way.... hence this post (which as ever is largely for my own edification, and as an aide-memoire).

I think it was Kelly Martin's blog (now a new look, and no wikipedia stuff) where I first read a mention of the connections between anti-scientology activists, and the english wikipedia - from memory, referring to David Gerard having done so much fighting one cult (Scientology) and now supporting another (Kelly's interpretation of Wikipedia at the time). I've also got half a memory of reading that a few more of the wiki 'old guard' were active on the anti-scientology newsgroups back in the day - can't back that up at all at the mo, so I don't know if it's received wisdom, or one of those things that someone tells you that turns out to be not so reliable..

Anywhoo... the final piece of the thread was this youtube video;

which I noticed randomly the other day, on one of my 'fairly extensive' browsing expeditions.... as you can see, the video has been removed, the user account closed, and the pages all gone from youtube's public site - the link above is to the Google cache. I saw the clip the other night (well, it was just a still picture, and an audio file) - and made a mental note to check out what it was saying - though it was a bit fishy. I got in touch with one of the named people from the audio, and sure enough, they knew nothing about it at all...

In the audio, which was purported to be a leak from a Scientology official, it was claimed that the Wikimedia foundation was financially supporting the 'anonymous' movement, and that various wiki luminaries were to be declared 'SPs' (suppressive persons) - a decleration which seems to have led to some rather obnoxious harasssment in the past from various scientology organisations. It was also claimed that Scientology will be sueing the wikimedia foundation in some way at some point for some thing (it wasn't very clear on that point!).

I thought these threads coming together was a bit of a coincidence, and that's why I'm commenting here..... if you can handle conceptual hyperbole, there really are some fascinating analagies to be drawn between Wikipedia and Scientology - which makes it all the more interesting if the two organisations become antaganistic. In some ways Wikipedia is a cultural product of 'anonymous', and as such represents a tangible target, I guess..... or not... maybe.....

anyways.... there are no doubt several books to be writ on related subjects in due course, and there's only a small chance that I'll return to blog about this before one of them is published..... cheers chaps.....

this month....

I have mostly been thinking about foundation issues - you know - stuff about the elections to the board of trustees... I've been trying to record brief conversations with each candidate... I'm gonna 'publish' as many as I can complete by the 6th June - and I'm hopeful we'll get at least half done....

you know where to find me if you'd like to!

oh my word....

several other non-written up thoughts cross my mind at the moment - but I'm actually enjoying use of the word 'borked' too much to bother with them - here's the distilled version;

The checkuser system is borked
The arbcom is borked
The way wikipedia handles biographies is borked
The way wikipedia improves itself may be borked, and this would be a bad thing!

If de-borking actualy equates to re-borking then, well, I guess wikipedia's just inevitably borkful. There - no post is complete without inventing a word.

might as well enjoy the ride!

(I did learn some interesting stuff this week, I just can't be bothered to write it up..... sorry... and with that I leave my poor blog alone for another little while......)

that time of the month

ok - so this is a bit of a blatant filler to try and prevent momentum entirely leaving this blog... I wouldn't want to disappoint either of my readers!

I feel like there are quite a few irons in the fire at the moment about Wikipedia in general... there's the establishment of the aussie chapter (well done all!), talking with other editors, and other folk (public conversations at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly', as well as private conversations, and planned chats too....), issues around biographies on wiki (my proposal, and many others are getting some attention), and finally one that relates to my arb case, and sanctions, which is the use of different accounts (pseudonyms) and how the wiki reacts to such behaviour (ethical concerns abound!).

Poke me for more info (or just slide it under the door of my gmail account!) - the interesting times over there continue!.....

probably see ya' in May!

tuppence more from the naughty step

okey dokey - so I've finally remembered how to delete my cookies and this has restored my access to wikback.com - and I was a bit surprised to see that I have access to the 'Wikback Itself' forum (for some reason I thought access to that, and to 'Cage Match' was restricted, but I guess it's only 'The Mirror' which is - not sure why, but ours is not to question!).

There's a thread about my recent ban there, which is interesting to me (well it would be, wouldn't it!). Thanks to all the commentators there, who have seen fit to draw a little bit of attention to the situation - it is appreciated, and here's what I see happening;

Well first I'd better refute a bit of stuff that's been asserted - somewhat intemperately I find, but hey, your temper is your business, I guess.

"I have had many conversations with PM privately about the importance of this to me. I've provided examples, and guidelines, and have moved his posts to the mirror (which I've set up as lightning rod for this sort of thing). The other hosts have discussed this with him as well. And he has continued, most recently by again complaining that no one will tell him who ran checkuser on him at what times in the course of events that led up to his ban (the post at issue has been deleted)."

um... nope, not really. Leaving aside the fact that I've been trying to discuss some moderately complicated 'checkuser' issues in general terms, and am more than happy to leave 'my case' out of it; UC and I have communicated, and a few messages have bounced back and forth - but I haven't had any messages from other hosts and moderators excepting CComMack, who's been kind enough to say that he thought my posts were quite helpful on occasion... I really don't believe UC has any reason to be righteously exasperated, which is afraid how it comes across to me - in fact it's kinda misrepresentative to be honest... if I were to paint the situation as one party being calm and polite, and the other being unreasonable, we'd pick the roles differently, I think. However, if anyone is at all interested, I'm happy for UC to release all messages on this matter, because I think they tell the story pretty well.... (ping me if you want a copy of the messages I've sent... they generally go along the lines of 'thanks heaps for running the forum, and I'm afraid I still don't understand x, is y allowed? once again, thanks, PM.'

It's heartening to see that on this matter, I might not be entirely crazy (other folk seem confused too) - and hopefully I'll be unbanned soon, and allowed to comment within the rules / guidelines - I'd like that!

more chit chats, and a month on the naughty step

well we've had some pretty interesting chats over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' in the last little while - and over the weekend I joined the folk at 'Wikipedia Weekly' for my first conversation there! - It was very similar to the 'NotThe' experience, but with the addition of the extra polish which editing (and taking a more technical approach to sound quality etc.) gives - I chatted a bit (not recorded - just friendly chat before the 'show' started....) about the possibilities of how the two projects can combine effort in the long term - and I mentioned that a kind of 'any questions' and 'any answers' approach might be interesting (check out BBC Radio 4 for more info. on these UK Political discussion shows) - time will tell.....

We're having another regular conversation this week - hopefully with some new editors popping along (which is great!) - and behind the scenes, I think we might have a pretty interesting 'special' conversation later in the week......

(oh, and I got a month's ban from wikback for posting inappropriately - I'm utterly befuddled once more, and would like to return to commenting there - do feel free to poke me about it if you're interested - I'm just confused, to be honest!)

oh the injustice of it all... and a peek behind the curtain

(yet) another PM rant to kick off... my trusty readers will know that a silly comment can get you a one week ban over at wikback.com - but only in some contexts, of course... sometimes silly is allowed!! - I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm totally with Doc on this one, that a bit of admittedly self indulgent humour is a good thing... I'm not sure I'd go as far as asking people to lighten up if they find it trolling, essentially because I've already been banned for one week, and poking the boss in the tummy as he puts you on probation probably isn't a good idea!

The conclusion is obvious....


...well it is on first glance anyways - I'm currently working on a 'what's really going on' post which encapsulates my views about the truthful dynamics at play behind this, and more interestingly other major wiki currents swirling at the mo... I'm too busy / lazy / inarticulate to finish it yet - but having begun it a few days ago, I saw this post and wanted to say that that echoes with me quite strongly.... more to come, folks!