4 ms·

From france, where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda organisation, it surely seems like a good move from Wikipedia. The tone of the regi

From france, where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda organisation, it surely seems like a good move from Wikipedia. The tone of the register article is really bad tho, what do they have against wikipedia ?

Quarrelsome 17y ago
The hidden powers of admins and sockpuppets. They are wary of Wikipedia due to the power it wields. See historical articles on an editor called Jossi I think. They was also a bit of a furore over the article on short selling. Lots of drama in Wikipedia land.
weavejester 17y ago
The Reg has always had it in for Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure why, but it might have begun as a backlash against the hype surrounding Wikipedia, and over time it became the norm.
- Confusion 17y ago
  And despite the obvious prejudice, they still do not succeed in making Wikipedia look like the bad guy. Which goes to show how evil those that wield power within Scientology are.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
dkarl 17y ago
where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda organisation, it surely seems like a good move "Bad sectarian propaganda organization?" Why not just say "bad church?" And since there's little point in distinguishing between Scientology the religion and the Church of Scientology, you should really say "bad religion." I'm somewhat being intentionally inflammatory, but it's interesting to examine the difference between what I said and what Raphael said. The line I crossed was saying that Scientology could be bad and still be a religion. Funny that people start shying away from such statements when they stop believing in a particular religion. If atheism is "just one god/mythos further," then what do we call our modern attitude of attempting to feel positively inclined toward all religions while believing in none of them? What do we call the idea that critical appreciation of religion, religion separated from belief and disbelief, is not essentially different from religion as practiced by most people since the dawn of history?
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  In france there is quite a big difference, maybe hypocritical, between sects and religions. I don't think the distinction would hold against some serious examination, at least, it wouldn't keep all of it's meaning. But to put it shortly any organisation that isn't one of the big historical churches, and has an heavy propaganda machinery around their religious beliefs and why they are good, is basically called a sect here. Probably because france is living it's own cult of republic, wich is quite irrationnal in itself, but we have some endemic problem with religion and it's interleaving with power here. I think the situation is very very different in USA, and so there must be quite a "vocabulary gap" in our discussion.

Quarrelsome 17y ago

The hidden powers of admins and sockpuppets. They are wary of Wikipedia due to the power it wields. See historical articles on an editor called Jossi I think. They was also a bit of a furore over the article on short selling. Lots of drama in Wikipedia land.

weavejester 17y ago

The Reg has always had it in for Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure why, but it might have begun as a backlash against the hype surrounding Wikipedia, and over time it became the norm.

Confusion 17y ago
And despite the obvious prejudice, they still do not succeed in making Wikipedia look like the bad guy. Which goes to show how evil those that wield power within Scientology are.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

dkarl 17y ago

where scientology is really seen as a bad sectarian propaganda organisation, it surely seems like a good move "Bad sectarian propaganda organization?" Why not just say "bad church?" And since there's little point in distinguishing between Scientology the religion and the Church of Scientology, you should really say "bad religion." I'm somewhat being intentionally inflammatory, but it's interesting to examine the difference between what I said and what Raphael said. The line I crossed was saying that Scientology could be bad and still be a religion. Funny that people start shying away from such statements when they stop believing in a particular religion. If atheism is "just one god/mythos further," then what do we call our modern attitude of attempting to feel positively inclined toward all religions while believing in none of them? What do we call the idea that critical appreciation of religion, religion separated from belief and disbelief, is not essentially different from religion as practiced by most people since the dawn of history?

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
In france there is quite a big difference, maybe hypocritical, between sects and religions. I don't think the distinction would hold against some serious examination, at least, it wouldn't keep all of it's meaning. But to put it shortly any organisation that isn't one of the big historical churches, and has an heavy propaganda machinery around their religious beliefs and why they are good, is basically called a sect here. Probably because france is living it's own cult of republic, wich is quite irrationnal in itself, but we have some endemic problem with religion and it's interleaving with power here. I think the situation is very very different in USA, and so there must be quite a "vocabulary gap" in our discussion.