I'm going to bring a bit from after the jump that I feel is relevant, for those who don't click through:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abc news
Scientology 'Among the Most Controversial'
Under the ruling, people editing Wikipedia entries from Scientology's IP addresses can apply for an exemption. With it, they could still write material for the Web site on the condition that they agree to Wikipedia's published policies.
If a user continues to violate the site's policies, the committee can take further measures, and, conceivably, ban the person for good.
Rosenthal said the committee's decision didn't shut the door on the church entirely. "They just have to reach out and turn the knob," he said.
Editors on both sides of the debate were violating the rules and acting inappropriately, Rosenthal said. The arbitration committee also found that anti-Scientology activists would reference each other and use their own work to source articles, which is against Wikipedia's rules.
"Scientology is up there among the most controversial on Wikipedia," Rosenthal said. "You can compare it to articles on abortion, the presidential election and the like and there's been nowhere near the level of bitterness and fighting."
|
This doesn't seem like an unreasonable policy to me.
Wikipedia is not a wild west where people can post whatever they want. There are rules and guidelines for editing articles, where and how information can be sourced, and things of that nature. It sounds like neither side of the discussion has been playing by the rules, and so the rules have been tightened with regard to this specific issue.
Wikipedia aspires to be a reliable and trusted source of information. Whether they can actually achieve that is questionable, but within that context taking measures to increase accountability in controversial discussions seems like a completely sane and practical move.