We may have to side with the Scientologists on this one
Should Christians be worried that Wikipedia—the popular and free multilingual web-based encyclopedia—has banned the Church of Scientology from editing articles about the itself and its beliefs?
Wikipedia leaves the door open to anyone who wants to edit one of the more than 13 million articles (2.9 million in English) on the website, however its administrators zealously guard the site's articles for "neutrality."
Recently, Wikipedia's Arbitration Council voted to ban users coming from all IP addresses owned by the Church of Scientology and its associates, and further banned a number of Scientology editors by name.
Self-serving Wikipedia edits are hardly new. Corporations, government agencies, political and religious fanatics all try to put their own spin on articles related to their interests. But this is the first time Wikipedia has taken such drastic actions to block certain edits.
Most Christians may not want to defend anything to do with Scientologists, but this ban could inadvertently give anti-religion advocates ammunition for freezing people of faith out of web-based forums like Wikipedia.
The real troubling aspect of Wikipedia's ban is not that a group that calls itself a religion has been shut out for repeated and deceptive editing of articles related to the group, but that the ban rests on the argument that the editing in question was "self-serving." Wikipedia's mantra is that the site is open and inclusive.
But when it comes to religious topics, inevitably an "editor" who comes at a subject from a faith perspective will bring a particular point of view to a subject. This point of view should be open to challenges from others who have another perspective. The ensuing debate should stimulate discussion and even scholarship.
But if the Wikipedia overlords can ban a group or individual who obviously isn't neutral on a subject—someone who promotes a personal agenda on philosophical, ideological or religious issues—what's the point of a site like Wikipedia?
The Internet is like the Wild West. Yes, there's lots of garbage on the web, but its genius is that it cuts across borders and allows people to exchange information despite the attempt of dictators to control thoughts and actions. Just look at how videos shot on cell phones and posted on YouTube or messages sent out on Twitter undermined attempts by Iranian Mullahs to stifle popular outrage over that country's rigged presidential elections.
Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of traditional religions who would look at The Church of Scientology with distain may find themselves the target of Internet overlords who decide that religious faith threatens the sacred cow of secularism—supposed "tolerance" which cannot abide the claims of a faith to ultimate truth.
It's never easy to side with Scientologists. Most Christians would regard the organization founded by sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1953 as a cult that brainwashes its members and bleeds them dry financially. Scientology's claim that humans are reincarnated beings from other planets makes it science fiction, not faith.
Yet, just as Christians found themselves fighting municipal by-laws that sought to prevent Jehovah's Witnesses from roaming neighbourhoods in their quest to spread their views, Christians need to defend the right of a group with a religious perspective to get its message heard on public forums no matter how odious those views might be.
Those who run Wikipedia have the right to protect its neutrality. In the Scientologists' case more than 400 articles about the ultra-secretive church and its members were being used by adherents to engage in long-running, fierce edit wars that pitted organized Scientology editors using multiple accounts against critics of Scientology who fought those changes by citing their own or one another's self-published material.
Perhaps Scientologists can't abide by neutrality when it comes to their beliefs. That could be said of true believers of any faith. Let us be careful in cheering Wikipedia's ban on Scientology. They could consider the phrase "Jesus is Lord" a biased statement about Christianity.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
