So then you must agree that the Scientologists were abusing wiki as they WERE trying to remove content which countered their beliefs or brought into question their religious tenets? That is censorship aswell, something which the Nazi's were very good at too, seeing as you brought them up.

I would imagine so. If I went and countered all the fiction jesus postings on the wiki, I'd imagine I'd get the same treatment.

It's taken a 3 page thread to ascertain that if you abuse wikipedia enough you'll lose edit privileges?

lol.

If you're considering race/religion/creed part of it then you're reading something into it that isn't there.

Dan

The way I see it, if some neo nazi group kept editing information about hitler, saying he was an all round nice guy, just misunderstood and wiki banned them. There would be no such discussion.

If someone came on here and just posted a thread about how awesome scientology was and how we should all join, they would be banned. What they did was simply abuse Wiki for their own gain and satisfaction, deserved ban

If someone came on here and just posted a thread about how awesome scientology was and how we should all join, they would be banned.

That's fair enough. I'd expect the same if some catholic followers came on trying the same thing.

Extremism posts are roughly the same as spamming. No wait it is spamming.

Extremism posts are roughly the same as spamming. No wait it is spamming.

Hmmm ... how about ...

"All of my systems are build with AMD. AMD are the crusaders in pc technolgy, where the likes of Intel and nVidia are purely evil fronts hell bent on taking ur money for little reward."

(or same deal switching AMD with Linux and Intel/nVidia with Miscrosoft/Apple)

"You should get onboard, all those who don't are clearly misguided and in the wrong."

Ban them, edit it ?

Or simply counter-argue ?

That is practically the same.
It also depends on what you clearly wish to do as well. If you wish to counter-argue then do so but if that is what he types/writes, then I doubt you could budge him. And also clearly if this is all he does on the whole forum/website then it is clearly considered spam as who is he specifically helping and how this is beneficial to us in anyway other than the fact that he is proving himself to be a fanboy (I know I am being a bit hypocritical as I tend to not help people very much or do helpful posts).

Don't even know if that post made sense. :p

Ban them, edit it ?

Or simply counter-argue ?

This is a forum (first definition - a public meeting or assembly for open discussion), personal opinions are therefore valid. Wiki is an online encyclopedia. It is not personal, it'd about fact and majority belief. Clearly you can cherry pick which facts to cite when editing, but your changes and citations are -for lack of a better term - peer reviewed.
If your edit clearly goes against the grain, it will be removed. If you persist in your behaviour, then you will be banned. If your orginisation uses it's headquarters to repeatedly edit articles with no real evidence, changing them from a well establshed consensus to your fringe belief, your orginisation's headquarters will be banned.

Yeah it's sort of an encyclopedia of the majority consensus, that is however editable by who-ever, usually.

Wiki can be personal, from what I understand, until any1 with the ounce to edit or provide a notice on it comes forward.

U could create a page on custard being a form of alien blood - until the page is noticed. (as far as I understand it's workings)

Imo to portray it's content as fact and majority belief is a contradiction - although it is. With the qualification of majority belief, u would have to dismiss 'fact' as being 'probable fact' as perceived by the majority.

If the majority believe Jesus walked the Earth, we don't necessarily accept it as fact.

It's good that the contents of it are challengable - but it will only be to a certain extent. To challenge one's content is a form of debate.