Wikipedia Gives Scientology 'Socks' The Hook

Wikipedia is going nuclear in its battle against Church of Scientology "sockpuppets."

From The Register:

In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates.

Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favor of the move, which takes effect immediately. . .

According to evidence turned up by admins in this long-running Wikiland court case, multiple editors have been "openly editing [Scientology-related articles] from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities." Leaning on the famed WikiScanner, countless news stories have discussed the editing of Scientology articles from Scientology IPs, and some site admins are concerned this is "damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality."

This is the first time Wikipedia has banned an entire organization by blacklisting its IP addresses. The group's arbitration committee decided that the ban is the only way to control rampant Scientology "sockpuppeting" tactics.

It's a controversial move among some core Wikipedia editors. And I'm sure Wikipedia knows its ban isn't likely to keep Scientology sockpuppets entirely at bay.

According to one ex-Scientologist quoted in the Register article, a number of Church staffers work full-time combating -- and, if possible, censoring -- Web sites that publish unfavorable coverage. Given the Church's size, financial clout and technical expertise, it is sure to take measures to get around the ban.

The Church could, for example, take a cue from the RIAA, which employs goon squads that monitor P2P networks behind a screen of constantly-shifting IP addresses. Many of these addresses belong to contractors rather than to the RIAA or its member record labels, making them even harder to track.

There are, however, ways to deal with these unwanted visitors. Tools like PeerGuardian, for example, enable users to maintain a constantly-updated blacklist of IP addresses that belong to anti-piracy snoops, government agencies, and other unwelcome guests. The result is a game of cat-and-mouse where attackers move to new IP addresses, gain a temporary advantage, but then land once again on a blacklist.

PeerGuardian generally gives file-sharing users quite a bit of protection; anti-piracy groups that monitor P2P networks need time to build a case against suspected violators, and blacklists make their job difficult. Wikipedia has a somewhat different, more challenging, problem: Scientology sockpuppets working from new, unblocked IP addresses will need minutes, not hours or days, to cause trouble.

I also hope Wikipedia is prepared to deal with denial-of-service attacks, because you can bet they're going to happen.

Wikipedia users who dislike the blanket ban will argue that it's unfair to single out Scientologist sockpuppets in this manner. In 2006, a tool designed to trace the IP addresses of Wikipedia editors revealed that scores of corporations and PR firms have tampered with Wiki entries to delete negative or controversial coverage.

The question, then, is whether to apply the Wiki death penalty against Scientology when companies like Raytheon and Dow Chemical engage in the same practices.

There's no doubt this could turn into a slippery slope if Wikipedia decides that blanket bans are an easy answer to a tough, very complicated, problem. Then again, given the sheer scale of the Scientology sockpuppet activities, it's hard to argue that any other organization even comes close, no matter how hard they might try.