Talk:Scieno Sitter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scieno Sitter article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
An entry from Scieno Sitter appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 March 2007.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] Anette Refstrup

From Politiken (Denmark), 19.2.1999: "Members have their own choice if they want it or not, but we give it to them to protect them, not for controlling them", says Anette Refstrup. "We want to protect them against manipulated thoughts when they are at such a spiritual level that they can't deal with critisism". --Tilman 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

Smee, this is a good article and you are certainly a competent researcher and writer. Please do not let your POV cause you to fight with me over minor POV flaws that I may see in it. I am sensitive to subtle shading and nuancing that you might not see. Just as you might see such in my edits that I do not perceive. That is OK. If I address something that you do not agree with please practice 1RR and bring it here rather than edit war. For my part I will move toward compromise if you will do the same and I think that we have just seen that occur. The one thing that is not open to compromise is including non-RS highly POV material. You do not "compromise" by "balancing" it or only including half of it. While the article proper does not contain such, there is the improper use of "convenience links" that I will be addressing. But not in this post. This is a conciliatory friendly post and I do not want to argue here. --Justanother 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Smee, this is a good article and you are certainly a competent researcher and writer. Thank you for saying that. Coming from you, that is certainly... interesting .. to hear. And most appreciated. Your suggestions make sense, I would simply say that they go for you as well... Smee 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
    • For my part I will move toward compromise if you will do the same and I think that we have just seen that occur. - Hopefully, hopefully... Smee 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
    • (EC)I would simply say that they go for you as well. They do. You know, as much as you claim that I miscast your motives, I wonder if you have been doing me the same disservice. I have stated time and again that I do not care what critical material appears here; I just want the critics to play by the rules. The "older" Scientology critics here have heard me say that before and, I think, they know I mean it. Maybe not knowing that is part of the problem. --Justanother 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Perhaps. Smee 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Smee, I have a talk-type thing to say to you. Where do I put it? --Justanother 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • On your talk page as a new subject header. We will experiment to see if it will be a civil, polite thread... Smee 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
            • Naw, I don't want to do that. I can just put it here, no big deal. --Justanother 18:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
              • If it is relevant, sure. If not it would be a waste of space for other editors to read through. Sorry but I am still uncomfortable with you posting on my talk page, per advice from User:Friday, after what I perceived to be personal attacks, regardless of what you think were my perceptions and/or your intentions. Smee 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
This article lacks just one thing, which is a description of the actual software. Did anyone here actually ever see it? Misou 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justanother's accusations in edit summaries

Justanother has mentioned me twice in edit summaries in regards to a definition that I offered to concisely explain to the average reader what "dev-t'd" means in the context. In the second of these edit summaries, he actually makes an accusation of original research. Yet in that same edit, he offers his own, hardly differing, version of what "dev-t'd" means in the context. Here are our two versions:

"having one's time and energy diverted" vs.

"Scientology slang for having one's time and energy uselessly diverted"

The first version is mine, the second version is Justanother's. Can he, and would he care to, explain exactly how the addition of "Scientology slang for" and "uselessly" somehow renders his equally uncited explanation immune from the accusations of original research he has felt free to level? I do not object to the addition of the "uselessly", and I am even able to live with the addition of "Scientology slang for" even though it is more "jargon" than "slang" and the fact that it is Scientology terminology of whatever stripe is surely deducible from the context. However, what I do wish to know is exactly how Justanother feels that he has permission to level an accusation of "original research" for the definition I gave -- and then insert an almost identical definition himself, providing no reference to indicate why his definition should be less guilty of his accusation? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just have one of the experts here provide the official Scientology definition, so there is no guessing around. Does someone here have a Scientology book? Misou 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(EC - good point Misou) Yes I do occasionally substitute my OR for another's OR when I feel my OR is an improvement and there is really no harm done in having that bit of OR in the article as it is not placed there in an effort to bias the reader but is placed there in a clearly NPOV fashion simply to improve the article. This being one of the few uses of WP:IAR that you will likely ever see me succumb to. And it is not really WP:IAR as anyone is free to place a fact tag on it.
The proper use of "developed traffic" is for off-line communication. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that a firm has a policy that all deliveries must go to the mailroom and even has placed signs to that effect. And let's say a delivery person drops off a package in the reception area and refuses to take it around back to the mailroom. Now the receptionist has to stop what she is doing to contact the mailroom person who must stop his work and go to reception and deal with the delivery. All that extra "traffic" was "developed" by an off-line communication (in Scientology a "communication" can be anything conveyed from one to another, even a bullet; line is the route something takes or should take.)

That is a minor example. That would be the jargon usage (not slang). See the book "How to Live Though an Executive" as it may be covered there, if not in then certainly in OEC volumes, Admin Dictionary, maybe the Tech Dictionary. The slang usage is just the everyday way a Scientologist uses it to mean a waste of time that someone is causing. Those two concepts are key to the way a Scientologist would use the term. It is a waste of time and energy. And it is caused by someone. Your "definition" did not capture that, IMO. So I fixed it. I think I am qualified to do so. I wanted an even fuller definition but Smee thought it was distracting so I reduced it to what I considered a minimum that still captured the sense of the word.
This exchange is a good example of what would be called "dev't" by a Scientologist using the slang definition. It is a waste of time and it is caused by someone. Wikipedia is rife with examples of editors "dev't'ing" each other. In fact, wikipedia could be thought of as a "dev't machine" that is managing to produce some semblance of an encyclopedia.
Antaeus, sorry if I insulted you by calling your addition OR. It was not my intent to disparage you; simply to point out that the bit needed improvement. I think it is OR and you have not presented any evidence to the contrary. I think my OR is an improvement and I am certainly in a position to make that call. However, if you want to pull the whole thing then that is fine too. Or stick a fact tag on it. --Justanother 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally I feel it would be best to remove the explanation, and instead have someone write the article: Dev-T (Scientology). Smee 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Yes, content notes are cool and they get the clutter out of the article. I discovered them on Che's article, where they are likely over-used. But that is a super article from a technical standpoint. --Justanother 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It is a featured article too! We could use it as a model later on to bring up the quality of the L. Ron Hubbard article to eventually be featured status. You can leave your comments on the talk page of WP:SCN... Smee 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Yes, I was quite happy to have stumbled across it, it is one of the best-looking articles I have seen here. --Justanother 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience links

This is a decent article and I would like it to stay that way. You do not need to include non-RS POV sites and dubious "convenience links" to make a good article that says everything that you want to say. This is proof of that. The references are the references. You need only cite them. I will AGF that you went to the library and actually pulled up the source material and did not rely on some illegal copy on a highly POV website. Smile. But the point is that we do not have to tell the reader that if we took that shortcut. Laff. Please see WP:CONVENIENCE, an essay that will help make my point. Thanks. --Justanother 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • They are simply archived articles from reputable secondary sourced material. Please do not remove. Thank you. Smee 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
    • No, they are illegal copies on non-RS sites. They are going to go. They have no place here. And you don't need them for your article. The only purpose they serve is highly POV agenda-pushing propaganda. Now, you may not think that but that is the effect of them. They violate policy here. You demean your own good work to insist on them. They are not the references. This is a major interest of mine and this will do just fine as a test case. --Justanother 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • As per, WP:CONVENIENCE#Arguments_in_favor_of_convenience_links, I will change the cites to reflect that these are, indeed, convenenience links. Please note: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. I think that is a fair compromise. Smee 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
        • I already said that such a "compromise" is no compromise in my mind. I am not going to fight with you over this, Smee. Nor am I going to edit-war over it. I consider such use of external and "convenience" links to be a huge problem with these articles and one of the main tools of the POV-pushers to turn what might otherwise be a fine article into a highly POV propaganda piece. Smee, if I do any one thing on wikipedia, I will take care of that. I will start here. It will not be now and it will not be today. But I will start here. The job needs to be done and I will do it. This is a new and clean article and I can think of no better place to start cleaning this up. --Justanother 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you for saying: I am not going to fight with you over this, Smee. Nor am I going to edit-war over it., that is a nice gesture to start. The changes that I made are a fair compromise, and are also in-line with the guidance given in the essay that you cited. Smee 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
            • That is because this is a lot more important to me than another one of our edit-wars. Please continue in the essay and you will see that the copyvio sites are considered no-brainers! --Justanother 23:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
              • No need to use exclamation points. And the articles fall under fair use as library archival material, to be used for research and non-commercial purposes. Smee 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
                • Please don't take issue with my punctuation. Sheesh. You are wrong about that fair use idea you have there. But that is OK, I already said I was not going to fight with you over this. --Justanother 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Okay. Smee 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Settled, you two? Ok, so I'd like to get my question answered: Did anyone here actually ever see the actual software? Misou 04:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That is irrelevant, for it would be WP:OR. Smee 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I guess you are right. Knowing the actual software could impede writing a WP-conform article about it, but at least the screenshot would be real. Misou 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Smee 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cybersitter "analogy"

If I recall correctly, this actually *was* a modified custom version of Cybersitter from the same software vendor, wasn't it? Lippard 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as we know, yes. But I believe this is sourced in a secondary citation, I will dig it out and cite it in the article. Thank you. Smee 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
The software in question was indeed Cybersitter, and the developer of the package got quite a bit of flack for helping the scientology leaders impose this censorware on their followers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs).
  • Do you have more sources for the information you added? Smee 13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Is "Clam Nanny" derogatory?

If "Clam Nanny" is a derogatory term or if the Church of Scientology International actually christened their (alleged) software in a way which ridicules it and its users. Wow, never heard that Scn call themselves "Clams" or "Scienos". That comes from the sick brains of self-appointed critics, normally. Is water wet? Misou (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scieno Sitter or Clam Nanny are slang terms that refer to a content-control software package created by the Church of Scientology, which, when installed on a computer, blocks certain Web sites critical of Scientology from being viewed. The name was coined by critics of Scientology as an analogy to Cybersitter, a popular content-control package at the time, who assert that it is a form of internet censorship.

This is a good way of putting it, and it is in-line with the sources as well. It also addresses that these are not terms used by the Church of Scientology to describe the software, as Misou (talk · contribs) had wanted to make clear, above. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC).