The CIA and FBI love Wikipedia, too.

[techs]

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN1642896020070816

CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.

The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.

The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.

The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.

WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.

Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.

Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed.

CIA spokesman George Little said he could not confirm whether CIA computers were used in the changes, adding that "the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly."

The FBI did not have an immediate response.

Computers at numerous other organizations and companies were found to have been involved in editing articles related to them.

Griffith said he developed WikiScanner "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to."

It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, Griffith said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization's network.

It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization.

However, she said, "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.

WikiScanner can be found at wikiscanner.virgil.gr/




And the mind games continue......

 

[nick1985]

Those changes seem rather minor, I dont see anything "earth-shattering" that they changed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nick1985
Those changes seem rather minor,

I dont see anything "earth-shattering" that they changed.

Of course you wouldn't.

How much were you paid by the GOP to makes those "minor" revisions in history for them.?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: nick1985
Those changes seem rather minor,

I dont see anything "earth-shattering" that they changed.

Of course you wouldn't.

How much were you paid by the GOP to makes those "minor" revisions in history for them.?

Are you saying I changed the articles? 😕 Or is this just another typical tin-foil nonsensical "elite" post by Dave?


Anyway you gave 3 examples of things they changed.

1. They changed the casualties to make it say that some of them were estimated. I really dont see what is so evil about this one, if in-fact some casualties were estimated (as is often the case in a war)

2. So the guy expands on his own career on wiki, I dont see whats so bad about that one. If I was on wiki, I would want to expand it too 😛

3. As far as them removing images, the only thing I could think of is that they didnt want to compromise base security. If the images showed people getting beaten or something then its a different story but the article doesnt say there was any evidence of wrong doing in the photos.

 

[TipsyMcStagger]

If you actually go to the website for the tracker itself, you'll notice plenty of other organizations that "love" wikipedia too. These are employees using the organization's computers for personal purposes just like if you were to browse the internet and check email on your company computer at work. It's not like its an organized effort by the CIA and FBI to change in the information in wikipedia entries. If it was, it would probably be a lot harder to track.

Wired tagged a bunch of changes in a more easily browse-able method http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/#top

 

[kage69]

I find my abhorrence of any conflict-of-interest within government somewhat negated by the realities of the wiki model in this case. Perhaps tracking info should be displayed, alongside the relevant edited/un-edited portions, with the original search on wiki. Then even laymen can see those with vested interests attempting to swing reality in their favor and know them for the crooks they are. I don't care what affiliation these individuals or orgs have. When you interfere with the facts getting out over personal or political gain, you're effectively enemy of the state, and everyone should know it.

Prolly not a huge issue though, as this game of editting wiki will get to the point where people just don't G.A.S anymore, and the online dictionary goes the way of Ann Coulter: useless and irrelevant.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: kage69
I find my abhorrence of any conflict-of-interest within government somewhat negated by the realities of the wiki model in this case. Perhaps tracking info should be displayed, alongside the relevant edited/un-edited portions, with the original search on wiki. Then even laymen can see those with vested interests attempting to swing reality in their favor and know them for the crooks they are. I don't care what affiliation these individuals or orgs have. When you interfere with the facts getting out over personal or political gain, you're effectively enemy of the state, and everyone should know it.

Prolly not a huge issue though, as this game of editting wiki will get to the point where people just don't G.A.S anymore, and the online dictionary goes the way of Ann Coulter: useless and irrelevant.

Seems like editing "the truth" to suit you has become the rage...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...lands_royals_wikipedia

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch royal couple acknowledges altering a Wikipedia entry about a 2003 scandal that forced the prince to renounce his claim to the throne.

Prince Johan Friso, son of the reigning Queen Beatrix, and Princess Mabel of Oranje-Nassau are the latest to be embarrassed in a spate of discoveries of vanity changes to Wikipedia entries. Such self-serving amendments are frowned upon in the Web encyclopedia that "anyone can edit."

The original scandal broke in 2003 when Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende refused to support the prince's marriage to the princess, then known as Mabel Wisse Smit.

The prime minister said he objected because she had given him "incomplete and incorrect information" about a romantic liaison she once had with a druglord. Wisse Smit later conceded knowing the drug dealer but denied any sexual relationship.

With government approval of the marriage withheld, the prince had to choose between Wisse Smit and his place as second in line to the throne. They married in 2004.

On Jan. 8, 2006, someone using a computer at Huis ten Bosch, the royal palace in The Hague, altered the Wikipedia entry on Wisse Smit that had said she "gave misleading and false information" to Balkenende. The new entry removed the words "and false."

Wikipedia shows the time and IP address ? the numerical identifier of each computer on the Internet ? of edits made by someone who doesn't sign on with a user name.

After the connection between the 2006 edit and the palace recently circulated in the Dutch media, Friso and Mabel acknowledged they were the revisionists.

"They both made the changes together in order to make the entry match the letter which they sent to the prime minister (explaining why they misled him) in 2003," spokesman Chris Breedveld said Thursday. The couple feel that due to repeated mistakes in the media, an "incorrect version of events has arisen," he said.

Similar self-interested Wikipedia edits have popped up for years in government and business. The finds accelerated this month after a U.S. graduate student developed an online "Wikiscanner" to more easily track the sources.


I can certainly understand being allowed to edit information that is untrue, but just because the information may not present you in a good light...that should be prevented.
IMO, "teh wiki" folks need to change the policy on editing. MAYBE any edit should be reviewed before it can be added to the entry.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not like its an organized effort by the CIA and FBI to change in the information in wikipedia entries. If it was, it would probably be a lot harder to track.

Well, I'll grant that they'll adapt their methodologies, now that the ability to trace edits has been established... Which is not to say that they hadn't anticipated the development long ago...

Ultimately, Wiki may have to alter their methods to remain credible...

 

[cwjerome]

Is this an issue? I thought they whole idea of Wiki was that people who have information can contribute. Can there be such thing as a "conflict of interest" in a Wiki?

If someone argues there is, then the idea of a Wiki is DOA. If they are going to limit and/or regulate who can edit, then it's not really a Wiki is it?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Is this an issue? I thought they whole idea of Wiki was that people who have information can contribute. Can there be such thing as a "conflict of interest" in a Wiki?

If someone argues there is, then the idea of a Wiki is DOA. If they are going to limit and/or regulate who can edit, then it's not really a Wiki is it?

I don't think the question is so much about WHO is adding things as it is about WHAT they are adding. If some FBI agent on a lunch break wants to update the entry about South Korea with new information on transportation in the capital, that's OK. If someone at Fox News wants to edit sections about Fox News to conceal or otherwise manipulate the truth, that is not what I'd call the spirit of a Wiki. I suppose most of the concern about CIA and FBI and others editing Wikipedia is whether or not they are doing it for nefarious purposes.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What was it called in "1984", the "Ministry of Truth"? Fiction becomes reality? Must be time to practice that "Vigilance" needed to insure our liberties.