The CIA on Wikipedia

[qarnos]

I wonder how long until the nuts catch onto this one:

CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/15/wwiki115.xml)

[Viper Daimao]

a very interesting tool. Finding lots of interesting stuff, like NY Times ip's vandalizing (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=6675) Fox news and President Bush's page.

This is why I stopped editing wikipedia from work. There's a lot of crazies on there, and once they saw my ip, I almost got banned.

[Oliver]

Just as a side-remark since there is no thread yet:

Fox is doing the same and "optimizing"-Wiki entries...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918

[gtc]

And then there could be people who are clever enough to edit pages from a computer that can't be traced to their employer.

[~enigma~]

Just as a side-remark since there is no thread yet:

Fox is doing the same and "optimizing"-Wiki entries...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918
I thought there was...maybe I read it here. Nope it was there 13 minutes before the OP...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13847

[jsiv]

Just as a side-remark since there is no thread yet:

Fox is doing the same and "optimizing"-Wiki entries...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918


But is it Fox News, or just some random person that happens to work for Fox News and is using his office computer? It could just be someone's personal work. Employers like Fox News will tend to attract people with a certain set of opinions.

[Shrinker]

That's right debunkers, no more using wikipedia as a source. The CIA edits it! It's been proved. It's admitted. It's all in the public record - look it up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.

That's it. Government shills really are all over the net spreading disinfo.

And what exactly did the disinfo artists write in the article?

On the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the tool indicates that a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency.

That's it. 'Wahh'. Let's see which truthers decide to leave that part out...

[Shrinker]

Oh, what a wonderful place to move my post. Makes me look like an idiot for posting dramatic news in a thread that already has the news in it.

This thread belongs in CTs since its a heads-up to all CT debunkers about the next wave of excuses coming from the truthers.

[rjh01]

wikipedia could complain to the CIA. The staff member could then be in serious trouble. I know I would be if I did something like that at work.

NB The CIA could be different to my organisation.

[Molinaro]

I wonder how long until the nuts catch onto this one:

CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/15/wwiki115.xml)

When I click that link I get an IE popup saying "Operation Terminated" with an ok button. Guess the CIA took care of that article.

[Checkmite]

On the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the tool indicates that a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency.

*snicker*

[Katana]

The Vatican (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6949153.stm) got in on the act, too.

[geni]

wikipedia could complain to the CIA. The staff member could then be in serious trouble. I know I would be if I did something like that at work.

NB The CIA could be different to my organisation.

Why should it? The edits from the CIA are not enough of a problem to care about. Your average school district is likely to be more of an issue.

[robinson]

Something great about Wiki is that you can look at the edits. Interesting times. The CIA edited this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
so you can actually see what they did, rather than take anybodies word for it.

I like that.

The edits on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are interesting as well. You can see the mind of the editors at work, as they change things. Orwell would have loved this one.

[geni]

Something great about Wiki is that you can look at the edits. Interesting times. The CIA edited this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
so you can actually see what they did, rather than take anybodies word for it.

I like that.

The edits on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad are interesting as well. You can see the mind of the editors at work, as they change things. Orwell would have loved this one.

Wikipedia is not goverment run. I doubt Orwell would have been too sure what to make of wikipedia it isn't something that turns up much in tradtional novels about the future or sci-fi (a sort of wikipedia for people turns up in Kaleidoscope Century).

[robinson]

Hmmm ... I think there may be some misunderstanding about this issue. I mean here, on the JREF forums. Maybe the News stories didn't report the essential point of the story.

[Checkmite]

What is that?

[robinson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiscanner#Media_coverage_and_reaction

[robinson]

Orwell would have loved that.

[dudalb]

Orwell would have said that an enclycopedia that anybody can edit is not worth much.

[robinson]

If it isn't worth much, why bother to try and edit it? I think he would have loved to see Big Brother being logged, as he tried to edit the encyclopedia.

[Checkmite]

I get it; anybody can edit Wikipedia, UNLESS you happen to work at a place like Microsoft or the CIA. Then your opinions and/or corrections are invalid.

[robinson]

The whole issue of who gets to decide what is "true", is a very old human issue.

[geni]

I get it; anybody can edit Wikipedia, UNLESS you happen to work at a place like Microsoft or the CIA. Then your opinions and/or corrections are invalid.

No. People at Microsoft are free to edit non microsoft relates subjects (obviously Microsoft may take the view that people have more important things to do at work). Same true for the CIA.

[dudalb]

Frankly,I think crackpots,ideologues,and fanantics editing articles concerning their area of obssesion is the real problem with Wikipedia.
Add people editing articles whose subject they know nothing about to that list.
I remain a confirmed skeptic on the basic idea behind Wikipedia.

[robinson]

Frankly,I think crackpots,ideologues,and fanantics[sic] editing articles concerning their area of obssesion[sic] is the real problem with Wikipedia.

And grammar. And spelling. That is the real problem with Wikipedia.

[Checkmite]

No. People at Microsoft are free to edit non microsoft relates subjects (obviously Microsoft may take the view that people have more important things to do at work). Same true for the CIA.

Is this rule spelt out somewhere? It seems to make no sense to me, given that someone at or from the CIA might be a better expert on, say, the history of the organization, and should be welcome to fix errors.

Besides, some would argue that nearly any topic involving something outside of the US could be CIA related. What then? I don't see the harm; unless of course you think adding "Wahhhhh!" was some sort of policy decision.

[robinson]

Vandalizing the public Encyclopedia isn't looked kindly upon, even by those who claim it is worthless and stuff. OK I'm sure some idiots think it is funny to vandalize stuff, but they are dumb.

[Checkmite]

I suppose that's true enough; but it wasn't "The CIA" or "Microsoft" that was doing the vandalizing, it was some intern on a break (or etc).

[robinson]

I wonder if the CIA knows who did it?

[geni]

Is this rule spelt out somewhere?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI


It seems to make no sense to me, given that someone at or from the CIA might be a better expert on, say, the history of the organization, and should be welcome to fix errors.

They are free to comment on the talk page. I tend to feel that the CIA might object to people talking too much about their jobs.


Besides, some would argue that nearly any topic involving something outside of the US could be CIA related. What then? I don't see the harm; unless of course you think adding "Wahhhhh!" was some sort of policy decision.

The CIA is not involved with Juan Vicente Torrealba, Luis Duggan, Samantha Tolj, the Nice Carnival, Melik or K-1 World Grand Prix.

[geni]

I wonder if the CIA knows who did it?

Probably. They would be foolish not to keep logs of all out going materials so if they really cared they could just look it up.

[Checkmite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI

Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest.

So...?

[geni]

So...?

There is rather a lot of other text on the page.

[Checkmite]

None of the rest of it really applies here - again, unless you think adding "Wahhhh!" was some kind of policy decision. I don't see why there would be a conflict of interest in an article about Ahmadinejad.

[geni]

None of the rest of it really applies here - again, unless you think adding "Wahhhh!" was some kind of policy decision. I don't see why there would be a conflict of interest in an article about Ahmadinejad.

It depends one the exact content of the edit but would probably not be viewed as such per se although tensions between Iran and US make it a more of a potential problem than it otherwise would be.