Government vs Wikipedia-Entries

[Oliver]

Well, how paranoid can someone be? :confused:

First I saw an article about FOX-News "correcting" Wikipedia-Articles (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/14/212516/918),
then there was an article about the CIA doing that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm) and now I found
a whole list about the "Evildoers"! :D


Government
U.S. Senate Sergeant At Arms (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=156.33.62.0-190.255&ip2=156.33.7.0-60.255&ip3=156.33.195.0-255.255&ip4=156.33.0.0-5.255&ip5=156.33.6.0-255&ip6=156.33.61.0-255&ip7=156.33.194.0-255&ip8=156.33.191.0-255&ip9=156.33.192.0-193.255)
U.S. House Of Representatives (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=143.231.241.0-255.255&ip2=143.228.0.0-248.255)
Environmental Protection Agency (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=134.67.6.0-255&ip2=204.46.183.0-184.255&ip3=204.46.29.0-30.255&ip4=134.67.15.0-255&ip5=204.47.167.0-169.255&ip6=161.80.36.0-38.255&ip7=161.80.145.0-150.255&ip8=204.47.247.0-255&ip9=134.67.195.0-196.255&ip10=161.80.44.0-49.255)
National Institute of Health
Democratic Party (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip3=66.7.6.160-175&ip4=192.43.248.0-255&ip8=66.93.160.224-255&ip9=66.35.175.24-31&ip10=70.248.71.224-231&ip13=216.161.119.176-183&ip15=69.128.91.144-151&ip19=67.37.124.112-127&ip22=75.13.74.64-71)
Republican Party (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip10=12.147.59.128-143&ip16=12.160.57.32-47&ip24=69.214.193.152-159&ip29=204.73.177.0-7&ip30=68.72.202.48-55&ip34=66.152.200.176-183&ip49=75.100.121.104-111&ip51=65.171.251.192-207)


Education
California Institute of Technology
Bob Jones University (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=158.158.240.0-255)


Policy
Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=204.253.162.0-255)
The Rand Corporation (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=130.154.0.0-255&ip2=130.154.2.0-255&ip3=130.154.231.0-255)


Corporate
Diebold Inc (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=204.151.249.0-255&ip2=208.228.181.0-255&ip3=199.222.74.0-255&ip4=65.196.80.0-255&ip5=206.171.73.0-7&ip6=81.188.24.160-167&ip7=65.243.24.0-255)
Amgen Inc (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=198.176.188.0-191.255&ip3=138.133.17.0-255&ip5=198.178.217.0-255)
Pfizer Inc (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.77.198.0-255&ip2=168.224.0.0-255.255&ip3=148.168.40.0-255&ip4=204.114.193.0-214.255&ip5=148.168.77.0-136.255&ip6=12.18.36.0-255&ip7=202.32.173.0-127&ip8=193.235.226.0-255&ip9=61.14.195.192-207&ip10=61.9.95.64-79&ip11=162.48.138.0-255)
Wal-Mart Stores Inc (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=161.163.0.0-165.199.255&ip2=63.167.77.0-79.255&ip3=63.167.76.0-255)
ExxonMobil (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=158.35.56.0-225.255&ip2=192.67.48.0-255&ip3=198.43.100.0-255&ip4=158.32.161.0-35.54.255&ip5=192.83.106.0-255&ip6=12.3.50.104-111&ip7=158.21.255.0-255&nolimit=1#)
Raytheon (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=199.46.198.0-255&ip2=199.46.200.0-255&ip3=199.46.199.0-255&ip4=199.46.245.0-255&ip5=62.190.165.0-31&ip6=194.25.80.240-247&ip7=213.206.137.0-63&ip8=205.128.0.192-255&ip9=195.171.131.0-63&ip10=151.200.193.208-223&ip11=213.255.237.128-191&ip12=199.46.225.0-244.255&ip13=199.46.136.0-161.255&ip14=199.46.163.0-165.255&ip15=24.173.129.0-255&ip16=199.46.252.0-255&ip17=66.10.28.128-255&ip18=12.46.246.0-247.63&ip19=199.46.253.0-255.255&ip20=193.115.14.64-95&ip21=66.10.18.96-127&ip22=66.10.28.0-127&ip23=68.79.172.240-247&ip24=208.252.197.64-127&ip25=209.34.192.0-255&ip26=12.4.31.0-255&ip27=199.46.135.0-255&ip28=4.36.161.128-191&nolimit=1&orderbyip=1)


News
WorldNetDaily (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=63.168.141.0-127&ip2=71.126.144.128-135)
Fox News Channel (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=12.167.224.224-255&ip2=12.30.108.96-127)
New York Times Company (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=12.160.79.0-255&ip2=199.181.174.0-175.255&ip3=199.181.172.0-173.255&ip4=195.172.14.128-143)
Al-Jazeera (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=213.130.112.64-95&ip2=213.130.102.152-159&ip3=84.11.113.0-95&ip4=213.130.100.32-39&ip5=195.39.166.240-253&ip6=213.130.118.40-47)


Locations
Ft. George G Meade, Maryland (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=150.177.143.0-151.255&ip4=66.159.67.192-215)
Havana, Ciudad De La Habana (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=169.158.83.0-84.255&ip2=196.32.155.0-255&ip3=65.213.176.0-179.255&ip4=206.49.67.0-255)


Misc
darpa.mil (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.5.18.0-255&ip2=158.63.202.0-255)
Central Intelligence Agency (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=198.81.129.0-255)
Church of Scientology (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=205.227.165.0-255&ip2=12.9.239.0-255&ip3=12.153.84.40-47)
Vatican (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=212.77.0.0-255&ip2=193.43.102.0-103.255&ip3=217.59.51.64-127&ip4=212.77.1.0-15.255)


Lists
Most common .gov's (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/dotgov.html)
Most common .mil's (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/dotmil.html)


Source: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

[gtc]

Does this need 2 threads?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90466

It shows why we shouldn't trust everything we read on wikipedia.

[Oliver]

Does this need 2 threads?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90466

It shows why we shouldn't trust everything we read on wikipedia.


1. I see no conspiracy about that - but the CT'ists seem to think otherwise, of course. :D
2. No, it shows that we cannot trust the Government.

But it's funny to see WHAT EXACTLY they didn't like...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

[Pardalis]

Al Jazeera and the Church of Scientology are the government?

:confused:

[jsiv]

1. I see no conspiracy about that - but the CT'ists seem to think otherwise, of course. :D
2. No, it shows that we cannot trust the Government.

But it's funny to see WHAT EXACTLY they didn't like...


But I'm not sure that this follows. The question is how many of these edits are actually sanctioned by an employer, and how many are just random people editing Wikipedia on their office computer during lunch break without representing anyone but themselves. Countless people use their office computer for everything from porn to this. At the end of the day, the CIA has thousands of regular employees doing menial office tasks, it's not staffed entirely by James Bond-style agents.

Chances are that edits done by governments and intelligence agencies are done using a normal consumer broadband connection to be harder to trace and to give the appearance of being a normal person.

[Oliver]

Al Jazeera and the Church of Scientology are the government?

:confused:


No, but I added them in here, too. (Just to see who asks this question of yours first. :D)

Oh, I'm not surprised at all. :D

[Pardalis]

Maybe you'll link to wikipedia a little less now Oliver?

[gtc]

2. No, it shows that we cannot trust the Government.

Rubbish. Firstly, you have no evidence that the edits are actually government sanctioned rather than the work of individuals using government computers. Secondly, even if we can't trust the government, it doesn't mean that there aren't problems with wikipedia.

[Oliver]

Maybe you'll link to wikipedia a little less now Oliver?


Why not? Nearly all articles have additional links to their sources outside Wiki.
I know Wiki isn't perfect unless they work out these problem, but it's cool to find information very, very fast.

[jsiv]

Why not? Nearly all articles have additional links to their sources outside Wiki.
I know Wiki isn't perfect unless they work out these problem, but it's cool to find information very, very fast.


Be honest now, Oliver, how often do you follow and study all those links to verify what the article says, and to verify that the sources are credible? Do you verify that sources from both sides of an argument have been used?

How often do you think other people do? Not often. That's the problem with sites like this. Links and citations can give the appearance of credibility without there actually being any. Now I'm not saying that this is always the case, but still, it's something to be aware of.

[Oliver]

Be honest now, Oliver, how often do you follow and study all those links to verify what the article says, and to verify that the sources are credible? Do you verify that sources from both sides of an argument have been used?

How often do you think other people do? Not often. That's the problem with sites like this. Links and citations can give the appearance of credibility without there actually being any. Now I'm not saying that this is always the case, but still, it's something to be aware of.


I study them and follow the links to the sources whenever I try to learn about an specific detail of an Issue.

Unfortunately, in the world we live, nothing is a credible source unless you experienced something with your own eyes. But the big advantage of Wikipedia is that many people with many different viewpoints talk about various points and add their conclusions to their articles.

That's a big advantage to a single-sided article on the White House-Website, for example.

[Mycroft]

Here is a page by wired that shows a lot of politically oriented edits.

http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame

I got that from Little Green Footballs, which has run several articles on Wiki edits over the last day or two.

[jsiv]

I study them and follow the links to the sources whenever I try to learn about an specific detail of an Issue.


Well, most people do not.


Unfortunately, in the world we live, nothing is a credible source unless you experienced something with your own eyes. But the big advantage of Wikipedia is that many people with many different viewpoints talk about various points and add their conclusions to their articles.

That's a big advantage to a single-sided article on the White House-Website, for example.


I'm not so sure. I've seen more than a few "hot" topics (not, not the stores) hijacked by a single side. Other articles suffer from being written by people without any in-depth knowledge about the subject. Having said that, Wikipedia is still a nice tool as long as one never relies on just it for information that is important.


Got a response to post #5 as well?

[Oliver]

Well, most people do not.

I'm not so sure. I've seen more than a few "hot" topics (not, not the stores) hijacked by a single side. Other articles suffer from being written by people without any in-depth knowledge about the subject. Having said that, Wikipedia is still a nice tool as long as one never relies on just it for information that is important.


Got a response to post #5 as well?


Well, I thought I already answered that by acknowledging flaws in Wikipedia.
Concerning the IP's that clearly show the Networks from where the "corrections" were made from:

If someone from a government agency edits an article, of course it was edited by someone from the government agency - unless the network was infiltrated. Now that doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy behind an edit, but to find that out, you actually should take a look to what has been edited - to imagine probable reasons.

And while we're at it, thank you for adding the link, Mycroft. I will take a look into it now. :)

[Pardalis]

This revisionist is funny:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=213.130.102.155

see his/her revisions of "United States" and "Israel"

[gtc]

This revision is funny:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=213.130.112.64-95&ip2=213.130.102.152-159&ip3=84.11.113.0-95&ip4=213.130.100.32-39&ip5=195.39.166.240-253&ip6=213.130.118.40-47

Is that the UN?

[jsiv]

If someone from a government agency edits an article, of course it was edited by someone from the government agency - unless the network was infiltrated.


It was edited by someone using a computer belonging to a government agency. It is an important distinction.


Now that doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy behind an edit, but to find that out, you actually should take a look to what has been edited - to imagine probable reasons.


It's not that simple. Like I said, some employers tend to attract people that will be sympathetic to a certain cause and therefore be likely to edit Wikipedia in a certain way. It's no surprise that people employed by Fox News will tend to be pro-republican, for instance.

As another example, do you think the changing of President Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" that was done from a BBC computer was sanctioned by the BBC? The BBC is, after all, not very fond of Bush. Or is it more likely that it was just some random person at the BBC using an office computer to voice his own personal opinion?

These kinds of edits are still a problem, but I would not be so quick to say that they are sanctioned by the organizations in question. I'm sure some are, but the real propaganda edits are likely to be far more subtle and difficult to trace, and that is more worrying.

[Oliver]

It was edited by someone using a computer belonging to a government agency. It is an important distinction.

It's not that simple. Like I said, some employers tend to attract people that will be sympathetic to a certain cause and therefore be likely to edit Wikipedia in a certain way. It's no surprise that people employed by Fox News will tend to be pro-republican, for instance.

As another example, do you think the changing of President Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" that was done from a BBC computer was sanctioned by the BBC? The BBC is, after all, not very fond of Bush. Or is it more likely that it was just some random person at the BBC using an office computer to voice his own personal opinion?

These kinds of edits are still a problem, but I would not be so quick to say that they are sanctioned by the organizations in question. I'm sure some are, but the real propaganda edits are likely to be far more subtle and difficult to trace, and that is more worrying.


I understand all of that - but you falsely suspect that this is a deadly-serious Thread and topic, which isn't - as you're already pointing out here. :)

It's funny to see who edited what if you have a curious nature - like Pardalis curious nature to spy on what I wrote - even if he has me on ignore, for example. :D

[Darat]

In principle I can't what is wrong with corporations, government and other organisations ensuring that stuff that is published about them is correct. And if they have the ability to do so to take active steps to correct mistakes they spot.

Obviously to change stuff so that it isn't correct is wrong, but that's again just a general principle that applies as much to a person as it does to a government and so on.

[Oliver]

In principle I can't what is wrong with corporations, government and other organisations ensuring that stuff that is published about them is correct. And if they have the ability to do so to take active steps to correct mistakes they spot.

Obviously to change stuff so that it isn't correct is wrong, but that's again just a general principle that applies as much to a person as it does to a government and so on.


And I agree. But what's really funny is seeing your IP at Wikiscanner about manipulating articles concerning dictatorship and system-administration. :D :p

[Darat]

And I agree. But what's really funny is seeing your IP at Wikiscanner about manipulating articles concerning dictatorship and system-administration. :D :p

Please provide some evidence that I have done this.

[Oliver]

Please provide some evidence that I have done this.


No.

Oliver, your intention here may be kidding about, but viewing it in this thread is coming across as intensely personalising this discussion. Please get back on topic, and do not personalise the issue.

[Oliver]

Oliver, your intention here may be kidding about, but viewing it in this thread is coming across as intensely personalising this discussion. Please get back on topic, and do not personalise the issue.


Okidoki. :)

[Oliver]

Here's another summing about the Problem in general. I guess the only solution for editing by anonymous people would be to require a free Wikipedia membership to block most of the vandalistic edits:

Is Wikipedia becoming a hub for propaganda?

Tracking website shows thousands of changes to articles originated from federal government offices

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070816.wwiki0816/BNStory/Technology/home

[KoihimeNakamura]

The difference is this, Oliver: I may edit from Spokane Falls, but does that make it from the institution of Spokane Falls?

[Oliver]

The difference is this, Oliver: I may edit from Spokane Falls, but does that make it from the institution of Spokane Falls?


What on God's green Earth is Spokane Falls? :confused:

Anyway: If you look at the changes that were made - you're indeed able to differ between stupid remarks, probably personal motives or "changes in spirit of the agency/firm/etc.".

Of course, this proofs nothing about "manipulations ordered by an agency or company". But it's bad promotion for them in any way.

[geni]

Edits from the goverment tend not to be a massive problem. Mostly harmless stuff about subjects that have nothing to do with the goverment department the edits are comeing from.

There was an attempt to consor one of our drugs articles (didn't work) but that is about it.

Politicians are more of a problem but they can be delt with.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Spokane Falls is the community college I currently attend. (Or, well, will, if the funding goes through)

[Policenaut]

Thousands of edits? Wiki must be edited millions of times a year. It's most likely govt. employees bored at work editing pages about X-Men and Cosplay. You really are getting paranoid Oliver.

[Oliver]

Thousands of edits? Wiki must be edited millions of times a year. It's most likely govt. employees bored at work editing pages about X-Men and Cosplay. You really are getting paranoid Oliver.


Policenaut, "your intention here may be kidding about, but viewing it in this thread is coming across as intensely personalising this discussion. Please get back on topic, and do not personalise the issue. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2873244&postcount=22)" :)

[drkitten]

In principle I can't what is wrong with corporations, government and other organisations ensuring that stuff that is published about them is correct. And if they have the ability to do so to take active steps to correct mistakes they spot .

But my understanding is that Wikipedia frowns on people -- individuals -- editing their own articles, or articles regarding them. Wikipedia doesn't like autobiographies.

Why is it wrong if I fix the 'drkitten' entry and all the other entries mentioning 'drkitten,' but not wrong when (someone at) the CIA edits the articles about its ongoing operations?

[skeptifem]

Policenaut, "your intention here may be kidding about, but viewing it in this thread is coming across as intensely personalising this discussion. Please get back on topic, and do not personalise the issue. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2873244&postcount=22)" :)


:confused: youre a mod now?

[The Painter]

How is the validity of Wikipedia-Entries political? Their entries have always been suspect. How is it this is in the political section?

[geni]

Thousands of edits? Wiki must be edited millions of times a year.

157,392,459 edits so far on en.


It's most likely govt. employees bored at work editing pages about X-Men and Cosplay.


For the most part yes.

[geni]

But my understanding is that Wikipedia frowns on people -- individuals -- editing their own articles, or articles regarding them. Wikipedia doesn't like autobiographies.

This is correct. There are various ways of complaining. The article talk page to start with.


Why is it wrong if I fix the 'drkitten' entry and all the other entries mentioning 'drkitten,' but not wrong when (someone at) the CIA edits the articles about its ongoing operations?

I think the odds of a CIA employee adding the details of a current operation to wikipedia are pretty much zilch.

[Oliver]

Fox ran a story about this Issue:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/20430/1/SpecialReport-Wallace-Wikipedia.wmv