The CIA on Wikipedia

qarnos · 15th August 2007, 08:27 PM

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

CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries.

Viper Daimao · 15th August 2007, 08:51 PM

a very interesting tool. Finding lots of interesting stuff, like NY Times ip's vandalizing 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 · 15th August 2007, 09:01 PM

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 · 15th August 2007, 09:29 PM

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~ · 15th August 2007, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by 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

I thought there was...maybe I read it here. Nope it was there 13 minutes before the OP...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=13847

jsiv · 15th August 2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 16th August 2007, 01:07 AM

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · 16th August 2007, 01:18 AM

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 · 16th August 2007, 01:40 AM

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 · 16th August 2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by qarnos

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

CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries.

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 · 16th August 2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

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 · 16th August 2007, 12:18 PM

The Vatican got in on the act, too.

geni · 16th August 2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 16th August 2007, 03:11 PM

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 · 16th August 2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 20th August 2007, 08:00 AM

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 · 20th August 2007, 10:35 AM

What is that?

robinson · 20th August 2007, 11:03 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisca...e_and_reaction

robinson · 20th August 2007, 11:04 AM

Orwell would have loved that.

dudalb · 20th August 2007, 12:03 PM

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

robinson · 20th August 2007, 01:06 PM

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 · 20th August 2007, 05:44 PM

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 · 20th August 2007, 06:54 PM

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

geni · 21st August 2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

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 · 21st August 2007, 03:56 PM

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 · 21st August 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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 · 22nd August 2007, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by geni

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 · 22nd August 2007, 08:32 AM

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 · 22nd August 2007, 11:21 AM

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 · 22nd August 2007, 03:32 PM

I wonder if the CIA knows who did it?

geni · 23rd August 2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

Is this rule spelt out somewhere?

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 23rd August 2007, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by robinson

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 · 23rd August 2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by geni

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

Quote:

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

So...?

geni · 23rd August 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

So...?

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

Checkmite · 24th August 2007, 03:40 AM

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 · 24th August 2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi

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.

15th August 2007, 08:27 PM	#1
qarnos Cold-hearted skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Melbourne, Austrylia Posts: 1,985	The CIA on Wikipedia I wonder how long until the nuts catch onto this one: CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries.
	__________________ "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.

15th August 2007, 09:01 PM	#3
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	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
	__________________

15th August 2007, 10:56 PM	#6
jsiv King of Svalbard Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bortenfor alle blåner Posts: 4,492	Originally Posted by 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 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.
	__________________ Panama er landet eg drøymer om!

16th August 2007, 01:07 AM	#7
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,033	CIA edits Wikipedia! 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 Quote: 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. Quote: 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? Quote: 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...
	Last edited by Shrinker; 16th August 2007 at 01:09 AM. Reason: small factual error

16th August 2007, 01:40 AM	#9
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,172	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.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

15th August 2007, 08:51 PM	#2
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 498	a very interesting tool. Finding lots of interesting stuff, like NY Times ip's vandalizing 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.

15th August 2007, 09:29 PM	#4
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	And then there could be people who are clever enough to edit pages from a computer that can't be traced to their employer.

15th August 2007, 09:32 PM	#5
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by 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 I thought there was...maybe I read it here. Nope it was there 13 minutes before the OP... http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=13847

16th August 2007, 01:18 AM	#8
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,033	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.

16th August 2007, 11:24 AM	#10
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,025	Originally Posted by qarnos I wonder how long until the nuts catch onto this one: CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries. 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.
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

16th August 2007, 12:16 PM	#11
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	Quote: 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
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

16th August 2007, 12:18 PM	#12
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	The Vatican got in on the act, too.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

16th August 2007, 12:20 PM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by 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. 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.

16th August 2007, 03:11 PM	#14
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	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.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Last edited by robinson; 16th August 2007 at 03:17 PM. Reason: link

16th August 2007, 03:48 PM	#15
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by 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. 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).

20th August 2007, 08:00 AM	#16
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	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.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

20th August 2007, 10:35 AM	#17
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	What is that?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

20th August 2007, 11:03 AM	#18
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisca...e_and_reaction
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

20th August 2007, 11:04 AM	#19
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Orwell would have loved that.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

20th August 2007, 12:03 PM	#20
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	Orwell would have said that an enclycopedia that anybody can edit is not worth much.

20th August 2007, 01:06 PM	#21
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	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.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

20th August 2007, 05:44 PM	#22
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	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.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

20th August 2007, 06:54 PM	#23
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	The whole issue of who gets to decide what is "true", is a very old human issue.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

21st August 2007, 01:58 PM	#24
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi 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.

21st August 2007, 03:56 PM	#25
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,782	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.

21st August 2007, 04:19 PM	#26
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	Originally Posted by dudalb 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.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

22nd August 2007, 05:42 AM	#27
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	Originally Posted by geni 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.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd August 2007, 08:32 AM	#28
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	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.
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

22nd August 2007, 11:21 AM	#29
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	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).
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd August 2007, 03:32 PM	#30
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136	I wonder if the CIA knows who did it?
robinson Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,136

23rd August 2007, 12:17 PM	#31
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi Is this rule spelt out somewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI Quote: 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. Quote: 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.

23rd August 2007, 12:19 PM	#32
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by robinson 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.

23rd August 2007, 04:21 PM	#33
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	Originally Posted by geni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI Quote: Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. So...?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

23rd August 2007, 04:59 PM	#34
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Joshua Korosi So...? There is rather a lot of other text on the page.

24th August 2007, 03:40 AM	#35
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,878	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.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002