I thought this was pretty funny. http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...ype=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&sp=true CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:43PM EDT By Randall Mikkelsen 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/
Same program also caught Diebold editing articles regarding its much maligned electronic voting machines.
There are probably a whole bunch of government affiliated IP's that are not obvious, as well. This is a list of some of the many NSA IP ranges that are used for various activities. This includes chunks that appear to originate from AOL or Verizon, as well as international addresses.
Yeah, if my company can block Google Mail and polo.com, then I'm thinking Langley and the Hoover Building should be able to block Wikipedia. Or at least teach the superspies to mask their ips to not get caught?
Seems like those people would have more information that they could contribute to wiki than the average Joe. They COULD use it to post disinformation, but in this case were any of the changes made factually incorrect?
Let's not pretend that the average American focuses on their job 100% of the time. The conflict of interest argument is much more compelling than this.
it has nothing to do with pretending. the fact is government resources are being used by government employees that fall outside the scope of their duties. that's wasteful spending of my taxpayer dollars.
First, you are assuming that they did not make these edits when they were off the clock (lunch or coffee break or maybe before or after work). Even if they were on the clock, you are further assuming that they have a job which is impacted negatively by them editing a wiki page (if you don't have any work unless called upon like a member of an armed response team in security, you can probably sit around and wiki all the live long day). Finally, most employers know that allowing some freedom to relax throughout the day can actually increase productivity as the workers do not get burned out as quickly. So your argument has everything to do with pretending. In some fantasy world where every person at the CIA and FBI have a constant stream of work that they tackle most effectively by going at it 100% from 9 to 5, you might have a valid point. Here in reality, people whose job is to look at a computer screen 8 hrs a day are going to need some downtime and that time can be spent surfing the web or even editing a wiki page.
they are not blocking they are editing someones work without taking their permission or even informing them about the changes. It is also disturbing that the changes they made was to a topic that is causing them a lot of pain right now. I wonder what will happen to anyone that is being detained illegaly, how would they be able to get their rights anymore, if the government is able to do anything regardless of what the law says. even if you say I AM INNOCENT, they can edit it to I AM GUILTY.
On loafing, I would add that my surfing the web is costing you money too. I am marginally decreasing the productivity of my company, thereby increasing its operating costs and forcing prices up. You'll see it on your electric bill instead of in your tax bill, but it's still coming out of your pocket. The WikiScanner sounds like a good idea, but I think it is an inherent weakness of the wikipedia architecture. The rule about conflict of interest in unenforceable. The CIA will be able to fool WikiScanner if they want to. Even if they don't want to, individuals working at the CIA can still edit at home. Same with every company, politician or other partisan out there. They can only rely on the robustness of their editors to re-edit things that have been doctored.
That’s the way every edit on Wikipedia works, and basically every topic more than 2 sentences has probably been edited at least 10 times by someone. I know I've done it 10-20 times.
Major edits are automatically flagged for someone to come to look at it, and there is a two column review with before text and after text and all the changes highlighted in red which is how they stop kids from adding snippits of inappropriate language. And if an editor thinks there is something severely wrong, you can with one click revert back 5 or 6 edits.
