RSSResearcher: US Gov't Editing Wikipedia Entries
By Ed Oswald | Published August 17, 2007, 5:32 PM
Entries in Wikipedia involving subjects such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay have been edited by individuals using FBI and CIA computers, a scanning program indicates.
The researcher says he created the application to "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike" and see if others are attempting to edit Wikipedia entries that may involve them, according to an interview with the Associated Press on Thursday.
Called WikiScanner, it can be used to discover the identities of those who edit Wikipedia pages. The application was developed by researcher Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute, who used it to discover that some sensitive entries might have been edited by government officials.
It is not clear who edited the Wikipedia entries, but Griffith says in the least they were edited by people with access to the government networks. The FBI was not available to comment on the discovery, while the CIA could not confirm whether its computers were used.
Editing a page with an issue or topic close to an organization or person is in direct violation of Wikipedia polices. However, often the site does not actively search out those who do as its legions of entry editors often find and delete questionable material on their own.
In this case, FBI computers were used to remove aerial images showing the US terrorist prison camp in Guantanamo Bay. CIA computers were used to beef up the accomplishments of former chief William Colby, as well as editing a graphic on casualties to indicate the numbers presented were only estimates.
Those wishing to try the application can access it on the Web at wikiscanner.virgil.gr.
is anyone really surprised?? i mean comeon for years ..cia & fbi have been synonymous with disinformation and pure BS... and with wikis being so completely easy to edit the proposed "facts" .... i wouldnt be suprised if more hasnt been edited...like J edgar hoover didnt REALLY crossdress or something equally as stupid..who cares..we all know that wikipedia is openly edited. and therefore anyone who has half a brain knows to take any informatin you find there with at least one grain of salt...and those that dont are wouldnt know government tampering if it snuck up behind them and threw them into a black sedan
Score: 0
|I see nothing wrong with the changes that the author claims to have taken placed...
Score: 0
|Wikis are bogus. Who cares.
Score: 0
|Who gives a crap... its a Wiki! I hate these stories that treat wiki like some sort of authority when its not. Its a public chalkboard and official "gotcha" source evident by this and the fox news story. *yawn*
Score: 0
|I can't believe people use Wikipedia as a viable source of reliable information! For all we know, every single entry on there may be pure fiction. Remember the old adage as well "History is written by the victor". All the entries on there will be one sided in the extreme. When I want reliable information on a subject I go to blogs, related sites and "official" sources and the correlate the information myself.
As for the US Government, they've been fooling their people for years.
Score: 0
|Well, sooner or later the articles will bring the old information and will be locked for public edit. It happened before and it will keep happening.
Score: 0
|It seems to me that entries in Wikipedia should now display the source from where the last change (or few changes) was/were made. Insert the actual name of the company associated with the IP address.
Score: 0
|http://www.bbc.co.uk/blo...08/wikipedia_edits.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/...ern_ireland/6949153.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Again I say so what?
Score: 0
|So in other words, don't edit anything from work, wait till you get home.
Score: 0
|Or use TOR
Score: 0
|I love the fact that sony removed criticism about the ps3 and totally re wrote the blu ray page on drm removed all links to all negative arguments and reduced the info to:
"The specifications of the BD+ virtual machine are only available to licensed device manufacturers."
its a case of nothing to see here move along, purchase your hobbled equipment drm is good!
Score: 0
|Sure they have made many edits on Wikipedia, like many companies have.
http://wikiscanner.virgi...gname=Sony&location=
But I don't see the article you refer to... Can you link please?
Score: 0
|Sometimes I honestly wonder if you're being notified via e-mail each time someone on this forum mentions "Sony", "PS3", and "Blu-ray".
Score: 0
|Maybe, but anyone notice Cannonfodder is being exactly that, as he is unable to link to this article where Sony messes with DRM on Blu-Ray article.
Infact, if you want facts, rather than fanbou drivel, the only Sony edit on the Blu-Ray article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...rev&oldid=127146033
It corrects a few minor items, and merely removes the expermental tag from the BD+ section.
So come on then Cannonfodder/Hollywood challende is set, show us this Wiki edit by Sony you refer to...
Score: 0
|Truth will set you free. Yes, Mr Orwell!
Score: 0
|Sounds like something right out of 1984.
Score: 0
|(question mark)
Score: 0
|Except that the government is editing a completely open content user generated extensible cross continental encyclopedia, not completely banning even the thought of such a concept.
Score: 0
|I have nothing against any person or entity editing Wikipedia, but it should be made public right on the page. Anyone trusting anything on Wikipedia at this point is just foolish. There's a good reason why schools left and right are banning Wikipedia as a valid source for students.
Score: 0
|Maybe left but why would ones on the right care?
(grin)
--->There's a good reason why schools left and right are banning Wikipedia as a valid source for students.
Score: 0
|Lol I could edit wikipedia, Why shouldn't the government be able too?
Score: 0
|I agree with this statement
Score: 0
|I can edit Wikipedia too, but that's not the point.
The point is that every piece of information in Wikipedia must be reliable, have some sources, etc. If you can't provide those - don't edit, it is AGAINST THE RULES of Wikipdia.
If your opinion differs from point of view of article - don't rewrite the article. Add a section to show YOUR point of view alongside with OTHERS. If you don't khow how to properly explain your point of view (or you are involved - company employe, gov't worker etc) - explain your point of view in DISCUSSION page, so other contributors could consider your arguments/facts and edit the article accordingly.
THIS is how Wikipedia works.
Score: 0
|This is why I dont trust wikipedia as a valid source of information. Since there is no way to track who really edited each page (no authentication besides registering an account), no indication when a page has been edited and what info was removed or added wikipedia cannot be trusted for valid info.
Score: 0
|This pretty much applies to the internet as a whole. How can you trust ANY information in the internet?
Valid or not, wikipedia rules. :)
Score: 0
|That MUST be why schools are banning wikipedia as a valid source for any sort of school papers (this goes for several colleges and well known universities as well);-) Yes, wikipedia does rule for that sheer fact alone.
Score: 0
|So has BBC , Democratic Party, and the Vatican among other organizations......
So the point is???
Score: 0
|"Editing a page with an issue or topic close to an organization or person is in direct violation of Wikipedia polices"
Kinda stupid since I think the people that would know best are the people directly involved. The problem is if they're being factual about it though.
This is still a bad idea because now it will bring even more attention to those entries.
I also hate the quote "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike". I'm all for that but what about the companies and organizations he actually likes? I say there should be equality in all things.
Score: 0
|Wow! Hello big brother.
Score: 0
|