NYPD Admits To Editing Eric Garner Wikipedia Page And Others

Wow.

From Washin gton Post - Eric Garner’s Wikipedia page was edited from an NYPD computer, NYPD admits:

The New York Police Department has confirmed that at least some edits to Wikipedia entries about people who died following confrontations with NPYD officers were made from computers on the department’s servers, Capital New York reported Sunday.

The department’s admission came two days after Capital first reported that hundreds of Wikipedia edits were made from computers on the NYPD network — and that those edits included tweaks to Wikipedia articles about Eric Garner, Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo, all of whom were killed in police-involved incidents. Capital also identified edits from NYPD servers to a “stop-and-frisk” entry and the portion of Wikipedia’s NYPD entry that deals with allegations of misconduct.

Here's an example of the type of changes they were making:

One such edit: “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.”

This is something we all need to be paying more attention to and people need to be held accountable and fired.

a reply to: theantediluvian

lol, and yet yesterday they were denying it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: theantediluvian

What is important is that the description of events is accurate. I don't care who edits it. I care that it is accurate.

a reply to: Autorico

Thanks for the link!

The majority of the edits originating from IPs within the NYPD network were for pages that contributing to wouldn't constitute a conflict of interest but then others clearly presented a conflict and the edits reflect a complete lack of ethics. I think most people realize the pitfalls of Wikipedia and wikis in general, but having a person engaging in a police-related disinformation campaign on the clock and on the people's dime is crossing a line in my opinion.

One such edit: “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.”

Interesting edit...

In the case of Bell, an individual accessing Wikipedia from an NYPD server even tried to petition for the deletion of the entire “Sean Bell shooting incident” article. Bell was killed in 2006, the day before his wedding, when five officers fired 50 bullets into his car. Bell was unarmed.

“He was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore,” the anonymous user wrote. “The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.”

Sounds a little more like some covert PR work than editing for clarity and accuracy.

It's only a matter of time before our superiors realize they are under the same microscope just like us peons. We're all in this giant agar plate together.

Instead of continuing to lie about their bad behavior, it's best to admit it and get it out of the way. I hope everyone is under the same scrutiny and stops this crap. Ahhhh, wishful thinking.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Crossed a line in my opinion as well.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Cops manipulating data you say.

I wonder, in the course of modern American history, how many innocent men, women and children have had their lives destroyed because of these types of shenanigans by law enforcement agents.

Next thing you know they will be turning off body cameras to conceal truth.

Inserting or deleting even a single word, in any document, can be the difference between guilty or innocent / truth and lies.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yup, considering that some cases have been dismissed simply for having a name misspelled. Technicality my arse.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian


Next thing you know they will be turning off body cameras to conceal truth.

They have done that too already.



And your right, altering text, turning off cameras is the same thing...concealment, and anything but trying to get to the truth of any matter. It's got to the point that just imagining something, will allow the police to walk, even if someone innocent is killed.

As it stands, I don't think it is illegal. Is it wrong? Yes....the police have no role reporting the news. They have a role in reporting to media, who reports the news.

Does anyone remember Christopher Dorner? The ex-LAPD officer that had the standoff in the cabin?

Has anyone checked or heard about LAPD altering the Wikipedia entry about him?

It seems that guy has been totally forgotten about.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

When I think back on Dorner, what really got me was the two incidents where cops opened fire on innocent people because they were driving trucks.

The mother and daughter Margie Carranza and Emma Hernandez who were delivering the newspapers when eight cops opened fired on them, hitting both (LAPD) and then half an hour later, David Perdue was shot at and had his vehicle rammed (Torrance PD). Luckily they lived (and eventually settled for ~2 mil each) but nobody was prosecuted.

I knew about cops trying to control social media for years now.......

I first saw it about seven years ago in a topic I was initially only slightly interested in. After I realized government employees and people who were directly associated with the incident were trying to control posts, I became more interested what was happening. It was shocking and frightening.

People on ATS are focused on the big incidents but the smaller local topics are also prone to manipulation too. Maybe even more so than the high profile cases.

It probably wasn't the first time these cops posted and probably won't be the last.

Does anyone know if you can request officer's postings to certain web pages as part of a Freedom of information request?

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: theantediluvian

What is important is that the description of events is accurate. I don't care who edits it. I care that it is accurate.

Accuracy is up to the semantics and interpretations of Liberals.

a reply to: chuck258

I'm just going to repost my comment from this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because it brings up an important point that was never addressed, I don't know why the mods are allowing three threads on the same topic.

originally posted by: chuck258
After reading the article in full: The only thing I noticed, was how whoever did this simply changed the wording around to suit their agenda, much like whoever they originally edited wrote the article in a way that suits their own agenda, you Liberals try to be good at that.

en.wikipedia.org...

This example.

It is true that after Garner was put in the chokehold, the four EMT's were suspended.

But it is also true that the four paramedics that responded to his respiratory distress were also suspended. Because Garner had respiratory distress, this is a fact, the man was asthmatic.

You are trying to take the moral high ground by claiming the NYPD has a bias but are completely and conveniently ignoring your own anti-police bias.

A neutral edit of that phrase would more go along with:

"The four EMT's who responded to the scene were later suspended without pay."

So until you can write that, you have not a leg to stand on when trying to claim some sort of neutral moral high ground.

en.wikipedia.org...

In this article. The liberal point of view states he 'raised his arms in the air and was then put in a chokehold. They are trying to paint a picture just like when they claimed Michael Brown was on his knees and raised his hands above his head and was shot in the face. No, sorry, watch the video. While I do believe the cops in Staten Island Garner case should have been doing more important things than busting a guy selling loose cigarettes, he was doing a whole hell of a lot more that 'raising his hands' there were several times after Police approached to detain him that he forcefully pulled his hands away. Although I would say 'flailing' is a bit much.

As for the second edit:

The choke-hold maneuver is not illegal for use, Police Department policy bans it's use. There is a huge stretch from something police doing being ILLEGAL, such as bringing someone into an interrogation room, not allowing them to leave and also denying them counsel (this is Illegal via the constitution) and a Police Department telling Police Officers "hey, don't use a choke-hold in the arresting of suspects because of reasons xyz.

By claiming the use of the chokehold is illegal in this case, you are also saying that you taking and hour and a minute at work for lunch is also illegal because company policy allows you only 60 minutes. What you did is not illegal, it is against company policy. The department ban on using the chokehold is technically no different. So the Liberal point of view here is technically lying.

Liberals love trying to burden everyone else by semantics but hate abiding by semantics themselves.

Again, it is up interpretations. Nothing they edited was a lie, it was simply worded differently, the EXACT SAME THING the Anti Cop crowd was doing. Liberals dont like to play fair.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and the edits reflect a complete lack of ethics.

GASP. No! Police lacking ethics? Especially NYPD? IT IS TO LAUGH. Who can believe such?

a reply to: chuck258

Liberals! Liberals! Liberals! You're so caught up in your own politically motivated defense of the police that you're completely missing the point (and apparently you did so three separate times?).

It is not the job of the police to set liberals on Wikipedia straight while tax payers are paying them to do police work. In terms of the Wikipedia ToS (and let's face it, in the interest of not being an unethical douche bag), people should abstain from contributing to pages when there is a conflict of interest.

Because it brings up an important point that was never addressed, I don't know why the mods are allowing three threads on the same topic.

Perhaps because the admission by the NYPD represents a significant development? No, that can't be it. It must be the liberal agenda.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: chuck258

Liberals! Liberals! Liberals! You're so caught up in your own politically motivated defense of the police that you're completely missing the point (and apparently you did so three separate times?).

It is not the job of the police to set liberals on Wikipedia straight while tax payers are paying them to do police work. In terms of the Wikipedia ToS (and let's face it, in the interest of not being an unethical douche bag), people should abstain from contributing to pages when there is a conflict of interest.

Because it brings up an important point that was never addressed, I don't know why the mods are allowing three threads on the same topic.

Perhaps because the admission by the NYPD represents a significant development? No, that can't be it. It must be the liberal agenda.

We don't know WHEN it was done, it could have been done on someone's lunch period. The article also doesn't mention WHO did it, it could have been the janitor.

And going by Hilary Clinton's example, mixing work and personal business isn't to much of an issue to Libs, why should there be a double standard? You may not think me talking about Liberals is appropriate here, but I see Libs justifying one scandal after another doing the same damn thing.