It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
This just strengthens what I've been saying all along.

Wikipedia is GARBAGE mixed in with a little bit of reliable information.

Do not rely on Wikipedia.

Do not formally reference Wikipedia.

Do not take anything stated on Wikipedia seriously until it has been cross-checked and confirmed as true.

Too many idiots run to Wikipedia as their end-all be-all source for knowledge and then come away thinking better of themselves because of it. Well I got news for yah... it makes you look like a lazy fool.




posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Is it only me that thinks the Vatican edit is more interesting than the (rather standard vandal) edit made by the CIA?
:
The tip of the iceberg, perhaps. Very, very interesting if this tool is accurate.

Interesting, to be sure, but hardly surprising. The true and complete history of the Vatican, were it available, would be a definite page-turner.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I'm surprised that this news surprises anyone. Wikipedia has always been suspect.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Interesting, to be sure, but hardly surprising. The true and complete history of the Vatican, were it available, would be a definite page-turner.


Best Seller no doubt,

Instead of :"the devil made me do it"

We have the new phrase : "the Vatican made me do it."

or is this another case of "divine intervention"?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Instead of :"the devil made me do it"

We have the new phrase : "the Vatican made me do it."


I think a full history of the Vatican would make those two phrases synonymous somehow


I wonder if these recent revelations will make the various individuals and organisations who use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool be more devious in how they use it. I'd be surprised if we find any more evidence of CIA/Vatican involvement in edits, for instance.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
This just strengthens what I've been saying all along.

Wikipedia is GARBAGE mixed in with a little bit of reliable information.


It's the other way round but it's easy to get all confused when one is typing while foaming at the mouth.



Do not rely on Wikipedia.


I never did but one day i spent a few hours researching a particular issue only to find that SOMEHOW the Wiki editor had been to those same obscure pages and managed to compile much of the information in VERY efficient way. I say that i was surprised would be a understatement and from that day forward i frequently use wiki articles as basis for extended research.


Do not formally reference Wikipedia.


Stop me if you can.



Do not take anything stated on Wikipedia seriously until it has been cross-checked and confirmed as true.


True according to who exactly? You possibly?


Too many idiots run to Wikipedia as their end-all be-all source for knowledge and then come away thinking better of themselves because of it.


Too many idiots do no research at all and if all those idiots read the wiki entries before commenting ATS traffic sharply decline and i would be able to post on issues i want instead of having to go around the forum correcting blatant unadulterated Bravo Sierra ignorance. The day the majority of ATS people start bothering to read wiki articles, and use them as reference, will be the day i take a extended vacation secure in the knowledge that humanity will be OK.


Well I got news for yah... it makes you look like a lazy fool.


I'll be sure to drown you in wiki references the next time i see the need to correct you.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Do not formally reference Wikipedia.


Stop me if you can.



In real life, if it's not in an encyclopedia/dictionary/textbook/reference book, then the information is suspect by everyone in a higher position then you and if they aren't then they will eventually be lower then you(unless they have powerful friends or are in politics). If you reference a Wikipedia article for a business report you would be packing your stuff in a box the very next day. I've seen it happen at least twice. In school, citing a Wikipedia article as one of your references constitutes an immediate failing mark. They do advice you use Wiki as a source to find references and to help refine your search at the local Reference Library, but that is all. I'm sure you'll disagree, but whatever reality will smack you in the face one day.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
I wonder if these recent revelations will make the various individuals and organisations who use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool be more devious in how they use it. I'd be surprised if we find any more evidence of CIA/Vatican involvement in edits, for instance.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I'm surprised the CIA ever showed up on this list to begin with. You can be sure that any CIA edits to Wiki from this point on will have been deliberately planted by elements for and against them.

The actual tool seems very simple. What made it possible to begin with was the decision by Wiki's creators to capture the IP of editors. Once you have that, there are a multitude of tools such as IDServe or Arin whois that will give you the owner of the IP.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Knowledge And Power

Wikipedia bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

By design, anyone can create and modify Wikipedia articles, from some bored grade-schooler on summer break to a leading post-doctoral researcher to an anonymous drone goofing off at Langley to the Pope, if he were so inclined.

Thus it's really no surprise (and should be expected) that people with an agenda or interest in a given topic will tend to modify it to their tastes.

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a platform for opinions or original research, but rather a repository of information compiled from other sources and presented from a "neutral point of view". Any article containing such digressions should be considered suspect (or better yet, flag or edit them out yourself).

Also, Wikipedia articles are only as reliable as their sources, and a given article may comply with all of the encyclopedia's guidelines and still be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.

Because of this and other issues, it is always wise to verify information obtained from Wikipedia articles by checking their cited sources and corroborating claims with other sources.

And as always, it's good to be skeptical about information from any source.


That said, Wikipedia is an information tool whose power and scope are unprecedented in recorded human history, and serves those who understand its nature and limitations very well indeed.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Is it only me that thinks the Vatican edit is more interesting than the (rather standard vandal) edit made by the CIA?

It throws up some pretty interesting questions. Why edit an IRA member's entry and take out negative parts? What else has the Vatican done for the IRA over the years? Is the Vatican so anti-Protestant that it has links with the IRA (who are mainly Catholic)? The IRA killed numerous people in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, so by definition does that mean that the Vatican supports terrorism/murder?

The tip of the iceberg, perhaps. Very, very interesting if this tool is accurate.


I found that very interesting. Some links that might help to explain the Vaticans position.

alt.nntp2http.com


Did the Vatican buy arms for the IRA?


O'Brad aigh versus Adams Classicism versus Historical Consciousness


www.ianpaisley.org


“The establishment of the Irish state gave the Holy See a new ally in the British Commonwealth. The Vatican viewed Ireland as ... ever willing to help the papacy achieve its international policy goals. The Vatican did not perceive Ireland as being a small Catholic power with limited international influence,” because the vast Irish, “diaspora had a significant impact on the development of Catholicism in many Commonwealth and Third World countries”


www.ireland.com, sorry but you have to subscribe to view this article, but use the search terms, vatican Banco Ambrosiano IRA and see what pops up.


Letter from Rome : Did the Holy See, wittingly or unwittingly, via its collaboration with the ill-fated Banco Ambrosiano once buy arms for the IRA?



I'd prefer to get into the Vaticans archives than the CIA's.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Does anyone remember about a month ago when the Chris Benoit murders happened and someone apparently posted that his wife had been killed days before anyone knew anything? Could this software not be used to find out who edited that wikipedia article?



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Ha! This wiki scanner tool is great!!! Now I know for sure that the NFL is eventually going to put all their games on the NFL Network, because they went in and removed all criticism from the artice about the NFL Network. I think all of us ATS members should make this site priority #1. We might finally be able to settle so many conspiracies if we can just catch them covering up the facts. FLAG THIS THREAD.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Once again, I am way too lazy to read this thread. BUT I JUST KNOW that some people are going to try to use this as an excuse to say wikipedia articles are worthless.

I beg to differ. CIA has its tentacles everywhere, even in your favorite conspiracy websites, but Wikipedia is still one of the world's strongest references because of superior sourcing.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KidOK
Does anyone remember about a month ago when the Chris Benoit murders happened and someone apparently posted that his wife had been killed days before anyone knew anything? Could this software not be used to find out who edited that wikipedia article?


That author had come forward:

Benoit

I believe the scanner identifies the owner of a block of IP's. For example, the IP of that anonymous Wiki edit was 69.120.111.23, which belongs to Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems), the owner of the block of IP's that it falls into. To further identify the IP would require the co-operation of Optimum Online.



[edit on 15-8-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Knowledge And Power

Wikipedia Any article containing such digressions should be considered suspect (or better yet, flag or edit them out yourself).

Also, Wikipedia articles are only as reliable as their sources, and a given article may comply with all of the encyclopedia's guidelines and still be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.







This is very true , i think that any and every "edited entry" should be flagedd for a period of time until its been approved by a number of peers before presented to us. We could eliminate some of these pety attempts to edit and erase information and stop the spread of propaganda. I personally find it refreshing to know that we still have a few good souls that are brave enough to bring attention to those who would choose to spread it.








[edit on 16-8-2007 by quietdrive]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
It may not be perfect but Wiki really tries to filter out these less than objective edits. I recall one very recent incident where work was done on an occult order, and wiki immediately banned the person who was using 4 aliases..Wiki calls these meat puppets or sock puppets. It also left the attempted transactions for the public to see and even forum logs of attempted fraudulent behaviour. It was the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn if anyone is interested. it makes an interesting read..

Good Going Wiki

SyS

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Ok, i read about 3/4 of this before I had to stop.

Wikipedia is not a credible resource.

It does link to credible resources, but anybody can go on there and change it. I had a speech teacher that wouldn't allow wikipedia as a source. Quote from it now, take a look at it tomorrow, and it may be changed. It links to credible sources, but to make a news story centering on wikipedia this severe is rediculous.

So what if a change did occure from a CIA facility.

A fresh military recruit gets stationed there, lands a good job, and decides to post some stuff on the internet. ATS specifically.

Someone answer these questions.

Who notified the press that these changes were occuring?

What status does this person hold?

Does this compromise security?

Why is Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the picture of this article.

edit: Where's my threadkiller signature.


[edit on 16-8-2007 by Quasar]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Wouldn't that be funny if the CIA actually owns Wikipedia? DoH! Now I gotta watch my back for saying that.. unless they delete this post.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Wouldn't that be funny if the CIA actually owns Wikipedia? DoH! Now I gotta watch my back for saying that.. unless they delete this post.


Or hack your ATS password and turn you into a hoaxter!!! And then give out your address .....

Notice that the ATS login is plain http, simple to hack with the basic n/w tools.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   
This is just another reason why we cannot take anything that we see on any wiki site for the truth. Anything that can be freely edited by anyone that wants to edit it is very susceptible to tampering. This simply stands to reason when one thinks about it.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join