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.
Originally posted by Ste2652
Originally posted by freeradical
The report mentions that the Vatican had also edited a Wikipedia page that showed Sinn Fein leader of the Irish republican party, Gerry Adams in a bad light. This page had a link to newspaper report that stated the reporters had learned about finger and hand prints found at the scene of a double murder in 1971 belonging to Gerry Adams. Someone originating from the Vatican had removed the links!
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.
This page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” - Thomas S. Szasz
WikiScanner, a website launched on Monday by a U.S. graduate student, shows that changes to articles originated from computers inside a variety of government offices, such as the House of Commons, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Environment Canada and the Auditor-General of Canada. The site, however, does not reveal the identity of the individual who made the edits.
-snip-
While many of the Wikipedia edits clean up grammar or correct facts about Canadian historical figures, geography or pop-culture icons, a significant number of edits were made to articles about politicians that removed criticisms, added positive comments and, in some cases, inserted negative comments to the pages of political rivals.
www.theglobeandmail.com...
Originally posted by Essedarius
Originally posted by bodrul
just goes to show how unreliable wiqi can be and how easy it is to put properganda and lies to push ones agenda...
The exact opposite really.
Wikipedia just pulled the curtain back on the CIA and the Vatican.
Do you have any idea how many companies have the balls to do that?
Or have the people at Encyclopedia Britannica been sending you notices of which entries of theirs have been tampered with?
Originally posted by paul76
Originally posted by Ste2652
Originally posted by freeradical
The report mentions that the Vatican had also edited a Wikipedia page that showed Sinn Fein leader of the Irish republican party, Gerry Adams in a bad light. This page had a link to newspaper report that stated the reporters had learned about finger and hand prints found at the scene of a double murder in 1971 belonging to Gerry Adams. Someone originating from the Vatican had removed the links!
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.
Of course the Vatican supports Sin Fein. Ireland is a catholic nation, And the IRA we're fighting for there country back. I fully understand where the IRA we're coming from!! I'm English and if the Irish came to England and cut the country in half, I to would bear arms and fight the Irish.
Originally posted by blowfishdl
Wouldn't be surprised if this was true, why would you be? Don't you know the CIA runs this?
On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines.
Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.
Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the latter, with someone at the company's IP address apparently deleting long paragraphs detailing the security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.
The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."
Originally posted by sardion2000
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.