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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

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.




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
For those interested on the "validity" of a Wiki article (for want of a better word), read this:



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.

Wiki

I think that Wiki is a work in progress, and will get progressively better over time. It is perfectly acceptable for many uses. Just remember it's limitations.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” - Thomas S. Szasz


Quote speaks volumes. I think many are missing the bigger picture.

1. It is trivial for someone with a PC background to forge their IP address. If someone wants to portray the CIA, Wal-Mart, Diebold or just about any other organization as the cuplrit it can be done. It's performed en masse by the NSA to present themselves to others as being legitimate IP block owners.

2. Does anyone here honestly believe for a minute that an organization such as the CIA (I'm specifically referencing them here for a reason) would not monitor ALL inbound/outbound traffic. Do you really think that some drone would be permitted to just wander off and graffiti sites at will. Of course if the intent were truly there they would obfuscate their approach. I do believe that they could edit the site to suite information needs but the example provided here just doesn't fit.

To imply that Wikipedia has even partial credibility yet blindly accept the fact that IP addressing is 100% accurate show just how naive some are. Wake up.

brill



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The practice is far more widespread that I would have suspected. There's a story in our national paper this morning which shows edits to articles coming from goverment offices.


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...


(bolding mine)

IMO, if the information in Wiki is so easily altered, then on its own it must be taken with a grain of salt. To truly make a case on a subject, perhaps additional information from less 'easily altered' websites should be used.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

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?


Agree here.

I do not see the how this is overly negative (Misinformation is of course negative, but I guess we are talking about Wikipedia and it's workings and potential now. If what was edited in was misinformation or not is irrelevant). Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia in many respects. This includes the right for everyone to add to the wealth of information. Some might have dodgy ambitions, and some powers might seek to spread misinformation (or things some people might concieve as misinformation) through these free channels. But it will remain free to be edited yet again if misinformation is noticed and debunked. Add this to the fact that Wikipedia has some form of transparancy avaliable both from wikipedia themselves, and though user-written tools like wiki-scanner, and we are starting to see that wikipedia can become quite a transparent and free for of sharing information, as long as people relate to it in the correct way.

People SHOULD relate to Wikipedia in a different manner than they do to more closed sources of information. There is an ocean of misinformation and shrotcommings on the different Wikis throughout the internet. This is a negative bi-effect of the free form of contribution used. As long as the users check sourses, read reffers to articles on wikipedia and generally stay alert to the possibility of misinformation and bull#, then this should not be a problem. It does start to become a problem when people fail to realize what wikipedia is though, which has become a trend some places as wikipedia has gained popularity while people fail to realize how it works.

Also...the implications of a CIA network computer logging onto wikipedia and changing parts of an article might not be that huge either. According to some, we have had government agents from different agencies all over ATS before, but that does not necessarily mean that CIA as a whole is targeting ATS. The people working for CIA are normal people as well... some might have an interest in conspiracy, sub-culture, mysteries and might browse these forums for personal enjoyment. The same goes for Wikipedia... It is open for anyone, including CIA personel using the service and editing articles from CIA network computers. Of course... it's still apperant politically motivated editing, but that will always happen, from all sides of any given politically loaded article, on a wiki based encyclopedia.

I have no problem believing that these changes where made as part of CIA's work to adjust the flow of information about touchy subjects though... I'm just saying...

[edit on 16-8-2007 by me_ofef_seraph]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by me_ofef_seraph]

[edit on 16-8-2007 by me_ofef_seraph]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Hmm, well surely if the CIA is editing wikipedia pages, they probably use IP hiding software so that people do not know where the edit comes from. Maybe what we stumbled upon was just an employee having fun, but that the serious business is silently done behind the scenes.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Atlantix]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I just love how the BBC have picked out the CIA out of a long list of wiki edits. Editors that include....erm the BBC!!!!!!. A staff member edited GW's middle name to 'wanker', Al-Jazeera, the Vatican, the Democrats etc

But the BBC decide to focus on just the one group, an American group. Thing is the edit supposedly by the CIA was harmless, it probably was a bored staff member. How about the Vatican downplaying IRA activity? surely that's more interesting. I can just imagine the Pope on Wikipedia, sitting infront of a 24inch widescreen TFT, with his facebook profile in the background.

How about an Al Jazeera worker posting such hatred towards Jews on the 'Israel' entry.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   
A challenge to all wiki skeptics: show me a reference source that's superior to wikipedia and tell me HOW it's superior.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

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.


Actually Northern Ireland is majority Protestant. Would you go and target civilians to achieve your aims? News Flash that is what they did, and they didn't get anywhere close to returning Northern Ireland to Irish rule. England was a Catholic nation at one point, things change.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Let's stay on topic, people. You can start your own thread on the "troubles" but please don't discuss it here.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Wouldn't be surprised if this was true, why would you be? Don't you know the CIA runs this?



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Are you people missing something.

Why have the BBC just focused their attention on the CIA, when it has been alleged that the BBC has done similair, along with Al-Jazeera, the United Nations ,the New York Times, The Vatican etc?

Its trendy to bash the CIA.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Wouldn't be surprised if this was true, why would you be? Don't you know the CIA runs this?


I was reading something about a Sudanese Islamic cleric claiming its run by Jews. His reasoning was, to try and edit something in the Israel page and see what happens.

So who is it, the CIA or the catch all term, The 'Jews'



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Wait a minute... you mean that it is possible for someone to put non truths or things which support a particular point of view in something that anyone can edit?!?

Wow...

Maybe we should only allow people we agree with to post an opinion. That would make the world a better place.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
See this link for other edits to Wiki..this is a stunning list! There are some crazy edits by the CIA!

wired.reddit.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I also went to the Wiki Scanner page to peruse pentagon edits to Wikipedia and that specific search has now been disabled
They move fast! You select Pentagon and nothing happens, you select other orgs and it gives you the list of edits!



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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."


Source: www.wired.com...

I don't know too much about the company Diebold.
Does anyone know if it was used in the recent presidential election's?
Makes me curious to think about 2008...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Who knows who edits wikipedia, there are huge instances of biased edits, on every subject matter you could possibly think of. Wikipedia is about as useful as national news bulletins when it comes to finding out the truth of what happened in any major event.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

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


Higher position than me? I do care what the elitist self serving types of this world things but i am not about to let them undermine my credibility by attacking the sources of information they hate most. Feel free to get taken in but don't expect me to join you.



and if they aren't then they will eventually be lower then you(unless they have powerful friends or are in politics).


Not following anymore so do clarify.


If you reference a Wikipedia article for a business report you would be packing your stuff in a box the very next day.


Some regional newspapers are already using it around here and that is pretty much what people read. When you have no credibility to start with you may wish to avoid Wikipedia as source but i have established mine and whoever is stupid enough to assume that i can and will not defend what i used is going to be forced into a long drawn out discussion where their ignorant assumption is quite likely to be exposed for all to see. You know this from personal experience so stop taking cheap shots.


I've seen it happen at least twice. In school, citing a Wikipedia article as one of your references constitutes an immediate failing mark.


Sounds like a pretty stupid policy to me but that just goes to show what some institutions have to do to 'boost' their credibility and pretend superiority.


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.


And in higher learning institutions this may make sense as wiki articles are by nature summaries of facts which usage may defeat the entire purpose of research papers. It's not that wiki is WRONG but that it makes it too easy for students to just copy well research and compiled data.


I'm sure you'll disagree, but whatever reality will smack you in the face one day.


As far as our record is concerned your the one with the red cheeks and i understand the bias one is up against in the 'real world'. Thanks for the warning but using wiki is perfectly suitable for discussions where you can always elaborate to more detailed sources as the discussion continues. When i start noticing that using wiki incites howls of disagreement i will do something else but at this point using wiki sources is perfectly adequate to impede the type of ignorant ramblings that barely understands the concept of hyperlinks and sourced claims.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Ummm...In regards to the original poster and article...



Maybe the CIA edited it because they have the most thorough information and attempted to make certain the article was credible...




NOOO! CANT BE...This is ATS and the CIA is most definatly the reincarnated left arm of SATAN



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join