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: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Stellar,

Would you care to have a long drawn-out discussion about the President of Iran?

I expect you to use all Wikipedia sources, naturally.

Thanks a bunch.



Originally posted by maybereal11
See this link for other edits to Wiki..this is a stunning list! There are some crazy edits by the CIA!

wired.reddit.com...


That's insane!

[edit on 16-8-2007 by apc]




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Stellar,

Would you care to have a long drawn-out discussion about the President of Iran?


I love long drawn out discussions as it gives me ample time to expose the prevailing misconceptions and lies.



I expect you to use all Wikipedia sources, naturally.

Thanks a bunch.


They use all of 140 source pages for the claims made about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so good luck trying to show that the wikipedians did not properly source it!

Good luck.


Originally posted by Quasar
Ok, i read about 3/4 of this before I had to stop.

Wikipedia is not a credible resource.


Credible to educated intelligent people or credible to the ignorant hopelessly biased ignorants? Be specific please.


It does link to credible resources, but anybody can go on there and change it.


Sure anybody can but how many have the knowledge to edit the information in a way that does not arouse suspicion among those those researched and typed up the original entry? Do you know how wiki works and how diligently they police these types of offenses? The standards for moderation and policing is certainly far higher on wiki than it is here but maybe that shouldn't surprise anyone.


I had a speech teacher that wouldn't allow wikipedia as a source.


Because it gave the students too great a advantage? Context?


Quote from it now, take a look at it tomorrow, and it may be changed.


So you are in fact talking about something you have never employed?


It links to credible sources, but to make a news story centering on wikipedia this severe is rediculous.


Why? Do me a favour and try to edit wikipedia with malicious or obviously false information and see how long you get away with it.


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


Possible nothing but it's interesting that the CIA employees my be spending their time editing a "USELESS" source like wikipedia...


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


Can i start speculating too?


Someone answer these questions.

Who notified the press that these changes were occuring?


Someone who thought it was newsworthy?


What status does this person hold?


Who cares when the information is independently verifiable?


Does this compromise security?

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


One presume it's due to the fact that the US state department is doing it's best to vilify Iran?


edit: Where's my threadkiller signature.


And how would you kill a thread?

Stellar

[edit on 17-8-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
This is just another reason why we cannot take anything that we see on any wiki site for the truth.


You can't take anything anywhere for 'truth' if you have spent the time to understand the context the claims are being made in; if your ignorant you can't and shouldn't believe anything 'official'.


Anything that can be freely edited by anyone that wants to edit it is very susceptible to tampering.


I would say there is a far better chance that the various biases might balance out than say for instance in Britannica or elsewhere where the final draft is subject to highly centralized editing. Wikipedia is probably the best odds we have and i do get agitated when people appeal to centralized 'authority' to lend knowledge 'credibility' If your on ATS and your claiming such things your at best rather lazy when it comes to research and at worse defending the known bias of the powerful organizations that propagate twisted 'realities' by means of encyclopedia's.


This simply stands to reason when one thinks about it.

TheBorg


If you like reasoning so much you would not need to attack primary sources and would instead invite the type of debate where you can defend the sources that makes the most sense to your experiences of the world.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Wikipedia is a tool, like any other reference source.

The tool is there to be used, along with facts you are aware of, and information from other sources that allow you to make up your own mind.

To say that its all junk is - to be frank - a gross over exaggeration. I cn go to Wiki and look up the specs on a B52 Bomber and find out details of its history. I can do the same for any number of items, places and people and I would wager that 98% of the time the article for the item you are searching for will be factually correct.

The 2% is the territory that supports viewpoints. Thats where Wiki goes wrong, because viewpoints aren't facts, and thats something that often gets forgotten in the culture of "views reporting" that can be found online these days.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
This is fun! Someone at SAIC, the governments largest contractor/outsourcer of ops confirms mind control. He ads to this page..."This is true"


See link
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This is the first time I've ever felt compelled to reply to a subject, and I certainly hope it isn't my last.

I first found out about this news item via Yahoo, and then immediately jumped over here to see if there was more in depth information. For the most part, it is, in my opinion, speculation. Until there is clear cut, smoking gun type proof, we can't assume that the people making these edits actually DO work at these places. Technology can reveal, but it can conceal even better.

My question is, with all this talk of this program that can track changes made to these wiki-posts, has there been any research done on the creator of this program? Is this person a truthful, non-partisan, programmer that is trying to shed light on an otherwise dim and murky conspiracy, or someone with a more hidden agenda? Remember, at the Salem Witch Trials, the Puritans had reliable sources that proved the people executed were witches,,,,,



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
...reading the latest issue of Harper's Magazine -- this was in the Index:


Minimum number of edits to Wikipedia since June 2004 that have been traced back to the CIA: 310


www.harpers.org...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join