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.
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.
One such edit: “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.”
One such edit: “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.”
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.”
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian
Next thing you know they will be turning off body cameras to conceal truth.
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.
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.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and the edits reflect a complete lack of ethics.
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: 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.