CIA edit Wikipedia entries

[CptSternn]

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007081...03UmaKbEM4k4gC

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - A US hacker's homemade program to pinpoint origins of Wikipedia edits indicates that alterations to the popular online encyclopedia have come from the CIA and the Vatican.

Virgil Griffith's "Wikiscanner" points to Central Intelligence Agency computers as the sources of nearly 300 edits to subjects including Iran's president, the Argentine navy, and China's nuclear arsenal.

A CIA computer was the source of a whiny "Wahhhhh" inserted in a paragraph about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans for the office.

"While I cannot confirm whether any changes were made from CIA computers, the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly," CIA spokesman George Little said in response to an AFP inquiry.

Wikipedia is a communally refined Internet encyclopedia that taps into the "wisdom of the masses" by letting anyone make changes.

Its founders believe people who know better will quickly correct inaccurate or misleading information.

Griffith, a university graduate student and self-described hacker, says his software matches unique "IP" addresses of computers with Wikipedia records regarding which machines are used to make online edits.

"I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting caught for whitewashing their Wikipedia pages," Griffith explains on his website.

Most edits listed at Wikiscanner involve minor changes such as spelling. Some alterations involve removing unflattering information, adding facts or inserting insults.

Wikiscanner's roster indicates a Vatican computer was used to remove references to evidence linking Ireland's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.

Someone at the US Democratic Party's Congressional campaign committee changed a description of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to replace "comedian" with "bigot" and dub his listeners "legally retarded."

"We don't condone these sorts of activities and we take every precaution to insure our network is used in a responsible manner," committee spokesman Doug Thornell told AFP.

A Republican Party computer purportedly was used after the US invasion of Iraq to change "occupying forces" to "liberating forces" in a Baath Party entry.

A United Nations computer is identified as the source of an edit that calls a respected Italian journalist a promiscuous racist.

Someone using a US Senate computer altered a profile of veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas to complain she "interrupts" and is annoying.

An edit traced by Wikiscanner to the BBC changes causes of former prime minister Tony Blair's heart palpitations from strong coffee and vigorous gym workouts to vodka and exertion in a bedroom.

Wikiscanner also identified a BBC computer as being used to change US president George W. Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" at Wikipedia.

A computer belonging to Reuters news service is listed as adding "mass murderer" to a Wikipedia description of Bush.

Griffith said it appears common for political figures to "whitewash" entries by replacing negative adjectives with flattering ones and that corporations seem inclined to insert criticism of competitors.

Politicians and corporations show similar tendencies to remove critical information, according to Griffith.

Griffith still considers the collaborative open Wikipedia model reliable.

"Overall -- especially for non-controversial topics -- Wikipedia already works," Griffith says on his website.

"For controversial topics, Wikipedia can be made more reliable through techniques like this one ... to counteract vandalism and disinformation."




Aahhh, the good ol' CIA. It was only a matter of time before they started this sort of thing.

I think everyone should check out the site. Also check out exactly what groups tried to edit what entries - you may (or may not) be surprised at some of the stuff these people are trying to pass off as reality.

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Not only do they track who is editing topics, they show what topics these people have tried to edit.

In the case of the CIA, basically all facts on Iran, Iraq, Cuba, and any other nation the bush admin has said nasty things about.

Then we have the RNC (republican national convention), who have defaced many democratic entries, a few pertaining to Iran and Iraq, and of course they tried to rewrite the bio of Keith Olbermans.

Seems the bush admin is trying to get its lackeys to rewrite the wiki to match the standards of the conservapedia.

[Lapin]

This is ridiculous.

They made Conservapedia for a reason. Go use that! And for that matter, liberals can stuff it too. Don't change facts.

Though, admittedly, the Bush thing was funny.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Aahhh, the good ol' CIA. It was only a matter of time before they started this sort of thing.

Har. Are you really stupid enough to think such a trivial and idiotic change was approved by a Director at the CIA?

IF this was a confirmed instance (which it stands as being independently unverifiable), it would obviously reflect someone using their personal time on a government computer to deface self-written articles on the internet. People do it at their corporate jobs all the time. Federal ones are no different. People still goof off on the net.

If you honestly believe this, then the wild and obtuse idea of yours would also apply to the BBC and Reuters engaging in psychological operations via the internet. And they're supposed to be unbiased new agencies. Hmmm... And ones you often cite.

Hell, according to the Wiki article, organizations such as Amnesty International, MySpace, al-Jazeera, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee do the same thing. That means they have all adopted official policies of defacing articles on the internet. No doubt these many half-witted changes were approved by management and were done as official work.

Yeah, give it a thought or two more tomorrow. Maybe it'll dawn on you how stupid your assumptions (which are a farce because you don't really believe this stuff) seem.

[Cyntrox]

That site is offline

While I don't doubt that the CIA might edit stuff, it would be more subtle. This is just too obvious.

[Lapin]

I just think people are ridiculous.

I don't think the CIA cares much about Wikipedia as a whole.

[MaguMan]

Yeah, if the CIA was going to engage in such, I think they're familiar enough with electronic tracking and information systems to know not to use their own network for doing that bullshit officially.

[Lapin]

People should do work while they are at work. Not screw around with Wiki articles. Especially at the CIA.

To the CIA: Watch your employees. My tax dollars arn't paying for them to screw around on BS sites all day!

[CptSternn]

If you go the the site...

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

It's got a whole list of companies who edited entries. Check out Halliburton guess what entries they edited? Check out which other government agencies edited what.

There is also a long list of .GOV and .MIL addresses who edited all sorts of bush-related materials.

Were they 'ordered' to do it? I never claimed they were. The article never stated they were. Thats not the point. The fact that right wing persons, employed by the bush administration have taken it upon themselves to edit encyclopedia entries to make them fit in line with the rhetoric bush spews is worrying enough.

These people don't like to see the truth as reported by people outside their circles. They then change the truth, to match what they feel is reality, no matter if it means lying or not. Adding the word 'terrorist' to every other paragraph about every country that bush doesn't like, deleting paragraphs about how no other countries sent in troops to Iraq, and that a majority of the world disagreed with bush on Iraq.

The little things that they try and 'modify' to add some sort of high tech fig leaf to their leaders actions in efforts to convince themselves, and in their minds change the opinion of the world.

Only problem is, the only people who feed into bush's tripe are the employees who work for him, and those who are too afraid to see their government for what it really is.

It's more disturbing to see people *not* ordered to do this, involved in this. That means they have been brainwashed to the point they believe on some level that what they are doing is correcting errors, when in reality they are bending the truth to meet the needs of their leader, and are doing it without any guidance based on what they have been spoon-fed for so long.

Now that is quite a troubling thought...

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The fact that right wing persons, employed by the bush administration have taken it upon themselves to edit encyclopedia entries to make them fit in line with the rhetoric bush spews is worrying enough.

People on the left do it, too. Only difference is that their edits are anti-Bush, rather than pro-Bush. And I'm sure a lot of them are also paid to do it by the Democratic Party, or by whoever's running for whatever office.

You shouldn't blame just the Bushites. Blame everyone who participates in this.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

You shouldn't blame just the Bushites. Blame everyone who participates in this.

Absolutely. The world of politics knows no moral boundaries. Thankfully we have hackers like this one creating programs to track edits. Let's hope that Wikipedia approaches this guy and starts using his program internally.

[CptSternn]

I'm not saying they aren't guilty of it, but look at the links there to the stats.

The dems edit bush entries, and the changes they make for the most part are intended to be funny. Some aren't but a large swatch appear to be.

The repubs are editing entries on Cuba, N. Korea, Iraq, and they aren't even trying to be funny. They are actually trying to re-write history.

People changing the entry to say bush's middle name is WANKER instead of WALKER doesn't bother me half as much as people changing the entry on Iraq to claim WMD's were found and that 'a majority of the world including most countries in the UN supported the attack'.

I don't think either group should be able to do it, but it's more disturbing when you see *what* exactly they are trying to edit and then put that together with what they are preaching to the people.

Thats what should bother everyone.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Were they 'ordered' to do it? I never claimed they were.

You attributed responsibility to that agency as a whole. Getting "clearance" to perform psychological activities over mass-broadcast networks is not being, "ordered." Nice attempt at the weasel words though. How about we take a second-take at what you said again:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Aahhh, the good ol' CIA. It was only a matter of time before they started this sort of thing.

Yeah, you attributed responsibly to the entire agency. Do you stand by this? Or would you like the back-pedal more? Cause I enjoy watching you try while I'm holding down the brakes on your propaganda bicycle.

deleting paragraphs about how no other countries sent in troops to Iraq, and that a majority of the world disagreed with bush on Iraq.

Ummm... those should have been deleted as they're not true. The coalition of forces sent into Iraq in 2003 was larger than a UN-mandated coalition sent in in the first Gulf War regarding the invasion of Kuwait. Nations that shouldn't even give a shit like Mongolia sent troops to Iraq. That's why they have US soldiers at press conferences speaking on behalf of the, "Multinational Forces in Iraq."

If you'd like to take a look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multina..._force_in_Iraq

I willing to bet you even think that the Vietnam conflict was only fought by American forces. It belittles the participation of other countries who have spilled blood for these wars like South Korea, the Philippines, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the South Vietnamese (who, like the Iraqis now, took the heaviest hit in fighting insurgents, enemy forces, and foreign forces), and others.

You'll win more arguments and make more points if you go back and read the history books instead of trying to rewrite them.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

You attributed responsibility to that agency as a whole. Getting "clearance" to perform psychological activities over mass-broadcast networks is not being, "ordered." Nice attempt at the weasel words though. How about we take a second-take at what you said again:

Yeah, you attributed responsibly to the entire agency. Do you stand by this? Or would you like the back-pedal more? Cause I enjoy watching you try while I'm holding down the brakes on your propaganda bicycle.

Propoganda? Are you disputing the fact the CIA actually DID edit the entries? They DID act in bad faith, again. Thats not 'propoganda' thats the CIA doing what it does best - lying and trying to get the public to believe it.

Ummm... those should have been deleted as they're not true. The coalition of forces sent into Iraq in 2003 was larger than a UN-mandated coalition sent in in the first Gulf War regarding the invasion of Kuwait.

Move your pro-war stance to the Iraq thread if you want to discuss this. I'll be happy to discuss the finer points of how America is getting its ass kicked in the Middle East with you there.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Propoganda? Are you disputing the fact the CIA actually DID edit the entries? They DID act in bad faith, again. Thats not 'propoganda' thats the CIA doing what it does best - lying and trying to get the public to believe it.

I think what MaguMan and others are trying to point out is that just because an edit came from a CIA facility does not mean that it came as a result of CIA policy. I don't think that even a local, town politician would be dumb enough to do that.

I bet there is a recently-generated CIA policy that people are *not* to edit Wikipedia entries on the job, and a bunch of people got nasty emails who actually did have IP tracks to Wikipedia, at the very least.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Propoganda? Are you disputing the fact the CIA actually DID edit the entries? They DID act in bad faith, again. Thats not 'propoganda' thats the CIA doing what it does best - lying and trying to get the public to believe it.

Originally Posted by delicti

I think what MaguMan and others are trying to point out is that just because an edit came from a CIA facility does not mean that it came as a result of CIA policy. I don't think that even a local, town politician would be dumb enough to do that.

I bet there is a recently-generated CIA policy that people are *not* to edit Wikipedia entries on the job, and a bunch of people got nasty emails who actually did have IP tracks to Wikipedia, at the very least.

It appears as though delicti and everyone else who's been following this thread (minus you) has picked up on this seemingly elementary point. I don't think I can dumb-it-down for you anymore than it already has been by numerous board members posting to this thread.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Move your pro-war stance to the Iraq thread if you want to discuss this. I'll be happy to discuss the finer points of how America is getting its ass kicked in the Middle East with you there.

Ummm, y-e-a-h... I really don't care about that, your views, or anything of the sort. What I'm keeping here is the corrections to your factual inaccuracies and misconceptions about history. If you apparently have no substantial rebuttal to those, I believe we're done here.

[CptSternn]

If a police officer beats a suspect in custody, does that mean that they were ordered to do so? If a prison guard abuses a prisoner, does that mean they were ordered to do so?

Does it matter in the end? If the administration creates an environment which caters to such illegal behaviour, no matter if it is trying to re-write history or abusing the civil rights of people, the 'authorisation' required is not the issue as much as their actions are.

This is just another example of bush-ites abusing their authority.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I

These people don't like to see the truth as reported by people outside their circles. They then change the truth, to match what they feel is reality, no matter if it means lying or not. That means they have been brainwashed to the point they believe on some level that what they are doing is correcting errors, when in reality they are bending the truth to meet the needs of their leader, and are doing it without any guidance based on what they have been spoon-fed for so long.

Now that is quite a troubling thought...

Sternn, I have read far too many of your posts and every time I have been too overwhelmed with frustration to even begin to reply. But this part jumped out at me. Allow me to reference the dictionary:

pro·jec·tion Pronunciation[pruh-jek-shuhn] –noun
11. Psychology.
a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

In my experience, when someone is an ideologue, no matter what their ideology is, the result is always the same. The facts get molded to their views. The same criticism gets thrown at the "enemy" - all opposing arguments are dismissed as "paranoia," "propaganda," "brainwashing," etc. There is usually a sense of self-righteousness or higher intelligence on the part of the ideologue. Barring a life changing experience, they will not and maybe cannot change their rigid ways of thinking. I find it sad seeing people wasting so much mental energy and emotion on an ideology when they could be putting it towards more valuable pursuits.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If a police officer beats a suspect in custody, does that mean that they were ordered to do so? If a prison guard abuses a prisoner, does that mean they were ordered to do so?

Originally Posted by MaguMan

You attributed responsibility to that agency as a whole. Getting "clearance" to perform psychological activities over mass-broadcast networks is not being, "ordered." Nice attempt at the weasel words though. How about we take a second-take at what you said again:

"Aahhh, the good ol' CIA. It was only a matter of time before they started this sort of thing."

Yeah, you attributed responsibly to the entire agency. Do you stand by this? Or would you like the back-pedal more? Cause I enjoy watching you try while I'm holding down the brakes on your propaganda bicycle.

Ahhh... bare minimum effort required to make a retort. This is about as fun as driving nails into concrete. No matter how hard you hammer the point in, the other side is just to dense for it to get through.

This is just another example of bush-ites abusing their authority.

See above.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Ahhh... bare minimum effort required to make a retort. This is about as fun as driving nails into concrete. No matter how hard you hammer the point in, the other side is just to dense for it to get through.


See above.

You have to love it when pro-bushites selectively forget things like Abu Gharib when they want to talk about the war and the atrocities the Americans are inflicting on the citizens of another culture.

Your attempts to derail the discussion and ignore the fact that these same people are involved in much worse crimes, shows the levels your willing to dilute your own reality to ignore the truth.

Those involved in all the other heinous war crimes all claimed they too were not ordered. Doesn't make their actions any less disgusting, and by no means does it make it 'ok' as you seem to think.

But good to know where you stand on the subject, and that things like torture, murder, ****, sexual assault, and the like are things you support.

[MaguMan]

Awww... you think you know something about the American intelligence community. That's so cute.

I don't know what's cuter though. That you pretend to know the typical difference between an analyst and other support staff at Langely and case officers and field officers stationed overseas, or the fact that you're still using the word, "Ordered," as though I haven't already discredited the use of that word and the implications you're trying to use it for.

Oh, and save your little cry-baby tirades for those other threads. I could give two shits less about your green opinions and ideas. But really,that's all your interested in, huh? Facts don't seem to be working in your favor in this dicussion, huh? Yeah, I noticed that too.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Awww... you think you know something about the American intelligence community. That's so cute.

'American intelligence' - thats the oxymoron of the day.

or the fact that you're still using the word, "Ordered," as though I haven't already discredited the use of that word and the implications you're trying to use it for.

You are the one who used the word 'ordered'. I implicitly did not use that word, and stated that I never even implied as such. Just because you repeat it over and over and claim I said it doesn't make it true. You are the one who made this claim, and then tried to attribute it to me. Your post is the first to mention such claims.

Anyone reading the above post will see you are the one who brought up that word, and again you try and claim I said it, when in reality you are the one who is making these false accusations in efforts to detract and change the topic, since you obviously have no real rebuttal on the matter.

Oh, and save your little cry-baby tirades for those other threads. I could give two shits less about your green opinions and ideas. But really,that's all your interested in, huh? Facts don't seem to be working in your favor in this dicussion, huh? Yeah, I noticed that too.

Name calling, the last bastion of a weak man with an even weaker argument.

For a man who doesn't care about my ideas and opinions, you do seem to spend a lot of time responding to my posts.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

'American intelligence' - thats the oxymoron of the day.

Yeah, especially when you look at your blathering entries about how they fooled the entire world with 9/11. Contradicting yourself is such a funny thing to watch happen over and over.

You are the one who used the word 'ordered'.

Quote me using that word before I made responses discrediting your own use of it. I believe you're even trying to go so far as to say Bush, "ordered," it. Lord only knows how your gerbil wheel spins.

On a relevant note, I think you're confused by this:

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Har. Are you really stupid enough to think such a trivial and idiotic change was approved by a Director at the CIA?

Yeah. If you think that equates to being, "ordered," then maybe you should stop pretending to know anything about the CIA. Naw... I think it's already been established you're blissfully ignorant of how the intelligence community works and how Langely operates regardless.

Anyone reading the above post will see you are the one who brought up that word, and again you try and claim I said it, when in reality you are the one who is making these false accusations in efforts to detract and change the topic, since you obviously have no real rebuttal on the matter.

Really? Anyone like this...

Originally Posted by delicti

I think what MaguMan and others are trying to point out is that just because an edit came from a CIA facility does not mean that it came as a result of CIA policy. I don't think that even a local, town politician would be dumb enough to do that.

I bet there is a recently-generated CIA policy that people are *not* to edit Wikipedia entries on the job, and a bunch of people got nasty emails who actually did have IP tracks to Wikipedia, at the very least.

?

Name calling, the last bastion of a weak man with an even weaker argument.

Aww... I'm glad you think so. I'd argue that shutting your eyes and not reading other people's posts is, simply because you're not even engaged in the arguement. But hey, who's to say, right?

For a man who doesn't care about my ideas and opinions, you do seem to spend a lot of time responding to my posts.

Cause I get a sick pleasure out of watching you squirm. Haha. Besides, it doesn't take a lot of time to simply repeat myself to you over and over. If anything, it takes you more time to try and weasel around while backpedaling more than a unicyclist.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

But good to know where you stand on the subject, and that things like torture, murder, ****, sexual assault, and the like are things you support.

Name calling, the last bastion of a weak man with an even weaker argument.

So, name calling = bad, but libel = ok? Fascinating ethical distinctions there Sternn.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by MaguMan

Cause I get a sick pleasure out of watching you squirm. Haha. Besides, it doesn't take a lot of time to simply repeat myself to you over and over. If anything, it takes you more time to try and weasel around while backpedaling more than a unicyclist.

Back pedal? You sure have an inflated view of yerself mate. Your the one arguing with yourself.

In fact, it appears you may have joined a year ago, yet you only have posted a few times, seemingly all your posts are replies to mine.

Thats kinda odd. You must really be fascinated with me, to lurk so long, and now just hop right in to a discussion, and attempt to change the topic by continuing to throw out personal insults.

Personally, I have better things to do than read your replies. Welcome to my IGNORE list.

[MaguMan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You sure have an inflated view of yerself mate. ... You must really be fascinated with me

Oh, the sweet blissful smell of irony...

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Personally, I have better things to do than read your replies. Welcome to my IGNORE list.

...followed up by a hint of defeat.

Thank you for playing.