Slashdot Mirror
US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
surfi writes "As The Inquirer points out, someone with a House of Representatives IP address has been feeding propaganda into the 'invasion of Iraq' article on Wikipedia."
Well at least they are in good company with trustworthy institutions like
the CIA and the Vatican.
I know "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia" is a cool title, but seriously, does anyone think the US government, the CIA or the Vatican would be stupid enough to get caught if they actually wanted to influence a wikipedia article?
They'd probably at the very least get their 'operatives' to go home, get one of those free AOL CDs (etc), and do it from a public IP range.
What's more likely is that this is someone who got bored at work (at the Vatican etc), and decided to put their personal opinions in. The nature of their work usually implies their beliefs are coincident with that of their employers.
As for TFA, it states "One has to wonder how reliable an encyclopaedia is when it peddles government propaganda in an almost Orwellian manner"; Seems a bit like FUD to me. The whole point of wikipedia is that it is constantly peer reviewed. If things are incorrect, people will eventually correct them - I fail to see how that's Orwellian. If anything, changing pages in this manner actually brings MORE attention to the issue.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
You mean individuals within the government can edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", too?
*Pause for stunned silence*
Or do we only let people not affiliated with governments edit Wikipedia? Or perhaps only from home?
Or perhaps we'd prefer that governments edit Wikipedia from unattributable IP addresses...?
Or could it be that a person with a "House of Representatives IP address" is actually acting of his or her own will, making what they feel are appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article, which can be vetted, reversed, modified, and discussed, as can any change on Wikipedia?
How does one person with a House IP equate to "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia"? The biggest surprise about this story is that it didn't read "Posted by kdawson". Seriously, is this the kind of politically-charged meaningless garbage that passes for front-page material on slashdot now?
Oh, wait, I guess I must speaking for the government now, and not myself. Perhaps this post is even propaganda...after all, anyone who works for "the government" can't possibly have their own views and beliefs, some of which might even differ from others. Oh, it's the Weekly Standard, so it doesn't count? This whole article is couched in assertions such as it being "bizarre" to make a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Except that such a connection was explored in various ways for a decade, long before Bush was in office.Oops.
No link was ever really substantive, but there were links, and that shouldn't be surprising in the region. But that isn't even the point.
Those who want to paint all these issues as black and white, or say that some official or another "lied" about complex issues related to WMD in Iraq, OIF, etc., are the ones who are effectively the liars -- by ignoring everything that doesn't neatly support their own political positions. They lap up the new Iran NIE like it's gospel, while simultaneously writing off anything else that doesn't support their own views as lies. How convenient...and disgusting, for people who fancy themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
You and your precious online encyclopedia. The one that can be edited by anyone. The one that contains absolutely no bias. It's so cute.
Why aren't we embracing their changes and using the fact that they've changed it as a historical fact in and of itself?
Wikipedia isn't just the article at any given point in time. It's the article throughout it's whole history, changes and differences intact. By it's very nature as a (mostly) amatuer-penned encylopedia, any given article is going to be filled with bias one way or another. Assuming that references exist throughout the history of the article, then you should be able to mostly eliminate bias by reading through the whole thing, changes by both sides and all.
-mcgrew (latest blagh)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Why is it a bad thing if our government representatives, staff and employees are contributing to Wikipedia? Its no worst than yellow journalism or biased professors at a university. For that matter can't Saddam supporters contribute also? Biased information is great for historical reasons, all we really need is attribution so we can judge the bias ourselves.
What I found more interesting is that apparently the Register doesn't like Wikipedia because they refer to it as "whackypedia", and the statement that the edits were made by a "Bush friendly" source inside the House. Maybe the Bush friendly angle is true -- the Register article asserts it to be so without quoting the edits or commenting, but there is no way to tell by an IP address.
Which tells me that the Register article is basically shoddy journalism. No fact digging, no fact checking, polemics instead of the who what when why where that journalism is supposed to accomplish. So -- with all due respect to GOOD journalism, and while not a Bushie or US Govt. fan, I have to say that this tidbit is yellow all under.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
And even if it was the House (big "if") that made the changes; it's not propoganda. If anything, most of the changes seem grammatical in nature. The changes to the context only made them seem more speculatory (which is exactly what they need to be when no citation is given).
Sorry, as much as I'd like to scream Foul Play on this one; I can't.
Except that 'constant peer review' means that if two people disagree on which facts are pertinent to an entry. The last person to get bored gets their version to stand. /. style moderation and karma system so that any peer can review it without having to change it and indicate to other which are the best entries and editors.
I've had this happen so very rarely edit.
What is needed is a
They don't realize that you can't hide stuff like this on the internet. Did it not even occur to them that it would be changed back five minutes later?
Technoli
The edits were spelled correctly and the grammar was tolerable... I guess the culprit is not from the Oval Office.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It is alledged by some that there is no evidence that there is a government policy to screw with Wikipedia. Claiming that the US government is manipulating Wikipedia due to some IP numbers matching vandals is believed by some to be like claiming that the University of Washington is manipulating Wikipedia for the same reason. This of course does not disprove a relationship aimed at bringing harm to the United States.
There, the house of representatives fixed that for ya.
I would also like to point out the date on the edit linked in the article:
Revision as of 17:49, 12 August 2005
FairTax baby!
[INSERT GROUP HERE] Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
This has now become so commonplace that it really shouldn't surprise anyone or even be considered news. Answer this question: they've been "caught" -- now what? Will Jimmy Wales declare war on the U.S. Government or the Catholic Religion? This isn't even going to generate enough interest in the mainstream media to become a blip on the national radar. I also imagine the average American or Catholic probably doesn't even know what Wikipedia is.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
"Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social background can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal."
I don't see any rules against government, people editing their own pages, etc. Only that facts be added, if they aren't they should be removed.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
only unbiased contributions should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. That's a simple rule to implement, right?
stuff |
What's the difference? Wikipedia is supposedly self-editing, and self-correcting so what exactly do you mean by "manipulating." Every Wikipedia user "manipulates" content don't they?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Er. Isn't the link to a publication called "The Inquirer", not the Register. Great fact checking, there...
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.
And here I was expecting some Dan Brownesque intrigue of large-scale controversial religious/historical edits. Anyone consider these "manipulations" are just some random user who happens to be on the network owned by the "manipulating organization"?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I know that this insertion of propoganda was not appropriate but hypothetically speaking on the idea of US Government representatives writing in wikipedia, I'd argue this is a good thing (if they can follow the guidelines).
..." or "The current cost of the war according to the GAO is ". I'd rather hear it from "the horses mouth" than the condensed version from news organizations who report the news as it meets an agenda.
Maybe my understanding is off, but wouldn't the US government be the perfect entity to write encyclopedia article given that they are the primary source in the scope of their job? Would the US Forest Service agent who was present in the California Wildfires in 2007 be the perfect source to write (if he could be objective, and without bias) of the factual events of the fires, such as "At 8PM 27 fire engines from 6 counties began working on and achieved containment at 10PM". Or In a "perfect" system, would not an encyclopedia only contain factual data such as "On 12/12/2007, this person was quoted as saying
Even from elected officials, such as congressmen, I think it would be great to have themselves or staff or a Gov't official append their voting record to their wikipedia page. I think having a wikipedia page for every bill voted on in congress with a short summary, the bills sponsor, the committee's vote, and the houses of congresses voting record, along with any Congressional Record indexing information would be a very useful resource, and one that would give Wikipedia's flexibility and limitless nature (as opposed to a print encyclopedia) a real advantage.
Just having the data there is a valuable work as other contributors help grind the content down to a consensual view. Someone just has to get the ball rolling and if the original author does a great job, we'll get a solid article sooner than if we start with a crap one.
I'd say the only problem would be is that politicians and "neutral-point-of-view" don't usually go hand in hand, but you have a certain level of bias in any peice of writing.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
The changes that insert some also tend to put alleged on it. The edit linked took some data that was written that could be considered putting the invasion of Iraq in a bad light and softening it up with 'somes' and 'alleged', to make it seem like less strong/credible statements.
Note also, the first edit, where the edit takes existing 'alleged' out of the picture.
Basically, the spin on the article pre-edit was things showing the invasion in a bad light were presented more like hard facts, while the elements that were put forth as justifications were relegated to mere allegations. The edit reversed the situation to make the anti-war points allegations and the supporting points factual.
The last bit of substantial edit looks like arguing in the body of the article. Nothing was removed, but what was added looked more appropriate for the Talk section rather than to end up with a paragraph that states something followed by a statement essentially declaring that paragraph to be irrelevant to the article subject.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Taking a look at the Wiki page on Adams, I see that not only the reference to evidence is gone, but also, any reference to the murder as well. Gee... a change that has stood up to public scrutiny within Wiki... hmm -- think that means that there was some basis to the edit?
Meantime, the edit is placed aside others which change W's name to "Wanker", a description of Rush Limbaugh and his audience to insults, and other juvenile character attacks.
Nice anti-Catholic hatchet job, there, dude...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
If the Government cannot edit Wikipedia as it sees fit, then the terrorists have already won!!!
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Sorry to indulge the off-topic troll of the parent, but I'd like to state a common sense point lest other get sucked into this fallacious line of reasoning.
I agree that people have a tendency to accept things that confirm what they'd like (or have already chosen) to believe and ignore or doubt those that do not. This is a ubiquitous natural psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias, and it is not limited to any particular political group (though you might like to believe so). I further agree that like almost any matter of intelligence, the question of whether or not Iraq had WMDs was murky, and I believe many people with knowledge of intelligence believed in good faith that they did. The people selling the Iraq war didn't not lie about the existence of WMDs, but they did make false statements.
There were basically two sorts of falsehoods that were told in the run-up to the war. The first were specific pieces of evidence that were repeated to the public after it was widely known within the government that those pieces had been discredited (or cast into very serious doubt). These include statements about aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, and others. The second set of falsehoods were statements not about the evidence but about the level of certainty. When Bush administration officials said they believed Iraq had WMDs or that they had evidence of an Iraqi WMD program they were likely telling the truth. However, when, for example, Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," or President Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," or when Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are..." those were false statements. There remained doubt. There remained a lack of direct, verifiable, incontravertible evidence of the WMDs (e.g. pictures of the weapons, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis). As a result, those statements were simply and manifestly false.
Now, you can get into a whole semantic argument over whether they were lies or just false statements, based on whether they just misunderstood what they got from the intelligence community and so on. I think it's hard to make that argument given that in some instances (on the specific pieces of intel) people like Cheney were corrected by intelligence officials but continued to make the statements. In any case, from my perspective it's a moot point. Whether they made the false statements due to duplicity or just incompetence, the effect is the same, and it still marks them as unfit for their respective positions. There is no sufficient excuse for making false statements, that are either patently false or easily can be verified to be false, to the nation on a subject so dire as whether to go to war.
If the Bush administration had simply said, "we have intelligence that makes of believe Iraq has WMDs" and put forward what was, as far as they knew at the time, fairly reliable intelligence, then I would say they did not lie. They made a mistake, but, when it comes to intelligence, mistakes happen. But they did not do merely that; they included highly dubious or discredited evidence and stated that there was "no doubt". They made false statements to the nation, and I would say they lied.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Given the hundreds of millions required to be spent to gain the Whitehouse... We have the CEOs or other high ranking executive officers of various multi-nationals involved. I'm not convinced that incompetence is the explanation. For this or any of their other actions.
Deleted
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence report. Who is now claiming there was a viable working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Are you? Just admit it, don't weasel around or try to dodge the damn question.
Now, your original post.
First, you try to set up a straw man. There is no question that people in government can and should edit wikipedia. You bring it up like its some kind of shocker. The question is, are the edits rational, unbiased, and accurate; and, is it okay for public officials to edit wikipedia using taxpayer funded equipment? If a public official or an employee of a public official does something using taxpayer funded equipment, it is completely fair to say, "The government did it." Can you refute that?
Next, you do the same thing I do to you. You insinuate that kdawson is a political ideologue and his ideas should be dismissed out of hand. Hypocrite.
It is bizarre to make a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, not bizarre. Completely understandable given the stated aims of neo-cons to create a new enemy for the US to rally around. Ever read the manifesto by Project for a New American Century which came out before 9/11 and basically said, "We need to manufacture a big scary enemy to keep the populace from questioning our actions?"
You are such a sophist. We are the ones who are ignoring evidence that contradicts our position? That's rich. You are considering all sides and taking the reasoned, logical path, I suppose, while your opponents simply aren't looking at the big picture. Guess what, we HAVE considered both sides. One of them is just full of shit. That is our logical, reasoned conclusion based on all available evidence. You are the one sticking to an unreasonable position despite all evidence. You are the one setting up straw men to win arguments. You are the one making subtle ad hominem attacks to discredit your opponents. You do everything you accuse your opponents of, you hypocrite.
You want to know why I don't bother to argue with you point by point and just point out who and what you are? You aren't in this to debate a position. You are not capable of changing your mind or admitting wrong for yourself or your country. You argue only to win people over to your way of thinking, and you will use any tactic to do so. Debating with you is pointless.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
While it is very easy to spot abuse and propaganda on Wikipedia one thing is for sure, wikipedia is only one of the many places this happens on. Im much more concerned with how governments abuse and plant stuff in mainstream media where i cant see who/when/what someone changes. If you can see what has changed you can build your own opinion and investigate further, something not so easy with daily papers or tv.
HTTP/1.1 400
Are you sure that's the correct IP address? When I do a reverse DNS lookup on it, I get what appears to be a grammar school in Illinois:
$ host 209.174.104.2
2.104.174.209.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer host-209-174-104-2.kewanee.k12.il.us.
Yes, someone at that IP address made some ideologically slanted edits. However, if you go and look at the talk page for that IP address, you will note that there are *many* warnings which have been issued to that user. If you go further, and take a second to look at the pages it was being warned about vandalizing, several of the 'bad' edits are things like "Tom Sucks!" and other edits which were almost certainly made by interns, not at the behest of some nefarious Representative but out of mundane immaturity. So, while a serious, ideologically slanted edit like the one highlighted in the summary may well be the result of government misdeeds, it is clear that there are plenty of people who are capable of editing from that location, and that it is not provable that the edits were...'government' sanctioned.
At the time of the invasion, Most Dems, Reps, and governments of the world believed Iraq had WMDs.
Yes. That's why so many countries jumped at the chance to join the "coalition of the willing."
Even Iraqi leadership believed it.
Only that one really cool minister of misinformation. "The infidels will die on their swords!" That was classic.
It should also be noted that a grand jury bent on charging the administration concerning the Valerie Plame "revelation" wasn't able to come up with any charges whatsoever except for a single perjury.
First, this is an interesting aside, which has nothing at all to do with the lead-up to war, except that it was a leak concerning the wife of the guy who *told the US government the yellowcake documents were fake.* He did this before the war. He did this before President Bush cited those documents as an excuse to go to war.
The government had no excuse to continue to push those documents as evidence, yet they did. This, along with the revelation that the "foreign government intelligence" (intelligence documents from Britain) were also faked, indicate the President and his cabinet had every intention of misleading the population into war, no matter the cost, and without probable reason.
Your post makes me wonder: are you even from this universe? Have you stepped in through some portal from a strange alternate universe in which the President actually had a case for war? Or were you merely ignoring outside news sources during the lead-up to war?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If a pretty white woman were waterboarded by 2 black cops in Atlanta, and died during the "interrogation", and then they packed the body in ice and faked the death certificate to say "heart problems," there would be no question in anyone's mind, least of all of the Attorney General or Vice President, that this constituted torture.
Our uncertainty as to what torture means is a sham--it's only torture because it's brown people who worship Allah and look sort of like towelheads. And everyone damn well knows that.
Many people thought that Iraq had WMD, as in they had a gut feeling. But you don't go to war based on a seat-of-your-pants gut feeling, unless you're a moron who considers yourself a "gut thinker."
I'm sure Clinton (either or both) and Gore both thought he did, but the fact remains that I was reading articles well before we invaded/liberated Iraq saying that high-level State Dept and CIA officials were saying that there was no evidence that Iraq had an active program.
UN weapons inspectors found nothing, even when they followed up on every lead the US Govt fed to them. Inspectors were looking for weapons, and found none. Blix had access to the disputed sites, and found nothing, even when the US "helped" with their wild-goose-chase hints. Blix was still inspecting when the USA threw the weapons inspectors out so they could start the war.
So who is revising history again?