CIA Details Its Wikipedia-Like Tools For Analysts

hhavensteincw writes "If you think selling Web 2.0 in your organization is hard, some early backers of a Wikipedia-like project at the Central Intelligence Agency were called traitors and told they 'would get someone killed' by their efforts. But Intellipedia — the CIA's version of Wikipedia — now is so heavily used by analysts that the agency is using it in its security briefings, according to two of the CIA employees who work on the project. Intellipedia has been expanded since it was first launched so that now it boasts its own YouTube-like channel for video and Flickr-like photo sharing as well as a wiki where workers can debate different intel information."

Comments

I guess

[travelmug]

I don't see how this will improve the accuracy of the information. It will just help poor intel get passed more efficiently.

Re:I guess

[SirLurksAlot]

Efficiency in dissemination is just as important as accuracy. Getting accurate information earlier to more people can save everyone a lot of trouble.

Re:I guess

[dedazo]

Think about it for a second. Intelligence is nothing more than putting lots of disparate little facts together into a semi-coherent view of a given situation. What better than a massive hyperlinked encyclopedia-like information repository for this?

At the expense of sounding slightly ridiculous, imagine how much mileage they're going to get out of the "What links here" function!?

If they use it correctly (and the weakest link here is the prompt input of information) then I can't see this not being anything but good.

Re:I guess

[SirLurksAlot]

True enough, but there are systems in place to mitigate the possibility of inaccurate information. Their wiki is based off of the Wikipedia engine, so they should still have the ability to provide citations (I guess in their case it would be where the intel came from and whether or not the source was reliable.). Edit histories, the ability to revert changes, they should have all of these features. At worst it would be as if the wiki didn't exist, and the intel would still be just as questionable (not that the wiki makes the intel any more credible, it would just be more centralized and up-to-date) as it might've been before.

It makes a lot of sense...

[Coopjust]

Having a collaborative tool that makes it easier to keep profiles up to date is better.

The CIA also doesn't have to worry about vandalism- no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis" when every edit is tied to their name... plus, being in the CIA is serious work, so I'd imagine the maturity level is higher anyways.

Re:WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is"

[SirLurksAlot]

For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.

I'm sure it's still on a need-to-know basis. The article states that anyone with access to certain networks can read the wiki, but there is authorization involved with making edits. I'm also sure that their wiki follows their pre-existing rules about who can access what information, they're not going to suddenly dump a lot of top-secret information into a wiki that everyone has access to.

It is vital, in fact

[Sycraft-fu]

If nobody knows the intelligence information, and nobody can put together a full picture, well then it is useless. For example while hindsight is always 20/20, it still looks as though the government had all the information to put together what was going to happen on 9/11. The problem was, there wasn't a good way of accessing and analyzing it. It wasn't like there was a report saying "Terrorists will hit the towers on this day," it was little fragments all over. Well, all those little fragments ended up doing no good. Nobody was ever able to put it together, and thus there was no warning that would have allowed prevention.

Had there been efficient dissemination of the information, it is possible some analyst would have put it all together and then been able to generate a report that would be acted on.

Re:It is vital, in fact

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well, all those little fragments ended up doing no good. So, in response, we've spent billions and billions of dollars and lots of and lots of street cred gathering up MORE little fragments.
While two hackers in the basement of the Farm put together a wiki for practically nothing.

Those guys ARE traitors, it's not that they might get someone killed - they cut the military-industrial-complex out of the loop, preventing them from making more profits than the oil industry...

Re:Collaboration is a four letter word?

[Magada]

Oh, no... you don't ever mix your rags with your linens. Simple principle of espionage, been around since the world began.

An agent, especially a covert one, needs to have a very clear sense of moral superiority over both enemies and his own sources/helpers (aka collaborators, spies, traitors, freelancers, what have you). If (s)he doesn't, (s)he might turn, be turned, or just abandon the game in disgust.

The guy making that comment has (or affects) zero notion of field work.