Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Entries On NYPD Violence Get Some Edits From Headquarters
First reported by Capital, and picked up by Reason, it seems that "Computers operating on the New York Police Department’s computer network at its 1 Police Plaza headquarters have been used to alter Wikipedia pages containing details of alleged police brutality."
Computer users identified by Capital as working on the NYPD headquarters' network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations, including entries for Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses.
Besides edits to entries about specific instances of misconduct, edits from the same NYPD IP blocks were discovered in Wikipedia entries about the city's stop-and-frisk program and about NYPD misconduct more generally.
Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.
Control of information is Paramount in maintaining a docile populace.
Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.
some of the stuff is clear cut abuse. on the other hand some of it is semantics. I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done. The summary leaves a lot of details out (prime click bait!!!)
But in the end, the cops should not be making edits to these things on wiki. im pretty sure the EULA states (or did in the past) that one cannot update articles on itself. meaning NYPD should not be making any of these edits
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That being said, if these are actually part of someone's job, they should really be making press releases or blog entries where relevant and letting the community update wikipedia; or they should be disclosing who they are when relevant. (E.g. trying to remove the Sean Bell shooting incident--plenty of stories become non-stories over time, but someone with an incentive to remove the story probably shouldn't be able to do so without disclosing their relationship to the subject matter.)
You set up an open access, anyone can edit, system like Wikipedia, and you're surprised when people edit it when they might have a vested interest?
This is the very reason why Wikipedia is a poor source on some political or controversial issues. Usually it's better for some of the technical issues, but not always.
It's a powerful tool, but trying to make it something that it's not, a guaranteed to be unbiased source, is a bit unrealistic.
If you can't read about it on the internet, it didn't happen.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What sorts of people are involved with these shootings and murders? I mean, what are the demographics like of the people involved, both as victims and perpetrators?
The elimination of racist police tactics is already paying dividends. Shootings and murder are already up over 20%!
http://xkcd.com/552/
and the fact that Taisha Allen (one of the two people who recorded the choking death of Eric Garner) has been arrested and beaten by NYPD officers?
http://rt.com/usa/240261-nypd-...
It's public domain now, bitches! Edit THIS!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Wow with all the wonderful stuff turning up in investigations such as civil forfeiture (direct theft from citizens to fund departments and even individual cops in some cases), racial harassment, straight up treating all citizens like violent criminals, shooting to kill for minor offenses, I have no idea why people no longer respect them.
However this is a good move by police. Vandalizing Wikipedia pages to push an agenda, while wildly popular, will likely do more harm than good and lower public respect further. I hope they buy self replicating robot armies to police citizens because if they keep up the current bullshit tactics for too many years longer there really will be mass rioting everywhere and more random murders of police. Personally i kind of doubt they will actually pull it together and police effectively and gain back the respect they lost.
"Cover up" and "media management" are US traditions.
"Justice" died a long time ago. About the same time the bar association came on the scene.
Expecting anything like "honesty" from a department that shoots or otherwise kills unarmed civilians is insane.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I've seen a lot of dicy things go down on wikipedia over the years.
They're generally okay with non-controversial information of a very general nature. But anything that gets political or very specific... and you can't trust them.
It isn't just that people will go in or hire people to go in and change things in their favor. The community itself is often biased or just lazy.
They'll do things like make a statement without attribution or proof and then if you say it is wrong they ask you for proof.
Or they'll say something is true and use as evidence a blog post or a tweet as if that's evidence of anything. And then if you say that is wrong... they'll say "where is your proof"... never mind that they were posting assertions without proof in the first place and the burden of proof was on them.
It is an on going thing on wikipedia.
I like the service a lot, it has a lot of really good information on it... it is just very vulnerable to assholes and lazy idiots.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Could have been anyone using NYPD network. Anyone.
should be executed for treason. including mayor bloomberg.
Cops admit that they catch most criminals because the criminals are just plain stupid.
Good to know that the cops aren't much different.
The Internet isn't off limits to the Police. Does Wikipedia not permit official entities use of their system for legitimate purposes? Providing information is a key function of government. I certainly expect executive level government workers to know the state of their charge on the Internet — office holders, statistics, property, etc. Even modest governments maintain extensive IT operations, often centered on courts and incarceration. Sheriffs are rather prolific on the Internet.
Duck and cover!
Stop and frisk!
Drop and roll!
Lock and load!
Police have the same right to edit Wikipedia as anyone else.
Not a fan of police and other establishment brutality, but haven't these guys heard of Tor?
There are two sides to every argument. Obviously the NYPD changing these entries goes against the terms of use. But if someone from Al Sharpton's National Action Network created the entry in the first place it seems like just as much of a violation. I wouldn't expect accurate information from either side.
In the linked articlea are given example of the edits: " “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.” “[P]ush Garner's face into the sidewalk” was changed to “push Garner's head down into the sidewalk.” “Use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was changed to “Use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.” The sentence, “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them,” was added to the description of the incident. Instances of the word “chokehold” were replaced twice, once to “chokehold or headlock,” and once to “respiratory distress.”" How is that even a problem to wikipedia, since it's more precise? What is even the problem since Justice ruled not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the death of Eric Garner? Later on: "A user on the NYPD network made a second edit to the Sean Bell entry on Dec. 23, 2009, this time changing “one Latino and two African-American men were shot a total of fifty times” to “one Latino and two African-American men were shot at a total of fifty times” " Once again, it's more precise. How such edit cannot be seen as an improvement to wikipedia. Do people need to picture corpse with 50 bullets or just imagine 50 bullets being shot, while maybe only 2 or 3 actually reach the target?
Nothing to see here. It's just that the NYPD shares some IP blocks with the Ministry of Truth.
because the choke hold was specifically illegal under NYPD rules? Because it kills people by, um, choking, and the guy, um, died because he, um, COULDN'T BREATHE?
Does that, um, answer your STUPID FUCKING QUESTION?
I am the son of a physician, and he was very, VERY good; the kind the other MDs came to when they were stumped. I saw how he and his colleagues protected their own, and I saw how at times that was the right thing to do. I also saw how difficult it was even for other doctors to get rid of a bad doctor, but I saw that it would get done. The quack would get marginalized, get no referrals, get hints about practicing elsewhere, get his reputation shattered among other doctors, etc., right up to being ruthlessly told by the Chief of Staff (my Dad) to get the hell out and find somewhere else to screw up before he got turned in to the law (saw that one; quite an impressive if brief corridor conference). I also saw that the MDs would do the endless due diligence and paperwork and chasing around required to get rid of the true rogues (not just drive away, get licenses stripped), not just because they made the rest look bad but because THEY KILL PEOPLE.
So, I get it that cops stand up for each other; I do, and see how at times it's the right thing to do. But I don't see them turning out the rogues, not even the ones who repeatedly maim and kill and cost huge legal outlays with their brutish behavior.
I will more fully and publicly back the cops in general when I see their professional associations and unions working hard to get rid of the true pigs among them. Not all cops are pigs, but those that ARE pigs must go or we all suffer.
Wikipedia does not have, and has never had, an EULA. There are Guidelines for conflict of interest, but their is no legal requirement that they be followed.
Whilst, that is certainly true. This is still corruption. It definitely warrants a police investigation with disciplinary action (firing of all involved parties).
It's true that no laws or contracts have been violated, but this is a clear betrayal of public trust. The are proper guidelines for addressing factual errors.
This is the equivalent of police officials writing letters to the editor of a news paper for publication under a false name. Or letters to politicians under false names.
I don't grasp why such betrayal of trust is tolerated in the US.