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
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.
It's the police department. Are you suggesting they let anyone waltz in and use their computers?
Police have the same right to edit Wikipedia as anyone else.
Trying to perform "perception management" under the radar is *not* a legitimate function of democratic governance.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
Nothing to see here. It's just that the NYPD shares some IP blocks with the Ministry of Truth.
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.