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.

19 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Surprise level: 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.

    1. Re:Surprise level: 0 by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.

      Wikipedia does not qualify as evidence--it would not be admissible as evidence of a crime. Don't cry wolf on that because when police really do tamper with evidence, it's a *LOT* more serious than making updates to Wikipedia.

      I have no problem with wikipedia edits for tone or the like originating from NYPD officers, if there are errors or non-neutrality problems in the phrasing of the article, although they should be doing it in off-duty time. I do have trouble with edits that do not cite to their sources, because wikipedia is not supposed to be breaking new stories unless there's been coverage somewhere. At the very least cops should cite to a blog before editing.

    2. Re:Surprise level: 0 by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

      wikipedia is not nor is intended as a primary information source. What information is on there, if it is to remain, is backed by citations to original source.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:Surprise level: 0 by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Surprise level: 0 by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, Wikipedia is not a primary information source. Citation rejected!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Surprise level: 0 by tylikcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's certainly not about evidence tampering.

      But there are two issues here, and conflating them with press releases is misleading. One is a failure to uphold Wikipedia's conflict of interest standards. That's an internal to the community manner, to some extent (I value wikipedia, and it matters a lot to me). This is the same kind of shennanigans that has had IPs of congressional staffers banned after making politically motivated edits. Yo, this isn't supposed to be your platform for spin doctoring, and if you're too close to the subject, step away a bit.

      The other is propaganda. Look, if they are sending out press releases, one hopes they will be clearly marked as such.* But this is why the conflict of interest problem should matter to the rest of us - because this is a way of retelling the story from a particular point of view without marking clearly whose point of view it is. There's certainly plenty to wrestle with, trying to come up with a reasonable unbiased account. And people who are police officers, and people who are sympathetic to the pressures police officers are under should be part of the conversation - just people who are a step removed from the specific subjects being discussed.

      * Yes, it's not unheard of for press releases to get printed as straight news. Stinks to high heaven, but there you are.

  2. Strategy by jargonburn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Control of information is Paramount in maintaining a docile populace.

  3. Mmm... by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.)

  4. Re:NYPD by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.

    First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records". Secondly, Wikipedia is set up that way. People can make edits. Other people can edit the edits. It's bad form to try to bias an article with opinions or to state facts without citations, but it's not illegal. These changes were caught by editors and presumably corrected if they were in error or introduced bias. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This revelation might be embarrassing for the NYPD, but it is hardly criminal.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  5. Re:hmmm by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    im pretty sure the EULA states (or did in the past) that one cannot update articles on itself.

    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.

  6. Re:hmmm by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

    There is a world of difference between a choke hold and an arm bar. One breaks your arm/elbow and you get to live. The other can be used inappropriately and the recipient ends up dead. They are in no way the same.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  7. Re:NYPD by jasonditz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.

  8. Re:NYPD by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?

    What happened to Aaron Schwartz was a tragedy, as it is any time someone takes their own life. But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass), and rewired a router (that's computer trespass) in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them). That's hardly "easily available". Was the justice department wrong to lay charges in that case? If they were wrong to do so, was it because what he did wasn't a crime or because he was a suicide risk due to mental health issues? If the latter, do we allow anyone with mental health problems to get away with any crimes because they would be a suicide risk if arrested and charged?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  9. Is this anything to do with the Garner case? by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  10. Re:hmmm by dirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see the revised police procedure manual now.

    "When a suspect resists, but them in a "warm embrace" by placing your arm around their throat and squeezing."
    "If a suspect does not follow your instructions, give them a "gentle scalp massage" with your night stick."
    "Once a suspect is down, form a "cuddle pile" of 6 or 7 officers on top of them until they stop struggling."

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  11. "Cover up" is a US tradition by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.
  12. Re:NYPD by jeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    Good chance the networking equipment behind those IP addresses was paid for by taxpayers, if not the computers themselves.

    --
    If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
  13. Re:NYPD by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Informative

    But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass),

    You mean he walked in. The door is always open. Hell, there were homeless people living in there at one point. Besides, this is a college campus we are talking about. MIT is an open campus.

    and rewired a router (that's computer trespass)

    That's an unfounded allegation, and "computer trespass" is not recognized in Massachusetts. Really, look it up.

    in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them

    The journal articles are freely available for downloading by anyone for any reason.

    The tragedy is that his life ended before he got a fair trial as none of the allegations against him had any real merit

  14. Re:NYPD by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry but it is illegal for government employees to participate in politics whilst on the taxpayer dime, during working hours. Whilst not at work, using you private equipment and connection, fine, have at it but when at work, electoral laws kick in and tax payer dollars can not be used for political purposes, well, at least they are not meant to be. These laws are being criminally flouted so often at every level in a corrupt marriage between government and news organisations, at the demand of their owners, the major multinational corporations, it all seems rather quaint to expect any of them to obey any laws at all any more with regard to elections.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen