calius Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries. The only time ive used it is for file formats and mp3 encoding info, techy geek things really, I would never use it for anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) You know, it is possible that a regular guy who happens to work at a particular organisation made a routine edit to an article (as millions of Wikipedia users around the world do), but simply happened to do so from work rather than from home... Just because a CIA/BBC/Democratic Party employee edits an article doesn't mean they edit it to promote any official message from thje CIA/BBC/Democratic Party. I'm at work now, posting using my company's network, so anything I do will trace back to my company - but that doesn't mean that what I'm writing is the policy or views of my company does it?? It just happens to be where I'm posting from. By the same token, a CIA employee trying to mislead the public could easily simply post the edits from a non-CIA (or more likely non-US-government) computer network so that it's not attributable to their organisation - eg a private residence or even an internet cafe or airport wifi network. I do refer to Wikipedia, but I take it with a pinch of salt as I do with any other form of published media (not just limited to the internet, but also newspapers, books, TV programmes etc). Anyone who's ever had to thoroughly research anything knows that you can never completely trust any individual source of information, and Wikipedia is no different. I hear lots of arguments about whether it's trustworthy or not - personally I agree with those who say it isn't, but then I don't think any other single source is either. Newspapers are forever being sued for libel, for example, and television programmes are regularly forced to announce corrections/clarifications to the content of the programme. Yes it's true to say that allowing anyone at all to alter a Wikipedia webpage calls the accuracy of the information into question, but at the same time you're not required to have any particular qualifications to write a book or be impartial and apolitical to write a newspaper article either. Edited August 16, 2007 by Gav80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Just because a CIA/BBC/Democratic Party employee edits an article doesn't mean they edit it to promote any official message from the CIA/BBC/Democratic Party True but that also comes into question depending on what they specifically go to edit and what they changed it "to" from what it "was". Granted that anyone wanting to lay low would not use such a direct way if they really wanted to go under the radar as it were. You could also see this as an exersize in "were here too" as regards being careless enough to be logged. It does make me laugh that its that open and editable, because there are allot that refer to it that ive seen, which surprises me (in more political areas *tries not to mention it*). Anyone who's ever had to thoroughly research anything knows that you can never completely trust any individual source of information Agreed. but at the same time you're not required to have any particular qualifications to write a book or be impartial and apolitical to write a newspaper article either. Hence the reason shop around and cross ref. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav80 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Well the real problem with it are the people who see it as a great one-stop-shop because it covers so many topics (which is undeniably a strength of Wikipedia), and who therefore go straight there when they want information and don't look any further because they figure they've already found the information they were looking for - but they don't bother to cross check it to prove its accuracy... Certainly I'd be suspicious of something that had Wikipedia as its only reference, but I don't see there being a problem in using it as part of a more complete referencing process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowmanUK Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wikipedia is ace, Michael Scott relies on it to run his office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlXZ5W8lTs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I really cannot for the life of me understand how it manages to be a good resource, but, it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calius Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Wikipedia is ace, Michael Scott relies on it to run his office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlXZ5W8lTs This makes its case ... Im hooked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.