Wiki Thought Control: The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia

Posted August 29, 2007 | 01:11 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :Wiki Thought Control:  The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia   digg: Wiki Thought Control:  The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia   reddit: Wiki Thought Control:  The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia   del.icio.us: Wiki Thought Control:  The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia

Wiki Scanner, a tool that tracks changes to Wikipedia and identifies the server used to make them, tells us that someone in the Pentagon changed the definition of terrorism. Someone in the CIA cast doubts on Iraq casualty figures. And someone in the Department of Homeland Security altered entries for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, deleting all references to their histories of problem drinking.

To be fair, we can't assume that these acts of censorship are the result of deliberate government policy. Although they're beginning to form a pattern, they may still turn out to be the work of overzealous political appointees. Either way, the practice raises some serious concerns about use of national security resources. If this isn't deliberate manipulation of public opinion, the government should take action to stop it.

Changes were made from inside the Pentagon that deleted commonly-accepted exclusions to the definition of "terrorism," leaving the implication that terrorism can be more broadly defined than it historically has been. One interesting effect of the change, if it remains, is that it adds more legitimacy to the government's decision to define Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization -- the first time a government military group has been so designated.

CIA and FBI computers were also used to alter Wikipedia entries, although at least one of these changes is defensible. Someone in the FBI removed aerial reconnaissance images of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. As indefensible as the prison may be, it's probably unwise to disseminate this kind of material.

Other CIA and FBI changes fall more directly into the category of manipulating public opinion. Someone in CIA headquarters added encomiums for controversial former CIA director William Colby, while another included skeptical comments about Iraq casualty figures.

Fox News -- which some would argue is an extension of the current government -- has been making its own set of changes to Wikipedia, too. And someone at Clear Channel deleted some information on Air America's programming content.

The problems don't all stem from the Republican-led administration. Somebody in the U. S. Senate office building -- presumably a Democrat -- made this childish alteration to George W. Bush's entry. But the actions of public employees inside the national security apparatus raise the most concern.

Private companies have been working the Wiki, too. Pepsi deleted references to health problems associated with drinking their cola. And someone at Wal-Mart changed their entry to suggest they pay their employees higher wages than originally stated.

Religions aren't exempt, either. Scientologists and Mormons have been editing Wikipedia references about their religions, and Scientologists added Scientology-friendly links to entries about rock star suicides Michael Hutchence and Kurt Cobain. (Note: Some reports say that Hutchence's death was not intentional.)

Prediction #1: The Administration will soon announce that all IP addresses (which Wiki Scanner uses to identify servers) will become classified information to protect the government from cyberterrorism. And industries will follow suit.

Prediction #2: Some enterprising hacker eventually reproduce Wiki Scanner some other way.

As they used to say in the golden days of computing: Information wants to be free.

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments for this post are now closed

 
 

Comments
9
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- realitytrumpsbull See Profile I'm a Fan of realitytrumpsbull permalink

Someone said "What is truth?", and I think it was Curious George. If ya gotta ask...but, the media's been in the business of professionally B.S.ing the public for fun and profit for decades, now, bottom line whether CBS or 'the government', likely we're getting The Mother Of All Sunshine Stories.

Don't forget to visit
www.impeachbush.org !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 09/02/2007
- syllepsis See Profile I'm a Fan of syllepsis permalink

What is outraging about this, besides its inherent fifth-grade stupidity, is that the Administration has the gall to complain that our spy services don't have the time to obtain warrants from FISA Court, and yet they have time to vandalize wikipedia.
They're not short-circuiting the law to keep anyone safe, they're trying to sell illiterates on the next war. Could anyone have sincerely believed otherwise?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 08/30/2007
- NoFactsJustTruth See Profile I'm a Fan of NoFactsJustTruth permalink

Most I know that're halfway computer literate say Wikipedia is a piece of crap for NOT placing real researchers in charge of editing out the user supplied propaganda changes, and protecting it's credibility from exactly this type of 'catipulted' manipulation.

It's also a really great example of why everyone should get their news, and references, from MORE than one source.

Thanks for helping to expose some more of them preznutz' global-warming-expert types.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 08/30/2007
- RobertPaul See Profile I'm a Fan of RobertPaul permalink

The White House must have outsourced the Wiki revisions.

Anyone who talks about the "internest" and "the Google" surely couldn't make the changes himself.

Maybe Bush is trying to protect his "Legacy"...in advance!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 08/29/2007
- CaseyBabes See Profile I'm a Fan of CaseyBabes permalink

Gotta be better than "you know who's".......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 08/30/2007
- Woofer58 See Profile I'm a Fan of Woofer58 permalink

The bad part about this is that when folks manipulate Wiki entries and cloud the accuracy, they, too, are protected by the First Admendment.

Nowhere in the 1st Admendment does it say that 'truth' must be an element for free speech validity.

I was wondering when the "powers that be" would discover that they can "use" the Bill of Rights for their agenda, as opposed to just complaining and whining when others do the same.

Try to make and pass a law that requires honesty as an element of free speech.. Good luck with that !

What a pitiful state of affairs.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 PM on 08/29/2007
- syllepsis See Profile I'm a Fan of syllepsis permalink

In DNI McConnell's recent article in Foreign Affairs, he cites the importance to his work of "classified wikis" and of the Argus program, which monitors unclassified information.
McConnell stresses how much valuable info can be learned this way, and it is true. However, the converse, seeking to control the taps of unclassified information, is not valuable.
When information is tampered with, it becomes an artifact that reveals more about its maker's intentions than is prudent.
McConnell boasts about using the 'private sector' to outsource our intel services. Unfortunately this means again that rank amateurs are using government funds to run our government into the ground.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 08/29/2007
- peterg76 See Profile I'm a Fan of peterg76 permalink

Political campaiging on government time, which is illegal. I'm sure the next Attorney General will put a quick stop to that...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 08/29/2007
- fact finder See Profile I'm a Fan of fact finder permalink

Censoring is censoring no matter how it is done. Can we say 1st amendment violation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 08/29/2007
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
RJ Eskow›