Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIA, Vatican 'editing Wiki pages'
BBC, ABC News (Australia) ^ | 16AUG07 | BBC

Posted on 08/16/2007 10:30:04 PM PDT by familyop

An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has shown the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in editing entries.

Wikipedia Scanner allegedly found that workers on the Agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president and also that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia where entries can be created and edited by anyone.

Most of the edits detected by the scanner correct spelling mistakes or factual errors, but others have been used to remove potentially damaging material or to deface sites.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cia; iran; vatican; wikipedia
...humor or politics? ;-)
1 posted on 08/16/2007 10:30:07 PM PDT by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: familyop

Aren’t they allowed to defend themselves, and to correct false information?


2 posted on 08/16/2007 10:31:25 PM PDT by jmcenanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Ah...the piece from the BBC with a blurb (quote).

Vatican 'edited Adams web page'
The BBC

"They said news reports alleging Mr Adams's fingerprints and handprints were found on a car used during a double murder in 1971 were edited."

...made for some strange headlines, indeed.
3 posted on 08/16/2007 10:35:39 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

The lefty sites are all in a frenzy over Fox News editing its own entry.


4 posted on 08/16/2007 10:38:03 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly
"Aren’t they allowed to defend themselves, and to correct false information?"

...with Wikipedia? I don't know. We'll see. But seeing a controversy/conspiracy story piece about Wikipedia, the Vatican and the Agency all at once did catch my eye and funny bone.
5 posted on 08/16/2007 10:40:22 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

“Anyone” doesn’t mean “anyone” to leftists.

Anyone may edit an entry, meaning “not just anyone” may edit.

Got it?


6 posted on 08/16/2007 10:43:31 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

That sums it up. the left believes in freespeech for the left and gags for the right.


7 posted on 08/16/2007 10:45:07 PM PDT by tdewey10 (Can we please take out iran's nuclear capability before they start using it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: familyop

So what?


8 posted on 08/16/2007 11:13:33 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

The VATICAN didn’t do anything. SOMEONE at the Vatican did.


9 posted on 08/16/2007 11:16:43 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

"LL UR INTERNETS B-LONG 2 US!!!!!!1"

10 posted on 08/16/2007 11:19:09 PM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm; vladimir998

...agreed. The BBC piece needs aliens from the cosmos to make it funnier.


11 posted on 08/16/2007 11:25:20 PM PDT by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

“Aren’t they allowed to defend themselves, and to correct false information?”

I’d think that if you’re dealing w/ matters of religion — Roman Catholic doctrine, church history, etc — then a Vatican person would be perfect to edit a Wiki article!

Likewise, I’d expect the CIA to have some expertise as well.

The current feeding frenzy assumes that there is something eeeee-villllll going on here, when in fact, most of it was pretty innocuous.

Besides, there’s always that “revert” feature where you can undo the changes that the last person did.

Look for my stuff in Wikipedia under “twohlford”....


12 posted on 08/16/2007 11:31:36 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
...and quite a few at the BBC also did!

Biased-BBC

13 posted on 08/16/2007 11:36:16 PM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: familyop

The article mentions edits coming from specific places, and then mentions that there exist (perhaps in the whole history of wikipedia) edits which have removed material or defaced sites. It doesn’t explicitly say that the specific edits coming from the specific places mentioned are for removing material (though correcting information often does require removing material) or for defacing sites.


14 posted on 08/17/2007 2:50:39 AM PDT by posterchild (If you don't look ahead nobody will, there's no time to kill - Clint Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson