Posted on 11/02/2006 6:55:49 AM PST by wouldntbprudent
Analysts can add and edit content on government's classified Web site
WASHINGTON - The U.S. intelligence community Tuesday unveiled its own secretive version of Wikipedia, saying the popular online encyclopedia format known for its openness is key to the future of American espionage.
The office of U.S. intelligence czar John Negroponte announced Intellipedia, which allows intelligence analysts and other officials to collaboratively add and edit content on the government's classified Intelink Web much like its more famous namesake on the World Wide Web.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Anything that helps shape information is a good idea, but given Wikipedia's problems I hope that they have really good moderators....
I hear that there will be fifty (50) moderators: All fifty (50) CSM (Command Security Managers) or their designates, from each of the states.
That's quite a fascinating idea. Good going!
Now Ted K. has a way to communicate with America's foe, which he didn't have during the Carter/Reagan years.
Then there's the question of who has the time to spend updating the articles, vice doing their Intel day jobs.
I think an FR-style forum would probably be more worthwhile for day-to-day stuff.
How does anyone know what the truth is?
This is their day jobs. A wiki would allow analysts to update a comprehensive overview on the fly, rather than file a document on their own small part of the puzzle and then have someone else compile them. All the wiki would add is another forum for information they're already compiling and reporting.
I think an FR-style forum would probably be more worthwhile for day-to-day stuff.
For things that require discussion, sure, a message board or even a listserv would work well. But if I wanted a singe go-to source for the latest on, say, Iran's nuclear facilities, a wiki makes more sense. It would pull together the latest intel on each of the plants from the people tasked to look at them individually and pull the most up-to-date info together in one place. Much faster than searching through dozens or hundreds of messages for disparate nuggets of information.
Wikipedia's problems have nothing to do with the technology; they have everything to do with the fact that they rely on an army of volunteers who have agendas, loopy theories or just plain bad information. That shouldn't be a problem with a group of professionals following strict standards, who know that every edit is tracked back to the source and could cost them their jobs if they go off half-cocked.
The interesting technological feat will be making it work with differing levels of security clearance, so that two different people would see two different versions of the same page at the same URL, depending on how much they're supposed to have access to. A wiki is, fundamentally, a database, and I'm sure corporate users have already devised means of categorizing information and restricting access.
My take on it is based on similar things I've seen elsewhere -- there will be folks who spend all of their time updating the wiki, at the expense of their day jobs. Not saying that an updated wiki entry is a bad thing -- but "updating wiki" is not the same as doing the day job.
Just out of curiosity -- have you ever worked in a large organization? This comment suggests to me that you have not; at least, not in a forum where agendas and loopy theories and pet projects have an actual effect on the end product.
The "CIA leaks" problem is proof that the intel community is not immune to such things, and it will be a problem on the wiki -- whether it be from the grunts who provide the data, or the upper level manager/moderators whose own biases will affect the end result.
One hopes that professionalism will triumph, but the CIA became very politicized under Clinton, and you cannot assume that bias will not corrupt the entries.
I think you're right; the challenge will be in how to put out classified information of various levels of classification to the right readers/editors. You don't want *everything* available to *everyone* in the community. I'm not sure how they might do that except perhaps by a link that takes them into more content; through which a security clearance (password of some kind) would have to be provided. The format lends itself well to that. You can get a summary by reading the lowest security level "main page", then drill down based on your level of clearance.
I've worked in large organizations, but usually with enough editorial layers that no one person can tweak the end product without others signing off on it. That's why I emphasized the importance of standards -- everyone with posting access to the wiki should have strict standards on what information is solid enough to post, and how they should properly note areas of controversy.
The "CIA leaks" problem is proof that the intel community is not immune to such things, and it will be a problem on the wiki -- whether it be from the grunts who provide the data, or the upper level manager/moderators whose own biases will affect the end result.
That's all true, but I don't think a wiki adds to that problem -- if anything, it gives more people faster access to which information is controversial or dubious, rather than just the single "consensus" view that goes into the final report.
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.