digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign

wired.com — On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • psyiode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51Direct Link to the scanner: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

    May be down under load, check back later.
  • ElbridgeGerry, on 10/10/2007, -8/+52Wikiality.
    • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6I don't know what's worse...the CIA or the idiots that patrol Digg on a daily basis editing Wikipedia
  • ccheath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+52it's about time this was done... now we have confirmation of these types of shenanigans
    • WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -13/+41I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says, " Shenanigans."
      • Travisty2012, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35Hey Farva, whats that restaurant you like with all the goofy ***** on the walls?
        • TehDoctor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22And the mozzarella sticks?
        • adoggz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29you mean Shenanigans? you're talking about Shenanigans right?
        • brownspank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1***** deja vu.
      • ccheath, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9shenanigans
        there, i said it ... i'm a sucker for punnishment
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3F*cking bdsm.... i hate you guys...
      • daggah, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Shenanigans bitch, bring it!
    • laserblazer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The emails that were recovered by the BBC reporter prove the '00 and '04 elections were stolen.

      Granted, scandals are so common under the regime of the tyrant Bush that they tend to be overshadowed by newer scandals almost instantly.
  • AmishRefugee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+132Does anyone else get the hopeless feeling that as soon as anything on the internet gets national or global notoriety, attempts at its destruction promptly begin?
    • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11"attempts at its destruction promptly begin"

      Control maybe, but not destruction.
      • Couchy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Its pretty difficult if not impossible to completely destroy a piece of information once its online and available to the public. You can try, but it probably won't be successful.
        • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9It has been successful MANY times. The lack of your knowledge of these incidents is just another indication at how successfully it can be done.
        • hydroplane, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
        • JefffN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+309-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
      • 2012, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"Control maybe, but not destruction."

        There is a difference?
      • toonworld, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He who controls information, controls the world
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"total control", bordering on information manipulation. That is destruction. - Analogy: Jon Stewart gains national noteriety for a heartfelt slap at the president and his cabinets actions, he is catapulted to a respected platform and begins a campaign to a high government post, despite his past as a comedian. Immediately, laws are passed that inform him he must disband his original supporters for "public, or government" supporters. His campaign quickly begins to lack the steam it once had.

      That would equate to destruction. And what they're doing is exactly that. Myspace. Youtube. Modelmayhem. Google. now Wikipedia. The inexorable decline is swift and noticeable, but our natural reaction is to simply back away and look for more avenues of the same option without truly recognizing who's at fault.

      I think that just like Cointelpro, the counter intelligence program that attacked and destroyed revolutionary groups like the black panther party, mlk, malcolm x, modern klu klux klan, defunct terrorist organizations and the mob is alive and well. Today, their target is the American public and their access to information.
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Congress has some laws coming up in the fall. Good to see the district of criminals are working against us as usual.
    • upsilonh24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You know son, back in the days there was this thing called the Internet. Knowledge was free, unmonitored, and everyone contributed. Most importantly though, there was this thing called porn...
    • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Only when people don't do anything about it. Doesn't seem to be a problem on the Internet - when the Internet gets pushed, it pushes back.
    • jugger74, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It has nothing to do with the internet that is how things work in the world. If it is the real deal it can stand up to scrutiny. Wiki was never the real deal.
  • janastewart, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9And the silent coup marches across the country in Cady Palmer's voting machines. Could "Margin of Error/Ballots of Straw" have it right?
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -58/+4Conspiracy! Retards.
    • heebygeeby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35It's fact, you moron. The IP address was traced to Diebold. For *****'s sake, idiot, don't be so stupid.
      • fwedwic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6its a shame some people will believe what they believe and never look at the facts pointing in a different direction.
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ugh, and that so many of them are so loud on the internet.
        • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"methinks they protest too much?"....
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So you are suggesting that there have never been actual conspiracies perpetrated by governments? Read some history. Everything is the way that it is because the right people are being paid, not because it is the best thing for the general public. Way to worship authority...
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're a ***** tool if you think for one second that conspiracies don't happen. You mom conspired with your father to have you. Would you believe that?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wake up citizen.
  • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -52/+5Here it comes! CORNSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • archer104, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I'll die in a blaze of gunfire before you get my corn!!
      • ronjohn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2lol
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's power looking out for it's own interest at the expense of the common good. Welcome to human nature.
  • trenchcoat, on 10/10/2007, -49/+12Did they edit this one?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat
  • n8f8, on 10/10/2007, -35/+3whatever.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Isn't it funny how the digg down and disinformation brigade attacks one after another. lol. just funny how predictable and obvious it is that they're working for either the gov't, or digg. dumbasses. What? Do we NOT see what you're doing!
  • xerikx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+123diebold just wants everyone to know how horrible their products are

    how wonderful their products are
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -40/+4 I like the way you repeated the last thought. It shows you care. It shows you care.
      • Adonai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+36Actually, the comment seems to be more satirical. They are not repeating, as the two comments convey completely opposite meanings. Instead, the comment seems to be a joke about how Diebold machines are written to be "horrible" and then immediately edited over to say "wonderful". The joke seems to have been completely lost to you, possibly because you didn't read nearly as carefully as you needed before jumping in with some snide remark that, in the end, only makes you look the fool.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8LOL! HE TORCHED YOUR ASS!
        • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4reading comprehension.......work on it
        • Wizdum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i think waiting2awake got it first time actually...
      • 2012, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I can't call you a retard. I know some retarded people. You embarrass them.
  • Malarie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+49I like this. Lets protect our wikipedia from the corporate propaganda champions
  • crapmatic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+82"A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources."

    Awesome, awesome! Of course the downside is the companies will now start doing their edits via residential IPs. I'm betting a lot of them are doing that already. Good luck fighting that battle.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22No battle to fight. Just be aware of it and next time someone makes some comment about tin foil hats - you remind them that those hat wearers have been telling you about this stuff for years - people just choice to ignore it, live in slavery and keep chanting "tin foil hat" to those trying to get out. Which is impossible because so many seem to like being slaves.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Conspiracy theorists have been talking about companies editing Wikipedia for years? News to me. Also, having a Wikipedia article edited doesn't quite make us "slaves", now does it?
        • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You have to look at the bigger picture, Fuzzmeister.
  • xatx2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23you mother ***** are exposed
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3I WANT YOU MOTHER ***** SNAKES! OUT OF MY MOTHER ***** WEBSITES! - S.L.J
  • undersky, on 10/10/2007, -39/+32sensationalist title. the word CIA was only found once in the whole article, and without any factual reference or associated wikipedia article. basically the submitter included the phrase CIA in its title simply to grab attention. in fact, i would not have read it not for the CIA reference.
    • Couchy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Yes but it is not false that the CIA has changed things on wikipedia based on the ip traces. He included congressmen in the article as well changing their own pages but didn't include that one in the title. Examples such as the CIA just show how some organizations you wouldn't normally think of editing wikipedia pages are doing it anonymously for their own purposes. If the title had been "CIA found editing wikipedia pages conspiracy blah blah" then you'd have a right to complain.
    • TrippleHead, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28Whoa 6+ diggs and a comment like that? More idiots on Digg than I thought. RTFA, theres a second page detailing all about how/what the CIA edits. Next time take a better look before you spout some *****.
      • MaxxOwens, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4he's referring to the fact that it was eluded that the CIA was editing sensitive information in an attempt to censer wiki. Not that some secretary at the CIA is updating Buffy pages.

        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3personally, i find it far more interesting that the CIA cares that much about buffy.
        • Wizdum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They don't. Someone that works there does...
      • djAnakin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I see nothing about the CIA except that someone was editing buffy song lyrics.

        How about trying to be a little polite. It works wonders.
    • mrjofo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Try reading the 2nd page.

      However, it doesn't appear the CIA edited anything CIA-ish, so I'll give you that.
    • MEGAMERICAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7They talked about Diebold the same amount as the CIA as long as you read both pages. Were you expecting the CIA to be editing articles on the JFK assassination or something? I would hope they wouldn't be that stupid.
    • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Here you go

      http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=198.81.129.0-255
  • TheSubStylee, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3Couldn't see that one coming!

    And I'm surprised all you Digg Brand Conspiracy Theorists didn't see it coming either.
    • Navicerts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What the hell are you talking about?
  • patientXero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23If anyone making changes to Wikipedia thought they were truly anonymous, they should learn more about the intertubez.
  • macgarp, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3the Cal-tech guy's a cutie. dugg for that!
  • Rethcir, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15When do we get the "See which candidate paying to be consistently dugg up at every opportunity" article?
    • slipgrid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Or which candidates are paying for consistently burying articles... You know, your crazy theory works both ways.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You know, that's a really good point. And in the future I will use it to argue that all the people that bitch and moan about the crazy truther ronbots spamming digg are really conspiracy theorists themselves.
      • Rethcir, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1If anyone wants to pay me for what I do for free, I'll gladly take your money. ***** ronspam.
    • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0TIN HAT TIN HAT TIN HAT OMG OMG OMG SPAMMMMMMMMMMM
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you really have to ask?
  • CommodoreZBT, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Crazy the gubment got their grubby hands in alot of stuff read this if you want to be shocked http://www.asktheadmin.com/2007/07/be-afraid-be-very-afraid-fbi-are-now.html
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Very good find here. This one should be out on the front page
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This article was hit the front page 19 minutes ago. You commented 7 minutes ago.
      • slipgrid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Just a guess, but maybe he was reading the article.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You should be a detective
  • kranberry, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5This is actually quite brilliant.
  • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -25/+1I would have been more impressed with the article if it didn't contain the typical liberal crap in it - they mention Diebold, Walmart and the CIA (tin foil hatters of the world unite!!) out of the MILLIONS of edits - oh come on. Do some logical thinking, don't you think if you had something that was listed on the net as information on a company / person etc. that those who have a personal interest in that said company / person would try and edit things maybe in a more positive light - NO!! say it isn't so..... it's a conspiracy I tell you!! bwahahahaha
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yeah because all of us are more concerned about the kid down the street editing his porno links on Wiki versus the government planting information on it.
      • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0uhm, it's a free site ANYONE can edit, where is the conspiracy here?
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7umm, diebold editing out criticisms about their company maybe? you apparently are unaware of how diebold tends to handle criticisms about its products security even though there is a blatant lack of it.
        • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1All I know is that you're "kind" freaked out during the Bush election with all kinds of conspiracy crap. But funny how not one peep was mentioned during the Congressional elections where Democrats took back Congress. Now tell me is this another conspiracy, or is it just a conspiracy when Republicans get voted in? (I wont hold my breath for your answer)

          Man, I should of invested in tin foil - I'd be a billionaire by now.....
    • TruthforAll, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Its funny how these people use three words/phrases repeatedly to try and influence thought. Liberal, Tin Foil Hat and Conspiracy.. just repeat those three over and over and people will dismiss all rational thought! Guess what the 9-11/Al Qaeda/Iraq trio isn't working for Bush anymore, you should find someone else to look up to for your debate tactics.
  • muckb777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Note to self - Anonomyze IP address before engaging on such clandestine operations
  • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13Wierd....people trust Diebold to keep the hard earned money safe in most every bank.....but when it comes to voting......
    • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Ha ha, trust? Try googling for default passwords for ATMs. Yeah. "Trust." Whatever, dude.
    • greenm1981, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22There is a vested interest in protecting a persons assets in a bank, as the bank makes more money. However, there is something to gain by selling votes to the highest bidder.

      If you steal my money then I'm not worried; FDIC insured. Hell, I can even make it back. If you steal my vote, then you dismantle democracy, and there is no way to get that back without some bloodshed.
    • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Bank transactions are easily verifiable. You can and should keep track of your finances separate from the bank's count, so that if there is an error you can find and correct it. When it comes to voting machines, however, there is no such check on accuracy. The votes just go into a computer somewhere and you have to trust that the results it spits out match the votes people provide.
    • ricree, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Sorry for the accidental double post.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes, it's interesting how Diebold's ATMs are relatively secure yet the voting machines have all these massive security holes. If security researchers hadn't protested, it would have been even WORSE.
    • kayaker712, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The simple explanation is that the Diebold machines are hackable because thats exactly what they were designed for.

      "[I am] committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
      ---- Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. August 14, 2004
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It bothers you that you are starting to realize that We The People are being *****. It should bother you. The frustration in realizing this is like pain. Pain tells you that you are being injured and must do something to stop it. Your/our frustration tells us that we need to change something. It is a brave thing to confront a negative reality. At least you won't have panic attacks when denial wears thin. Wake up. You are not alone.
  • flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Damn it! I knew those Buffy lyrics were changed. Those evil CIA bastards.
  • apologeticus, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5You mean wikipedia is not a source of completely factual, objective truth? I thought 13-year-old crack whores always got their facts straight.
    • flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you have found something inaccurate, change it.
    • neoblaque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 @apologeticus - Your daughter lied to you again about where she was last night, fool.
  • newsbynemo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Maybe attribution should be required for all edits.
    User profiles would include a disclaimer for personal conflicts of interest.
    This is common practice in tech magazines.
    This might be a better model.
  • bdhughes, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2who do you think is doing all the digging?
  • Smiths, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's really some great work. Way to make a difference. (I need to do some learning)
  • N10E, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Wikipedia censoring and lobbying is nothing new. What image concerned company/group/individual wouldn't want control over their entries? It's one of the reasons(probably not the main one) why Universities don't accept wikipedia as a viable source.
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Or is that because they want you to use their services. The main benefit of wiki is the reference list for further study.
      • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Or as anyone familiar with databases will tell you: "bad data in bad data out" and when you cannot confirm good versus bad - the whole system is considered crap. If you had a business that relied on this so called data, would you use lets say wikipedia's data or lets say encyclopedia Britannica's? Well if I were a customer you'd know who'd I go with....
        • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4yea, have you ever noticed that wikipedia is generally sourced? say i want to research quantum electrodynamics, would i use wikipedia? hell yes. why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#References
        • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dude, you said it yourself "generally sourced", and not to mention what if the "general source" is lets say some left or right leaning site with articles or a blog. If they sourced the dailyKos I wouldn't accept it - that's all I'm saying. Where in Encyclopedia Britannica I wouldn't have to do that extra research to make sure the "General Source" is not some kook site.
  • 911veritas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14WOW... I've always had my suspicions and have seen a few actual examples of manipulation, but actually tracing them to the source and their conflicts of interest is a MAJOR coup !!!

    Top job Virgil Griffith - You deserve a medal !!!
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10This is only the first step. The next thing you know, there will be people from ThinkProgress submitting their own articles on Digg.

    http://digg.com/users/pitviper/news/dugg
  • Jelvik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Great that such a search is now available.

    I only wonder (as a commenter posted before me) if it's really useful, because now they'll all use either their private IPs or use a proxy.

    Essentially this software does nothing but kick the vandals in the face. I'm all for that!

    Now lets figure out who took off the info about the World Trade Towers from George Bush's brothers page. (http://tinyurl.com/2jyykb)
  • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12There's nothing wrong with corporate institutions adding information to public sources as long as they do so openly. I run a forum where we routinely get industry contributors and their input is frequently enlightening. But what Diebold is doing sounds more like CYA. Maybe there's more federal agents need to be looking into there. Sure seems strange the people making the voting machines have their interests allied with one particular party...the party that won by a razor's edge in '04.

    Perhaps a coincidence, but no one will be confident that's the case until a special prosecutor sifts through the evidence. Attacking the voting process is tantamount to attacking the foundation of our country. If any domestic act qualifies as treason, that would be one of them. If the public wants to reward dirty politics and smear campaigns, that's the way it is. If those dirty politics are being aided by rigged voting machines...warm up the firing squad. Yeah, it's that important. I don't care if people want to elect Lassie to public office as long as the voting is fair and the votes are counted properly.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You're delusional. I cannot challenge the voting process? What if the voting process is awful? What if it is ripe for corruption? What if it disqualifies my vote?

      We have every right to challenge the voting process.
      • art42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Try again. DangerCollie's does not say what you imply...
    • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2you nutt jobs are so typical - I noticed you didn't trust DIebolds results for Bush's re-election, but not a peep out of you nutt balls when you won the congress......
      • art42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most ppl did not use electronic voting in 2006.
        CA decrtified Diebold machines recently..
  • F1R3DUP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1nice...but too little too late.
  • Reviler, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0[conspiracy]It's obvious the CIA are sending encoded messages to it's field agents in anonymous wikipedia edits.[/conspiracy] Or they have too much time on their hands. Great article though.
  • buggles, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Buried for two reasons, one, a company erasing comments that directly criticize it isn't particularly surprising (or interesting.)

    secondly the subject and summary suggests that the CIA erased content critical of Dibold and e-voting which the article does not even come close to implying. That would be interesting.
    • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"secondly the subject and summary suggests that the CIA erased content critical of Dibold and e-voting" - no, no it didn't. you might want to work on your comprehension and critical thinking skills.
    • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's still interesting that Diebold erased negative information about itself, seeing as it is the center of a growing concern over the 2000 and 2004 election results. When your CEO goes public promsing to deliver Ohio to Bush/Cheney, a state where the chair of the Bush/Cheney ticket is also responsible for counting the votes, AND the votes to be recounted mysteriously are destroyed (Illegal) AND serious discrepancies in both voter machine allocation and crazy results from certain precincts crop up ... it's interesting.
      • SQLSam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0"seeing as it is the center of a growing concern over the 2000 and 2004 election results"
        Excuse me there was an election in 2007 that used Diebold machines - It elected the Democrats to the majority in Congress. How come you didn't mention that date? Is it because the Democrats actually won most of these elections and that would go against your Republican conspiracy theories? I guess it's all okay depending on what side of the fence you sit on isn't it......
        • art42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21. Because most ppl did NOT use electronic machines.
          2. There is proof that in 2000 and 2004 there was election fraud on the part of the Republicans. Investigations are on going.
          3. There are investigations into irregularities in 2006 elections.
        • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Prove that the Democrats owned those voting machines.
  • scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Wikipedia is epic fail anyway. Give up on your bizarre utopian e-dream, kids.
    • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ugh, get off digg and go watch TV then.
  • Gaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Why hasn't anyone involved with Wikipedia realized that anonymous edits are BS, anyway? Make people commit to what credentials they have in relation to the topic, provide a real name and address, etc. They don't have to be publicly available, perhaps, but available in case there are issues with conflicts of interest.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because people will lie. They will pretend they are academics with multiple degrees in order to silence their critics.

      Wikipedia works as a sometimes reliable source that should always be triple checked.
    • MrDo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because information are most likely to be fake and/or useless anyway unless you have the manpower to verify everybody.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Because people will lie. They will pretend they are academics with multiple degrees in order to silence their critics."
      Remember the recent Essjay controversy? You know, where a Wikipedia user called "Essjay" referred to himself as a professor of theology, got his cover blown, and subsequently "retired"?

      More info:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy
  • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1The Islamists are all over wikipedia to implementing their internet jihad.
  • echolyean, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The edits made by FoxNews.com were most interesting, I think. Though not surprising.
  • MrDo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So the next step is just that the companies will have a ADSL line with a single computer connected for things like that.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I find it sad that wikipedia is still trying to call editing an article vandalism. When will wikipedia grow up?
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10We're approaching (if not already in) a war against truthful public information. I bet it won't be long till these corporations start setting up bot user accounts even on Digg to promote fascism, the war on terror and pro-corporation stances not only through diggs, but through comment posting and comment burying as well.
    • halleyscomet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"start'????

      Kid, it's been that way for ages.
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I has been going on for ages. The fact that we are finally seeing through their deception is a major win!
  • Victorioso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4to : AmishRefugee


    You are quite right ! 80 % of PCs are infected with spyware, more than 80 % of all email sent is spam, and national government web sites in Europe are attacked with such viciousness, that it affects the operation of that government. Do you think the destructive groups are winning ? I do. I think its amazing the destructive folks have not already taken over the web. Wikipedia is only a mild example.
    • noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1unfortunately your stats seem to be made up, and if a *web site* affects the operation of any government then that government has some serious issues. your claims are entirely sensational.
  • Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23The article on Oceania now says that we've always been at war with Eastasia.
    • MackPrime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we have always been at war with Eastasia.
  • Xill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5There is a damn conspiracy to destroy America! We all have to face that fact because its crashing really fast.
    • laserblazer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At free-fall speeds, actually.
    • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0For those of you who still think 911 was pulled off by some guys in a cave with box cutters please WAKE UP!
      Your great country has been taken over at the highest levels by a small number of powerful people who are corrupt to the core. The rest of the world can see it and they want the America they know and love back.
  • michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wired article isn't loading for me--am I the only one? Did the CIA shut it down?
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7cant someone just go and put it back every time it is removed?
    • djAnakin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Did *you* save the original artical?
      • mmalone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh... Is this a joke? Wikipedia has version control, you can revert changes...
  • ali3n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2dirty pool... feg off and deal with the truth ya wikipedia vandals
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.