What is Digg?129 Comments
- skodaman, on 10/10/2007, -15/+68And people are surprised because??
CIA workers have the same right to get bored at work as I do.. Messing about on wikipedia is safer (at work) than reading Digg. :) - reeder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+49The CIA has its own internal intelligence wiki which is apparently used quite frequently, so the fact that they contribute to wikipedia does not surprise me as they are familiar with the system. Since the posts are all innocuous, this is just cheap headline material.
Maybe BBC should investigate all the ***** the really CIA does that is wrong, like Coups in South America and Africa. - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+37The CIA is on digg burying this right now, SUPER TINFOIL ACTIVATE!!!
- mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18What stuff? Minor spelling corrections? Edits to Oprah's page? The only significant change they made was to the Iranian presidents page, and that was just the single phrase "Waaahhhh!" before a paragraph. Not exactly NWO caliber stuff.
- NissanNut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Does the CIA know more about Iran than the American public? Of course. Would they falsify information to the American public and slander the names of prominent foreign figures in order to make the American people believe some slanted view? Absolutely... they done it for over 60 years.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Most companies have propaganda arms... it's called public relations. The thing this tool doesn't do is tell you whether [pleb] from [company] was working on an official capacity and that's a really important distinction.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13americans don't care about other countries. they do care about wikipedia.
- pradador, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18I personally would rather have the CIA putting up information on Wikipedia than some 14 yr old teenager who posts what he heard from his friends that day.
- spillz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Alright, if you read the article the story is a lot less ominous than the title implies in regards to the CIA's editing of articles.
The corporations and political parties are what we really need to keep an eye on... - technophobe, on 10/10/2007, -21/+31Web 2.0 and conspiracy in one story, if they'd used an iPhone it would be the ultimate Digg porn.
- Orchyre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Recent studies show everyone edits Wikipedia. Related studies shows that every edit will show up on Digg's front page.
- colonelpanic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Didn't I just read an article about the BBC editing an article on George W. Bush?
oh the irony.. - afidler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11this is unbelievable!
if you belong to an organization, or a company, or an agency of any kind you should not be able to make any changes on something as sacred, and set-in-stone as a wikipedia entry!
this is ridiculous! i belong to a college and i work in the biology department and i am a member of the democratic party and i love waffles, and because i have affiliations of these sort i never edit any wiki entry.
hell, even as an American, I feel i am unable to edit wiki entry's! i have to do only what i am authorized to do by my superiors.
it's a conflict of interests, really. - SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9[citation needed]
- jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11it's probable, the CIA isn't just a bunch of super secret spies. Majority of their employees do tedious boring crap.
- bethune, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Who cares, anybody can edit wikipedia. This is not newsworthy. Do we have to make it a front page digg story anytime some specific group edits wikipedia.
- RanIntoTheDevil, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"Other changes that have been made are more innocuous, and include tweaks to the profile of former CIA chief Porter Goss and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey."
I knew it! Oprah Winfrey is really an alien under the protection of the CIA! - Machuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That doesn't mean they don't get into it. If government agencys only did what they were 'supposed ' to do we wouldn't half the problems we do in this country.
- SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5They can get this information from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Power_Pack | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuban_Project | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
So on and so forth - bugsy187, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The headline implies that the CIA was sabotaging the Iranian president's page. Many people will assume this is part of a propaganda war, setting us up for a military invasion.
Instead the article is about nothing, just immature vandalism of wikipedia. - MrEguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5... and how have YOU come to know this?? ;-)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No wonder. Just look at what the CIA's main objectives are. This is straight from the CIA page on wikipedia too!
"The Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) is an intelligence agency of the United States government. Its first function is obtaining and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons. Its second function is propaganda and public relations.[5] " - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Does anyone find it funny that this is coming from BBC?
- bloggerjul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4All your base are belong to us
- FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Good Lord, people! A "worker" at CIA could be a high school CO-OP who is doing their summer internship as an administrative researcher at CIA. Don't blow your wads all over this story just because a random IP address *might* belong to CIA. Jeez. You people make larger leaps than a ***** ballet dancer.
Buried for lameness and inaccuracy. - deadowl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yea, I don't think they were very much criticizing the CIA in this article. It's good to know, however, that the world has a great source to be reckoned with when it comes to Wikipedia. Not only can we now keep up with a lot of information, but we can also keep up with identifying companies with propaganda arms.
- elwood43, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You guys should read the story on the link. It mentioned that the Democratic Party had also been caught editing the entry for Rush Limbaugh. So the CIA and the Democratic Party act the same? You can't bash the CIA without bashing the Democratic Party.
That is called liberal irony :) - anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Just more parts of the military establishments psyops operations: http://watch.anarchy-tv.com/watch.shtml?http://www.youtube.com/v/LVGwGB0-i-o
When the CIA edits Wikipedia, you're not going to know it, and its not going to come from a .gov computer. Duh. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I would imagine the CIA knows slightly more about the President than the public does, and that they were merely informing people.
:) - Subiklim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Just like Abu Graib taught us, the work of a few in the armed forces, is always representative of the ENTIRE force, as well as the origin country of that force!
- minox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Breaking: Wikipedia edited by humans and not robots!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You've been watching a bit too many movies.
- wootup, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If you people don't see a problem with your spy agency EDITING PUBLIC ENCYCLOPEDIAS, America is more foregone than I thought.
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - Former CIA Director William Colby
WAKE THE ***** UP. - wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3William Colby told some embarrassing things about the agency. He drowned in the middle of the night, canoeing without his glasses. He hadn't told his wife he was going canoeing in the middle of the night. He was not suicidal.
- Burritoking924, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who doesn't edit Wikipedia? BBC, Fox News, CIA. Let me take a wild guess who's next, Microsoft or Apple.
- multitude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Audacitor is right. The point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be something that empowers people to learn, and it is being used as another propaganda tool. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, but it is good that people are keeping an eye on it.
- gthrank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't trust Wikipedia anymore. Too easy to scam.
- chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Read the artilce, the CIA put the exlamation Wahhhh! infront of a few paragraphs, and changed bio info on the CIA director and Oprah. Also *****.
- wootup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Both the CIA and the Democratic party ultimately serve the exact same corporate-American interests.
I don't see how condemning them both is ironic? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They made other edits too, smartass.
- EbowUK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm guessing you're not studying rocket science, are you?
The BBC wiki story about the CIA is a few days old.
The "BBC calls Bush a wanker" story appeared on Digg *after* the BBC CIA story appeared at the BBC.
The BBC CIA story appears on Digg today.
To clarify for those majoring in stupidity: the order news items appear on Digg isn't necessarily the order they appeared in "the real world".
Hope this helps. - EbowUK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In Soviet America, Wikipedia edits you.
- otheruser, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Of course they tweaked Oprah's entry, they're the freaking CIA, they had to make it LOOK like they were just messing around.
- unloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul will save us from this iPhone Web 2.0 Conspiracy!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When did the Bush and FoxNews supporters start to join Digg?
- yunus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If most of us agree that the RIAA cannot rely simply on IP addresses to claim copyright infringment I think we should give some latitude to these organizations. A rogue individual does not mean CIA sponsored edits.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The CIA has a job to do - to gather information, in order to protect YOU. Some of these posts are embarrassing to me as a citizen of this country. Seems like some folks here would rather we dont have a CIA. Yeah, thats a brilliant idea.
- shhaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One of the great values of being able to see who edits Wiki works is that the editors are exposed. When a white house computer is used to edit for example the Plame episode, we are alerted to possible slanted comments by a white house representative.
- chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If i don't like wikipedia articles don't read them eh? Just like you obviously didn't read the article. Right?
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wahhhhhh! I feel so much safer now.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is