digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Scans 'show CIA wikipedia edits'

news.bbc.co.uk — An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries. Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's President.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • skodaman, on 10/10/2007, -15/+66And 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. :)
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I would imagine the CIA knows slightly more about the President than the public does, and that they were merely informing people.

      :)
      • NissanNut, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Does 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.
        • FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3And there's so much misinformation to be garnered from "Waaahhhhh".
      • theplaintruth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If the CIA knows more about a Presidential Candidate or a President, then I for one want the director brought up front and center in front of the Senate and forced to tell everything he knows about that person, under oath. The Peoples' right to know supersedes any excuse you right wing wackos have and sure as hell supersedes your sinister agenda.

        Get this through your head; the United States of America is 100% owned by the American People -- not by a government, an agency, an partisan idealist(s) or a political party!!!
        • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You've been watching a bit too many movies.
        • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Agreed. We the people trust these shady characters too much.

          Nevermind 9/11 conspiracies. How, with as much tax-money as we pay, did that happen?
    • 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.
      • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know this for fact?
        • snea, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0If you actually read the headline, and then read the article, bugsy187's statement is as much a fact as a person saying "This grass is very green and the sky is also blue" after looking at a well cared for lawn and then the sky on a clear day.
    • santaslilhelper, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The CIA is not allowed to mess with domestic matters. Look it up.
      • 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.
        • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes, Wiki the Church committee while it is still factual. And Richard Helmes. EO 123333 forbids assassinations by the US gov. Do you believe it?
    • 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.
      • snea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CIA or not, I don't approve of any sort of childish Wikipedia vandalism.
    • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No propaganda this time; just someone with the attitude of a 10-year-old works for the agency that is supposed to protect the whole country.
      apathy
  • technophobe, on 10/10/2007, -21/+30Web 2.0 and conspiracy in one story, if they'd used an iPhone it would be the ultimate Digg porn.
    • Bakagamer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Because adding "Waaaaah!" to an article about Iran's President is truly a conspiracy.
      • mrFREEZE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They made other edits too, smartass.
    • unloud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul will save us from this iPhone Web 2.0 Conspiracy!
  • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+48The 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.
  • exformation, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4All this wikipedia vandalism stories are giving me a hard on.
  • 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!
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • jonathanho, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4duplicate story you ***** idiot

    buried
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, this article hasn't been featured before.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+35The CIA is on digg burying this right now, SUPER TINFOIL ACTIVATE!!!
    • 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.
      • MrEguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5... and how have YOU come to know this?? ;-)
  • 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.
    • Audacitor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The point is that these groups are exploiting Wikipedia to manipulate the perceptions that users get from reading Wikipedia articles. If Wikipedia were a small and fairly obscure site, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but Wikipedia gets used 10s of 1000s of times everyday.

      And if you don't like the Wikipedia articles, don't read them.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I don't think you read the article. All the things said seem to point to worker boredom and not some conspiracy.
      • 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?
    • chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Because it's the CIA and that means that 9/11 was an inside job.
    • 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.
  • Skootles, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Buried as duplicate
  • yobbo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Piss off CIA
    • chillmandan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Read the artilce, the CIA put the exlamation Wahhhh! infront of a few paragraphs, and changed bio info on the CIA director and Oprah. Also *****.
  • fsjonsey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So thats who Willy on Wheels works for. It all makes sense now.
  • 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.
  • 1337diggster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No 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] "
  • colonelpanic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Didn't I just read an article about the BBC editing an article on George W. Bush?
    oh the irony..
  • Subiklim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Just 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!
    • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Abu Graib and many other examples show how a bloated government and secret crap attract super-psycho machiavels
  • bloggerjul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4All your base are belong to us
  • realdeal83, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"no one should doubt or forget: The CIA has a vital mission in protecting the United States, and the focus of this agency is there, on that decisive work."
    Yet CIA agents are spending their time vadalizing wikipedia articles? Very decisive work guys...
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3no they aren't? Since when does working for the CIA mean your an agent? Most of their employees are like any other office employees with access to absolutely nothing remotely secretive. It's probably bored someone bored in the IT dept, or budget dept, or someone else who does nothing but clerical work.
    • NissanNut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's the work of their interns.
  • 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.
  • troodon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Reinforces the notion that just because it's on the internet does not make it fact. Too many opportunities for personal opinions to be passed on as truth
  • boydestruction, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Soz, the CIA wouldn't know better than to use a proxy (at least) to "edit" wikipedia entries on behalf of the US government. Right. Whoever posted this as news is an idiot.
    • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe the psyop is getting people to overreact, then find out its just "Wahh", so the next time they hear a CIA tale, they pay no attention.
  • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to."

    I like Wikipedia, but this news will only have the sneaky bastards make edits from the library instead of their CIA office.
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Rriiiight, because editing a wiki entry is at the forefront of the CIA's top missions. With everything going on in the world, and all the governments we're trying to topple, adding the word "Wahhh" to a wiki is what we're really focused on.
  • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1***** the Patriot Act and ***** the Red Rings of Death.
  • chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3the CIA can suck my diosdifjlekj **** the CIA are my friends. They can only do good. They are only here to protect us. the CIA are my friends.***
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Get a shovel we're going digging on who changes what on wiki!
    It's refreshing to know what people don't want others to know.
    Keep it coming digg.
  • Nick22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think we might as well just say that every organization edits wikipedia.
  • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2This is the reason why wiki is only relevant for things like superman comics, or an episode guide for hero's. Wiki is not an official new source and that is what makes it so awesome. Wiki is awesome for superficial information like pop cultures, movies, music etc. But if you want real news wiki is not the key. It is to easy to change.
    • wsmith68, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Also hard, old, proven science. It is impossible to fake, and few try.
  • joefreeza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Does anyone find it funny that this is coming from BBC?
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Wiki is not a real news source. Anyone can edit it. I dont understand what the big deal is.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I love digg, I love others people idea's. I love wiki, But like digg it can be edited. I like that. But seriously if liberales can manipulate info so can can conservatives. So why are people concerned that someone is editing wiki.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • jeff303, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.
  • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2With all the intelligence the CIA has ***** up, it just seems fitting that they edit Wikipedia.
  • allyant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not a good thing to see the pope on wikipedia, he might learn what the real world thinks of him...
    • artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The article never said anything about the pope, idiot. Try reading a little bit about the pope before opening your mouth.
      • allyant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1read!
        "It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams."
  • swoosh_bnd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm sensing a little deja vu with this story. Why do we have one every day it seems like, today it could be "Scans 'show CIA wikipedia edits'" tomorrow it will be "Scans 'show (insert major organization here) wikipedia edits'".
  • heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Say didn't George Orwell predict this in his book 1984 ?
    Or perhaps the BBC should ask who what ,when , where , how and why , they failed to defeat Daniel Ortega and his ill equipped rag tag army of mostly illiterate peasants in a backwater called Nicaragua , with the best arms and drug lords money could buy to reinstate a total scum bag called Somoza , whom both Foggy Bottom and CIA Torture Inc. admired the man for his population regulation control methods
  • 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 :)
    • 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?
  • GreedKills, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When did the Bush and FoxNews supporters start to join Digg?
    • FunkyNuts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, I think the high schools are back in session, so the majority of Diggers you enjoyed this summer are in Algebra class.
  • minox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Breaking: Wikipedia edited by humans and not robots!
  • orxor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Wahhhhhh!

    sorry had to do it, digg me down.
  • omnirusa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1they are critical about the democrats editing a right wing show, but they look over the fact the republicans also defaced keith olbermans(sp?) entry...
  • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1BDS powered Whacko left-wing DIggBotts at work!!
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1jeez the CIA really does this ? It took this long to find this ? lol
  • surffoxy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia reminds me of that joke about the encyclopedias in the Soviet Union that had loose leaf pages.
  • justinmt7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would think the CIA has some pretty good information. Why would everyone assume they want to manipulate things?
  • pimonserry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*****. If you actually read it, it says he vandalised that page, not edited it for sensitive classified stuff, etc etc.
  • TimFrost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Anyone else notice the earlier story about the BBC editing wikipedia? This is just them covering their backs.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 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.