FBI & CIA Editing at Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Aug 17, 2007.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Wikipedia is an interesting resource but IMO where the best info is found is not in the article itself but the footnotes and external links at the bottom. A number of articles (more than you think)do lack good source and footnotes and should be held suspect but there are also lots of good articles that are heavily sourced and footnoted with documentation to support the claims.

    No arguement there are tainted and bias articles within it and I know Wikipedia folks try to wash the data for accuracy but it still comes down to the reader to use due diligency.

    And BTW: In some cases I'll grant you that some of the CIA and FBI inputs may very well have been to correct false info and I also believe if someone had posted sensitive info that shouldn't have been and may have been gained via unauthorized means, then I have no problem wth them washing it out. We'll just have to see where this story goes if it goes anywhere.


    I'm sure in the end it will be Bush's fault because everything else is!

    Who will they blame when he's not in office?
  2. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    This no doubt cheapens the authenticity of the wikipedia service.
    Especially when Gov't, Politcal and Private agencies are able to tap in, an edit at will. Entities such as the Dem Nat'l Headquarter editing Rush Limbaugh(which I find very amusing and true..lol**see bottum) and Apple editing Microsoft and Oprah getting a makeover seems to easy and expected. However "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor.
    Although when we start having official Gov't Agencies such as CIA and FBI intruding in a Privately owned Information Service where do you draw the line. Next will they dictate the History and Education cirriculum and texts books of our school systems ? Who does this ultimately hurt besides Wikipedia's reputation? The general public's trust in their leadership no matter which political machine is running the show. Wkmac asks"who shall we blame"?(should I take the bait?) I think we shall blame nobody but ourselves for thinking that Wikipedia is foolproof and not banning together and voting in a leadership most likely to minimize the intrusions of our personal freedoms and historical content.

    I'm sure were gonna hear "Wikipedia is Liberal Media" from some.
    Or is Kmac insinuating "Does Wikipedia has an agenda"? Uhm..thought provoking.:confused:1

    I'm hoping they dont revised this editited-entry**
  3. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator

    Interesting question.
    Maybe, it will be the same old dog and pony show.
    Blame all before you, for your own faulty judgement.
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Realistically and honestly you would have to say the source is biased here with such a listing. Clearly such slanted information was not posted by someone who shares Rush's views. therefore its clear that someone with an opposite view of Rush's wrote the above opinion piece. Liberal media would be a source with a view of the world opposite of Rush's so the thought this piece was written by the liberal press may not be a stretch. In any case anyone with even a simple high school education can deduce that the above piece was written with strong bias.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I know D thought the motive may be something else but it was more a matter of humor, thus the winking face. Clinton got blame after he left office and it goes as you said. I know even at UPS when someone leaves, especially if they leave the company or retire that early on if something happens, the blame is thrown at them if it can stick because they aren't there to defend themselves and they make an excellent scapegoat.

    All past presidents Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, etc. etc. have been blamed during and especially after leaving office of causing one ill or another. After they leave historians pour over the details even more with microscopes and people talk and write of direct events and then the Monday morning quarterbacking begins. I think it's good to do this because how do you learn what works and what doesn't unless you look at the history (results) of your actions?

    It's just always easier to focus on the negative than the positive because of human nature and as such that's what we tend to do.
  6. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Apparently it's not just the Feds who like to buff up their image on Wikipedia: clicky
  7. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Great link, Jonesy... Buffy (aka Fox news ) the Wikipedia Slayer. Apparently the temptation goes both ways....like an apple tree in Paradise with a do not touch sign and a snake oil salesman nearby.