Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia

[TuxThePenguin]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_busts_Gitmo_propaganda_team

comments?


Edit: Someone reported this post as 'not a news source' so here is one as a remedy.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/gitmo-troops-vandalise-wikipedia/2007/12/13/1197135602444.html

 

[Ave Maria]

I see nothing wrong with them editing Wikipedia so long as they are not doing it for propaganda but I suspect that they are doing it for propaganda. That disgusts me.

 

[Dale]

It's amazing how easy it is to modify Wikipedia, an alleged source of fact, or source of alleged fact.

A woman reporter on NBC News, on the air, looked up the Wikipedia article on herself and changed it from saying that she was a broadcast journalist to saying that she was a rock star.

Yet Wikipedia is constantly quoted on CF and many other places as a solid source.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

It's amazing how easy it is to modify Wikipedia, an alleged source of fact, or source of alleged fact.

A woman reporter on NBC News, on the air, looked up the Wikipedia article on herself and changed it from saying that she was a broadcast journalist to saying that she was a rock star.

Yet Wikipedia is constantly quoted on CF and many other places as a solid source.

And what the news reporter probably forgot to show you was 5 minutes later, when the great Wikipedia editors switched it right back, to its proper state.

 

[TheReasoner]

I see nothing wrong with them editing Wikipedia so long as they are not doing it for propaganda but I suspect that they are doing it for propaganda. That disgusts me.

Clearly propaganda. Read the article. They even modified wikipedia to claim Castro was an admitted transsexual (while misspelling transsexual).

What they have done is well beyond disgusting. It is not acceptable. It should have resulted in harsh prison sentences for the people involved. Modifying and manipulating public media is very serious when it is done by people who serve the army, the government, a corporation etc.
It SHOULD have caused MUCH more of an uproar than it has. It is a direct attack on the freedom of the press to do what they have done. And thus on one of the key foundations of democracy and what we today see as fundamental human rights. Then again, we all know Guantanamo stands for all of that as it is. So it isn`t much of a surprise to see them expand from torture and illegal imprisonment to deceitful propaganda and manipulation of the free press.

 

[Dannager]

It's amazing how easy it is to modify Wikipedia, an alleged source of fact, or source of alleged fact.

A woman reporter on NBC News, on the air, looked up the Wikipedia article on herself and changed it from saying that she was a broadcast journalist to saying that she was a rock star.

Yet Wikipedia is constantly quoted on CF and many other places as a solid source.

Wikipedia is a solid source. The number of mis-edited articles is incredibly small compared to the whole, and they don't tend to last long in their incorrect state. A study published in the journal Nature a couple years ago found Wikipedia to be as factually reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

[SteveAtheist]

It's amazing how easy it is to modify Wikipedia, an alleged source of fact, or source of alleged fact.

A woman reporter on NBC News, on the air, looked up the Wikipedia article on herself and changed it from saying that she was a broadcast journalist to saying that she was a rock star.

Yet Wikipedia is constantly quoted on CF and many other places as a solid source.

I would much rather Wikipedia be used as a source on these forums than the normal response, which, of course, is no source at all.

 

[SaintInChicago]

Wikipedia: the Encyclopedia Editable by Five-Year Olds

Anyway, it appears there was only one or two things written wrong out of the dozens of things they contributed. Wikileaks seems to be just as angry about "change 'invasion of Afghanistan' to 'war in Afghanistan'" as it does about he transexual remark. They sound pretty hysterical about this. I smell government hatred.

 

[wademay4]

Wikipedia is a solid source. The number of mis-edited articles is incredibly small compared to the whole, and they don't tend to last long in their incorrect state. A study published in the journal Nature a couple years ago found Wikipedia to be as factually reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Perhaps you could right a letter to my engineering professor telling him this, as it would have made my term paper much easier.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Perhaps you could right a letter to my engineering professor telling him this, as it would have made my term paper much easier.

A lot of Universaties have banned Wikipedia, which is odd. People should never believe a single source, and should research further, especially in College.

Banning Wikipedia seems to go totally against that.

 

[wademay4]

A lot of Universaties have banned Wikipedia, which is odd. People should never believe a single source, and should research further, especially in College.

Banning Wikipedia seems to go totally against that.

Yeah thats the way it is at my college. But I see where they are coming from. They want sources that are legitimate academic resources, which wikipedia is not. They do want the furthering of research, just in the right way.

 

[Dannager]

Perhaps you could right a letter to my engineering professor telling him this, as it would have made my term paper much easier.

As far as research goes, Wikipedia should not be considered an acceptable source regardless of its reliability - it is encyclopedic in nature, and is not designed to function as a source for actual research. Most Wikipedia articles do cite sources (with links) in the articles, and using those to bolster your research should certainly be considered acceptable.

 

[Dannager]

Wikipedia: the Encyclopedia Editable by Five-Year Olds

Anyway, it appears there was only one or two things written wrong out of the dozens of things they contributed. Wikileaks seems to be just as angry about "change 'invasion of Afghanistan' to 'war in Afghanistan'" as it does about he transexual remark. They sound pretty hysterical about this. I smell government hatred.

The admission that the military has personnel on what amounts to propaganda management duty is pretty startling (not in the sense that they exist, since everyone probably suspected that already, but in the sense that they were exposed and admitted to).

 

[MichaelFJF]

Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia

Caught? Wikipedia is all about editing. That's the whole point of the thing. That's why it's mostly a useless source.

 

[Dannager]

Caught? Wikipedia is all about editing. That's the whole point of the thing. That's why it's mostly a useless source.

Man, did you even read the thread?

 

[ACougar]

I don't think this is what it seems to be. If the government is spreading propaganda (and we'd be crazy to assume they don't) do you really believe they would be this sloppy? Come on...

I'm willing to bet that someone at the prison thought it would be a good idea if people assigned to the unit spent some of their time trying to create a positive public perception. Whoever asked or suggested to soldiers, civilians or contractors that they engage in this type of activity is in all likelihood simply an idiot.

Relax, go back to watching your regularly scheduled prop.. err news and rest assured that the silly individual responsible for this particular idea is probably posting his resume on Monster.com as we speak.

Clearly propaganda. Read the article. They even modified wikipedia to claim Castro was an admitted transsexual (while misspelling transsexual).

What they have done is well beyond disgusting. It is not acceptable. It should have resulted in harsh prison sentences for the people involved. Modifying and manipulating public media is very serious when it is done by people who serve the army, the government, a corporation etc.
It SHOULD have caused MUCH more of an uproar than it has. It is a direct attack on the freedom of the press to do what they have done. And thus on one of the key foundations of democracy and what we today see as fundamental human rights. Then again, we all know Guantanamo stands for all of that as it is. So it isn`t much of a surprise to see them expand from torture and illegal imprisonment to deceitful propaganda and manipulation of the free press.

 

[BlackAndy]

The use of propaganda in wartime? NO WAY!

 

[horuhe00]

The use of propaganda in wartime? NO WAY!

Suposed wartime.

 

[ACougar]

I don't know if I can express how disturbing that statement is...

Suposed wartime.

Hundreds of Billions of dollars in national wealth are pouring into Iraq and Afganistan, every day American soldiers are killed as they struggle to pacify and stabilize/prop-up governments too weak to stand on thier own, as well as civilians by the hundreds of thousands who have taken flight from thier homes, been killed directly or indirectly by the violence.

This war is very real, and yet no one feels the economic costs of this war, that'll be pushed off onto our children, most don't feel the personal cost of this war because military culture has become it's own subculture... not really a part of the main except in areas that lack a whole lot of economic opportunity.

Our society is for the most part completly insulated from this struggle... that's not natural and it's not right. It is downright scary.

 

[revolutio]

Shameless Wikipedia browser and proud of it.

On the topics in my field I've never actually found a screw up in Wikipedia apart from a few things I felt were too generalized as a result of condensing for a short article.

I'd rather someone looked at a Wikipedia page for a topic than the second, third, fourth, or fifth results that turn up in Google.