The Wiki Wars: From the CIA to the Vatican—How Special Interests are Battling Out the “Facts” on Wikipedia

Well, If you have nothing to hide, why would you be making these changes. I thought this was an interesting view on the type of material these secret group want to keep secret. We know very well, the CIA has its own agenda and same goes for the Jesuit(Vatican covert group).

A program called “Wikiscanner” designed to show the origination of Wikipedia edits is revealing the shocking, hilarious, shady, bizarre and often clearly biased origins of many Wikipedia entries. Some of the edits may be meant as harmless (albeit rude) pranks, but many others are a deliberate effort to misinform the public by rewriting “facts”, or by covering up the truth.

Central Intelligence Agency computers, for example, were found to be the sources of nearly 300 edits to subjects including Iran’s president, the Argentine navy, and China’s nuclear arsenal.

“While I cannot confirm whether any changes were made from CIA computers, the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly,” CIA spokesman George Little said in response to the incidents.

A Vatican computer was used to remove documented evidence linking Ireland’s Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.

Politics are also playing a big part in the “Wiki War”. Recently, an edit traced back to computers at the US Democratic Party’s Congressional campaign committee changed a description of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to replace “comedian” with “bigot” and dubbed his listeners “legally retarded.”

“We don’t condone these sorts of activities and we take every precaution to insure our network is used in a responsible manner,” committee spokesman Doug Thornell responded.

A Republican Party computer was used after the US invasion of Iraq to change “occupying forces” to “liberating forces” in a Baath Party entry. A United Nations computer was identified as the source of an edit that referred to a respected Italian journalist a “promiscuous racist”. Those types of changes may seem small, but when they are specifically calculated to sway public opinion, the issue becomes bigger than the actual edits.

Media outlets are also staging “attacks”. An edit traced by Wikiscanner to the BBC, changed the cause of former prime minister Tony Blair’s heart palpitations from strong coffee and vigorous gym workouts to vodka and exertion in the bedroom. Wikiscanner also identified a BBC computer as being used to change US president George W. Bush’s middle name from “Walker” to “Wanker”. A computer belonging to Reuters news service is listed as adding “mass murderer” to a description of Bush. Recently Fox News network got caught heavily editing Wikipedia entries in a full-out effort to smear rivals.

In fact, lots of groups are taking “creative” liberties in editing Wikipedia says programmer Virgil Griffith, who developed Wikiscanner. He says it is a common practice for politicians on both sides of the field to “whitewash” entries by replacing negative adjectives with flattering ones, and that politicians and corporations often insert criticism of their competitors.

Corporations also show similar tendencies to remove critical information, according to Griffith. For instance, Diebold, a company famous for making electronic voting machines got caught deleting entire paragraphs that explained the limitations of electronic voting. PepsiCo deleted several paragraphs that mentioned the detrimental health effects of soft drinks.

Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, says the site discourages such “conflict of interest” editing, but he admits, “We don’t make it an absolute rule.”

In theory, a free encyclopedia that everyone edits sounds utopian. However, in reality it has not turned out to be a reliable source of unbiased information. The obvious problem is that if anyone can write whatever they feel like—regardless of reality—it becomes virtually impossible to ensure that information is factual. Even with Wikiscanner, it seems unlikely that the biased editing will stop, rather people will just be smarter about what location they do any potentially incriminating editing from.

Another limitations of the Wikipedia model is that it can’t be used as a credible reference source. From a scholarly perspective, using a Wikipedia entry as a reference isn’t much better than referencing your 14 year old brother. After all, he may have written the entry.

But is there a way to have an open online encyclopedia that doesn’t encounter these limitations? A nonprofit called Digital Universe (http://www.dufoundation.org ) believes there is. They are gearing up to unleash their version of the ideal free online encyclopedia this Fall, which will collaborate with hundreds of experts in virtually every field to steward entries.

The general idea is that while the world should have access to free information, that information should be more than just free—it should be meticulously cited and factual, as well. As with Wikipedia, the general public will be encouraged to contribute. The main difference will be that entries will be crosschecked for accuracy by experts in that field prior to posting. A system of counter-checks is meant to keep things relatively unbiased and fair. No doubt this new online encyclopedia will encounter it’s own limitations, but it will be nice to have a reliable alternative to the Wiki war.

(Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com)