-----Original Message----- From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Intellipedia Value http://www.birdsonginfo.com/blog/2009/05/in-addition-to-analysis-we-need-pe… From our article: "Intellipedia. It's been written up. It's the Wikipedia on a classified network, with one very important difference: it's not anonymous. We want people to establish a reputation. If you're really good, we want people to know you're good. If you're making contributions, we want that known. If you're an idiot, we want that known too.">> --------------------- Corollary 1: On Wikipedia you can hide that you're an idiot. Will Johnson

Fred Bauder wrote: Low barriers to entry. A somewhat higher barrier to finding useful, satisfying work around the site and becoming a sturdy Wikipedian. Charles

George Herbert wrote: I don't believe they are integrated. The publically available descriptions of the three networks state they do not co-mingle. They might link to one another, but I think integration might be pushing it. I'll research any available press releases and what not from the DoD, but I do I've derailed the conversation topic from it's original intent, and for that, I apologize. :) Jon

Ray Saintonge wrote: The CIA guy talking about Intellipedia at Wikimania 2008 had a less dramatic, more credible kind of example of how the wiki editing "churned": some editor would grab text off some intranet web page, only to be told "you shouldn't have done that, we were going to update it but hadn't got round to it yet". I certainly find the wikifying/copy editing phase of adapting old text to place in WP the most stringent form of critical fact-checking I do. But for Intellipedia what seems to go on is that they build articles that are still for background, and link to live WP pages also (rather than importing), so forming a layer between us and the actual hard intelligence. Charles

geni wrote: Not risky, again, available resources report that the CIA is not the only user of the product. :) Best, Jon

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:36 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: The IP addresses used by the CIA are not secret. $ whois 198.81.129.100 ANS Communications, Inc BLK198-15-ANS (NET-198-80-0-0-1) 198.80.0.0 - 198.81.255.255 Central Intelligence Agency OIT-BLK1 (NET-198-81-128-0-1) 198.81.128.0 - 198.81.191.255 # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-05-26 19:10 # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. 11.0.0.0/8 is allocated to "DoD Intel Information Systems". Defense Information Systems Agency is assigned 22.0.0.0/8, 26.0.0.0/8, 29.0.0.0/8, and 30.0.0.0/8. DoD Network Information Center gets 55.0.0.0/8. The CIA assuredly has a variety of ranges assigned to it through various levels of registrars that anyone with a whois database could look up. Even if they tried to keep them secret, they'd be figured out sooner or later by anyone who cared, if they remained static. Get access to one router near a known CIA installation and watch the traffic. If the CIA cares about this, they presumably don't permit outgoing traffic to the public web without some layers of indirection. If you're already allowing your employees free access to the unencrypted public web, letting them link to Wikipedia is not going to worsen matters.

It would, nevertheless, be an abuse of checkuser to run those searches, without cause. Fred

If someone there starts engaging in juvenile vandalism and creates a lot of socks, we'll check the hell out of them and put a range block on them, just like we would on an elementary school. Fred