On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
Additionally, it turns out that if intelligence employees have their names published on a site like Wikipedia (even without a connection to their position) they are dismissed or transferred to a public position (i.e . public relations).
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of random jokers on the Internet?
On 30/12/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of random jokers on the Internet?
Experience would suggest not...
We may only hear about it when things go wrong, and I'm sure there are things they've done right, but the number of things that have gone horribly wrong when the CIA has got involved is too big to ignore...
Not really a WikiEn topic, but the number of things gone 'horribly wrong' is only meaningful if you can compare it to the number of 'horribly wrong' things averted.
On 30/12/2007, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Not really a WikiEn topic, but the number of things gone 'horribly wrong' is only meaningful if you can compare it to the number of 'horribly wrong' things averted.
After many edits from CIA internet address ranges showed up on the WikiScanner, a spokesman said, "I'd like in any case to underscore a far larger and more significant point that 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." When we pointed out that CIA editors had in fact been concentrating on querulous Buffy The Vampire Slayer trivia, he said he'd get back to us.
- d.
Anyone at the CIA doing something important can't access the Internet from their workstations anyway.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:48 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/12/2007, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Not really a WikiEn topic, but the number of things gone 'horribly wrong' is only meaningful if you can compare it to the number of 'horribly wrong' things averted.
After many edits from CIA internet address ranges showed up on the WikiScanner, a spokesman said, "I'd like in any case to underscore a far larger and more significant point that 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." When we pointed out that CIA editors had in fact been concentrating on querulous Buffy The Vampire Slayer trivia, he said he'd get back to us.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/30/07, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Not really a WikiEn topic, but the number of things gone 'horribly wrong' is only meaningful if you can compare it to the number of 'horribly wrong' things averted.
I wonder about the same thing. How many "911s" have they prevented? We only hear about them when they screw the pooch.
On 31/12/2007, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/30/07, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Not really a WikiEn topic, but the number of things gone 'horribly wrong' is only meaningful if you can compare it to the number of 'horribly wrong' things averted.
I wonder about the same thing. How many "911s" have they prevented? We only hear about them when they screw the pooch.
I wasn't thinking about things they failed to stop, I was thinking about things they actually did.
On 2007.12.30 11:03:14 -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com scribbled 0.7K characters:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/12/2007, Nachman nachman.chayal@gmail.com wrote:
The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia. You're the new CIA job fair representative."
That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably true.
After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to the sort that is measured by IQ tests.
Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of random jokers on the Internet? -- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
[[Open Source Intelligence]].
No. No, not really. I suspect I dropped that idea somewhere along the line - although I couldn't tell you whether it was the cyborg cats, the remote viewing, the MKULTRA and more covert programs, the sponsorship of heroin and cocaine criminal syndicates (to say nothing of the right-wing dictatorships), the poisoned cigar and wetsuits, or what which specifically disabused me of that idea.
-- gwern OIR man transfer Meade ADIU Team VGPL DST plutonium MD5