From Steve Aftergood's Secrecy News blog at Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/the_wikipedia_factor_in_us_int.html
March 21, 2007
The Wikipedia Factor in U.S. Intelligence
The collaboratively written online encyclopedia Wikipedia, created in 2001, has steadily grown in popularity, credibility and influence to the point that it is now used and referenced in U.S. Government intelligence products.
A March 19 profile of Indian Congress Party Leader Rahul Gandhi prepared by the Open Source Center (OSC) of the Office of Director of National Intelligence is explicitly derived from "various internet sources including wikipedia.org." A March 21 OSC profile of Rajnath Singh, president of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, is likewise "sourced from wikipedia.org."
An OSC report last year on the leader of the terrorist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Velupillai Prabhakaran, noted that he and his wife "have two children, a girl and a boy. According to wikipedia.com, the boy is named Charles Anthony and the girl, Duwaraha."
The relatively new attentiveness of U.S. intelligence agencies to Wikipedia and other unorthodox sources (including fas.org) seems like a healthy development. Of course, like any source and moreso than some, Wikipedia cannot be used uncritically.
Last December, according to another OSC report, a participant in an online jihadist forum posted a message entitled "Why Don't We Invade Wikipedia?" in which "he called on other participants to consider writing articles and adding items to the online Wikipedia encyclopedia.... and in this way, and through an Islamic lobby, apply pressure on the encyclopedia's material."
For various topics related to space physics, "Wikipedia was the most complete source of information" compared to other highly ranked web sites, according to an article in the American Geophysical Union's Eos magazine (13 March 07) by Mark B. Moldwin, et al. But some Wikipedia entries on space physics, the authors found, also contained mistaken use of terminology, factual errors and omissions.
"Wikipedia lets anyone write or edit it, which of course makes it vulnerable to vandalism--as when a picture of the evil Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars briefly adorned the entry for the new Pope [Benedict]," notes Eric Rauchway in The New Republic Online (March 21).
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
We will know they are doing that when US intelligence reports that Iran is gay.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
We will know they are doing that when US intelligence reports that Iran is gay.
I more concerned about where the guided missiles will go once the vandals start changing geography... " '''Iran''' is a region of [[London]], [[UK]]." says Wikipedia. "Bomb Iran", says GW Bush...
A few years ago we did have someone from a USAF base in Texas looking to Wikipedia for information about the missiles on his base. O:-)
Ec
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
Have no fear. They have whole departments whose job it is to ensure that data's source and credibility are properly noted.
Most of the people at intelligence agencies spend far, far more time analyzing data than gathering it, and the data source and credibility are important.
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:25:24 +0100, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
Have no fear. They have whole departments whose job it is to ensure that data's source and credibility are properly noted.
Most of the people at intelligence agencies spend far, far more time analyzing data than gathering it, and the data source and credibility are important.
I think the whole Iraqi WMD fiasco showed that no amount of quality asurance by the intelligence agencies will prevent politicials from giving undue weight to the sources that provide information they want to hear, regardles of the credebility of said source...
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As long as they keep saying "According the Wikipedia" then I guess it's a good thing. If they start stating it as fact then the world is in a lot of trouble... (or, a lot *more* trouble, if you prefer).
Given the way that previous intelligence has influenced American foreign policy ... I doubt it. ;-)
Ec