Weapons design is obvious; however much intelligence is about rather ordinary military capability and deployment. We seem to be doing poorly, from the intelligence standpoint responsibly, regarding laser weapons, the "next big thing" I don't think much has been published in public reliable sources, although it showed up today in the NYT.
Fred.
On 8 April 2013 20:06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
He was talking about challenges. The code certification was interesting. The Wiki project getting in trouble for having (US classified) Secret, Top Secret, or Top Secret SCI (Secure Compartmented Information) in the "Open-unclassified" category *due to Wikipedia uploads/imports* was apparently a major ongoing pain point for the whole organization.
I have to say, this is a delightful image :-)
We had some problems in the past on enwiki with this "officially secret" situation - well-meaning military personnel trying to remove information from articles citing operational security reasons, even when the information was definitionally public. Strictly speaking, had *they* told us the information, they could perhaps have been breaching operational security; the problem came from not connecting that to the realisation that not everyone was bound by their specific security restrictions.
(I forget the precise pages - a map of military zones in Iraq was involved in one, and I've also seen someone try and remove mention of where US divisions were based in Germany, which was perhaps a bit like trying to hide the proverbial elephant...)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l