An intelligence agency that apparently hasn't done enough intelligence to know that doing such action would cause the opposite and also clearly do not know how Wikipedia works. Did I had to high expectations or were their criteria of quality too low?
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:09:51, "Peter Southwood" peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Well that's one way of drawing attention to the site...
We should thank them for making Wikipedia get in the spotlights. Free publicity.
As the intelligence agencies are enough encyclopaedic to have in our encyclopaedias, maybe we should think of setting up a project like Wiki Loves intelligence agencies. ;-) Compared to Wiki Loves Monuments are the heritage agencies loved by the Wikipedians and the heritage agencies like the Wikipedias, while with Wiki Loves intelligence agencies is probably only a one-way loving.
Romaine
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
An intelligence agency that apparently hasn't done enough intelligence to know that doing such action would cause the opposite
Possibly there will be a rise in the number of janitors against the number of intelligence officers.
g
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
A couple of years ago, the guy in charge of the CIA's internal MediaWiki (the Intelligence Wiki, which they added classification levels etc) did a talk at ... Usenix? LISA? One of their conferences.
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.
Fortunately not one that was being exposed to the public, other than his talk...
In other words, the problem was people were uploading Wikipedia articles which the government thought included classified information? And because the pages were already public uploaders assumed they were unclassified, but because the government is nuts, they were wrong.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
A couple of years ago, the guy in charge of the CIA's internal MediaWiki (the Intelligence Wiki, which they added classification levels etc) did a talk at ... Usenix? LISA? One of their conferences.
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.
Fortunately not one that was being exposed to the public, other than his talk...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
No, some information which is classified is also contained within reliable published sources available to the public and we use that information in our articles, along with occasional original research which may due to good guesses also contain such information. There are not two separate worlds of reliable classified information and reliable unclassified information; they overlap.
For example, if Mongolia purchases MIG aircraft that will result in an intelligence bulletin; but also there may be an AP story. The summary of classified information about the planes Mongolia has may have an inferior, but more or less accurate, Wikipedia counterpart article about the Mongolian air force, which if copied to the Intelligence wiki looks like it contains "secret" information, which, presumably the full file on Mongolian armed forces probably is.
Fred
In other words, the problem was people were uploading Wikipedia articles which the government thought included classified information? And because the pages were already public uploaders assumed they were unclassified, but because the government is nuts, they were wrong.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
A couple of years ago, the guy in charge of the CIA's internal MediaWiki (the Intelligence Wiki, which they added classification levels etc) did a talk at ... Usenix? LISA? One of their conferences.
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.
Fortunately not one that was being exposed to the public, other than his talk...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I don't understand the "no"; you seem to be agreeing with Nathan...
On 8 April 2013 21:19, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
No, some information which is classified is also contained within reliable published sources available to the public and we use that information in our articles, along with occasional original research which may due to good guesses also contain such information. There are not two separate worlds of reliable classified information and reliable unclassified information; they overlap.
For example, if Mongolia purchases MIG aircraft that will result in an intelligence bulletin; but also there may be an AP story. The summary of classified information about the planes Mongolia has may have an inferior, but more or less accurate, Wikipedia counterpart article about the Mongolian air force, which if copied to the Intelligence wiki looks like it contains "secret" information, which, presumably the full file on Mongolian armed forces probably is.
Fred
In other words, the problem was people were uploading Wikipedia articles which the government thought included classified information? And because the pages were already public uploaders assumed they were unclassified, but because the government is nuts, they were wrong.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
A couple of years ago, the guy in charge of the CIA's internal MediaWiki (the Intelligence Wiki, which they added classification levels etc) did a talk at ... Usenix? LISA? One of their conferences.
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.
Fortunately not one that was being exposed to the public, other than his talk...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
He didn't want to talk about which topic areas, but I have a pretty good idea of a few of them.
I would hazard a guess that nuclear weapons design is one of them; there's a diagram on-wiki that would have been Top Secret - Restricted Data - Secure Compartmented Information - Sigma 16 until December 2000, when it was rephrased a bit.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I don't understand the "no"; you seem to be agreeing with Nathan...
On 8 April 2013 21:19, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
No, some information which is classified is also contained within reliable published sources available to the public and we use that information in our articles, along with occasional original research which may due to good guesses also contain such information. There are not two separate worlds of reliable classified information and reliable unclassified information; they overlap.
For example, if Mongolia purchases MIG aircraft that will result in an intelligence bulletin; but also there may be an AP story. The summary of classified information about the planes Mongolia has may have an inferior, but more or less accurate, Wikipedia counterpart article about the Mongolian air force, which if copied to the Intelligence wiki looks like it contains "secret" information, which, presumably the full file on Mongolian armed forces probably is.
Fred
In other words, the problem was people were uploading Wikipedia articles which the government thought included classified information? And because the pages were already public uploaders assumed they were unclassified, but because the government is nuts, they were wrong.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM, George Herbert <
george.herbert@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_wiki@yahoo.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:31:29, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can't see what would be sensitive in the article..
I think that the existence of the article is considered too sensitive for them, not realizing that all information is already elsewhere on the internet.
A couple of years ago, the guy in charge of the CIA's internal MediaWiki (the Intelligence Wiki, which they added classification levels etc) did a talk at ... Usenix? LISA? One of their conferences.
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.
Fortunately not one that was being exposed to the public, other than his talk...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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...)
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
Regarding laser weapons -
It has been published in public reliable sources, such as Aviation Week, Proceedings of the Naval Institute, various speciality publications like Janes Inteligence Review, etc.
We have Category:Military_lasers which is thin but not empty.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org