info on Wikipedia

[d-cat]

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits. In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case...
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign (https://anonym.to/?https://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker)


CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits | Technology | Reuters (https://anonym.to/?https://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1642896020070816)


Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'
BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' (https://anonym.to/?https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm)


CIA and Major Corporations Altering Articles on Wikipedia
CIA and Major Corporations Altering Articles on Wikipedia - The Largest Minority (https://anonym.to/?https://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/08/17/cia-and-major-corporations-altering-articles-on-wikipedia/)


Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services
Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services - OhmyNews International (https://anonym.to/?https://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=374006&rel_no=1&back_url)


Wikipedia, the Source of Disinformation
Byzantine Blog: Wikipedia, the Source of Disinformation (https://anonym.to/?https://www.byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/12/wikipedia-disinformation.html)


Wikipedia deletes Benjamin Emanuel (Rahm's father) entry
Wikipedia deletes Benjamin Emanuel entry :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dall'Iraq occupato :: news from occupied Iraq :: - it (https://anonym.to/?https://www.uruknet.info/?p=m48750&hd=&size=1&l=e)

[NudeTea]

Appreciate it but Sorry, I can't fully focus on this. I'm still stuck on figuring out how I can get in the tub with 58 old women. (smirk)

[Sylph]

I edit Wikipedia. It's fun and addictive and anyone can do it. Of course, the corporations, governments, and anyone with an ax to grind will try to impose their own ideas. Fortunately, the process of tracking down who is trying to have too much influence is more open now, and these 'weaving spiders' can be found out!



Appreciate it but Sorry, I can't fully focus on this. I'm still stuck on figuring out how I can get in the tub with 58 old women. (smirk)
Isn't this what goes on up at Harbin?
Dunno, I've never had the pleasure!

[NudeTea]

Well, golly. Someone should edit Wacco onto Wikipedia's list of notable Bulletin Board Systems. Woo hoo!


I edit Wikipedia. It's fun and addictive and anyone can do it. Of course, the corporations, governments, and anyone with an ax to grind will try to impose their own ideas. Fortunately, the process of tracking down who is trying to have too much influence is more open now, and these 'weaving spiders' can be found out!



Isn't this what goes on up at Harbin?
Dunno, I've never had the pleasure!

[Sylph]

Good idea, you start! You had the idea, you can get the glory!


Well, golly. Someone should edit Wacco onto Wikipedia's list of notable Bulletin Board Systems. Woo hoo!

[MsTerry]

I edit Wikipedia.
Well, well now the truth comes out.


It's fun and addictive and anyone can do it.
I don't know if that is a recommendation.....................

[NudeTea]

Wikipedia. Editable by anyone. Isn't that "social contact" in general? People edit their whole social face: it's not till you live with someone that you know the real facts.




Well, well now the truth comes out.

I don't know if that is a recommendation.....................

[Sylph]

Wikipedia is pretty reliable for noncontroversial topics. For some alt-med topics the behind-the-scenes drama is pretty interesting, with alternative medicine practitioners/proponents, duking it out with science oriented/skeptical people, who may or may not be medically trained. There are physicians, homeopaths and other health professionals involved in editing. The result can be a very detailed and balanced article where one would find every positive study about a controversial treatment and a pretty good summary of what mainstream medical opinion is on the subject. The latest studies and meta reviews of studies are used as references. Every statement must be supported by a reliable source.
Take "Homeopathy"as an example of a hot topic. The controversy started in 2001 according to the history and the talk pages go on and on. Over the years, you can assume that the article has been morphing in small or major ways, with both sides trying to tweak the article. As it stands now, it's a good, detailed article (that I didn't work on!)
Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy)
To see the latest discussions.
Talk:Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy)

On the other hand, Wikipedia is a repository of the oddest things....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highgate_VampireYou thought vampires did not exist? You thought vampire hunters do not edit Wikipedia? You thought two opposing factions of British vampire hunters (the "orthodox" Vampire Research Society and the "revisionist" Highgate Vampire Society, and let's hope these links stay red like blood forever) would not clash on a Wikipedia article or its talk page? All I can say is - think again.

And I do think Waccbb.net is 'notable' enough to have a Wikipedia page!

[OrchardDweller]

just thought I'd bump this thread since people on this board are referencing Wikipedia. I haven't checked recently but the entry for the neocon's Project For A New American Century didn't even include the part about "a new Pearl Harbor" being needed to carry out their plan! lol