Changing Reality With A Mouse Click

New Scanner Reveals Origin Of Computers Used To Alter Wikipedia Articles

(CBS/AP)  Somebody using a National Rifle Association computer altered the Wikipedia article on the Sept. 11 terror attacks to strengthen the suggestion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq many have been involved in the planning and execution of the attacks.

Church of Scientology computers have been used to excise criticism of the church from Wikipedia.

A CBS computer was used to falsely claim that CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer's real name is Irving Federman. This "fact" was added to Blitzer's Wikipedia biography.

And folks from The New York Times, Fox News, the FBI, the CIA and many other groups and organizations have also been busy cutting and pasting their version of Wikipedia history.

As the Web encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Wikipedia encourages participants to adopt online user names, but it also lets contributors be identified simply by their computers' numeric Internet addresses.

Often that does not provide much of a cloak, such as when PCs in congressional offices were discovered to have been involved in Wikipedia entries trashing political rivals.

In a recent incident, the press secretary for Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn., said he deleted unflattering information about his boss and his brother, a state representative, from their biographies on the Internet encyclopedia.

Timothy Hill used a congressional office computer to edit their
Wikipedia entries. "My job is to make sure statements about my boss are truthful and, sometimes, as positive as possible," he said.

Episodes like this inspired Virgil Griffith, a computer scientist about to enter grad school at CalTech, to automate the process with WikiScanner, a new online tool.

The free scanner grabs the Internet Protocol addresses used in anonymous Wikipedia edits in the past five years. By combining that with public information about which IP addresses belong to whom, the Scanner reveals Wikipedia changes made from computers assigned to many organizations.

Many of the edits are predictably self-interested: PCs in Scientology officialdom were used to remove criticism in the church's Wikipedia entry. But others hint at procrastinating office workers, such as the tweaks to Wikipedia articles on TV shows being made from CIA computers.

Many examples are being tallied at a page run by Wired News, which reported earlier on WikiScanner.

Griffith wrote on his site that he hopes "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike."

Whatever comes of it, WikiScanner has a fan in Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. "It is fabulous and I strongly support it," Wales said.

[nothappyatall]

Well duh, the wiki site is editable by ANYONE, anyone can edit any pages there that''s why it''s not totally reliable.

[one_american]

It appears that the left has been very busy trying to re-write and spin history...and in some cases even before any time has passed.

The fact that those who seek to subvert truth or politically smear those who they do not agree with - they can no longer hide their activities - will be a major improvement to Wikipedia.

[rushlimpdrug]

And whomever changed my bio on Wikipedia to read that I am dating Brit Spears, well that is just not true either.

[getit1776]

"It appears that the left has been very busy trying to re-write and spin history...and in some cases even before any time has passed."

The NRA and Fox News are the left? Where on earth do you come up with this stuff? Must everything be left/right? Pathetic, really.

[nothappyatall]

" it also lets contributors be identified simply by their computers'' numeric Internet addresses.
"

Not exactly chief, there are thousands of open ANONYMOUS proxiy ports world-wide that browsers can plug the ip address into their browser to make connections to web sites, the ip displayed will be the PROXY server''s.
Open proxy can be obtained by accident thru poor server configuration, bugs in software, or on purpose.

One of hundreds of LISTS of open proxies that are updated every ten minutes;

www.stayinvisible.com/index.pl/proxy_list

The problem is, if a candidate''s web server has an accidental or hacked open proxy port and it''s discovered, ANYONE who knows that port ip address or sees it on those proxy site lists, can use that and they will APPEAR to be hailing from that machine. Many open proxy ports occur overseas in china and elsewhere, a lot due to web server operators and ISP''s who are careless or don''t know what they are doing.

[lochlan-2009]

Well that was pretty obvious. All you had to do was pull up any senator and you''d be on the floor laughing at the write up. They are hysterical.

[jetlizhan]

all changes/edits need to go thru wikipedia and they need to research the facts - it''ll be up to them to update any changes.

[the_quietman]

From the Wiki searches I have done so far, the non-political entries have been fairly accurate, albiet the spelling and grammar tends to be below par on some so these entries I cross check and find that the data is good but often incomplete. Most writers do appear to be making entries on subjects that they are either familiar with or have researched carefully. The biographical entries are skewed but then historically, all biographies are. Overall the wiki concept is a good idea, but should not be used as a sole reference.

[ckcool192001]

This just goes to show you the old saying that most of you heard from your high school and college teachers. Make sure you''re source is a good one, WIK is more like an opinion site, since anyone can go in and edit an entry.

So if you insist upon using Wik, take what you read with a grain of salt.

[mitch0927]

The Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia isn''t something I would use for serious research. Just something I would use for a quick reference stop while doing true research through the public library. I would believe anything that Wikipedia would have to offer because it can be edited by anyone. History research can only be done by actually getting off my duff and go to the library and open these things called "books" and turn pages and read. I''ve always thought Wikipedia was a joke anyway.

There are still a few places in this world that can be beneficial while researching anything. Remember the old encyclopedia? They actually have good material that can be used for writing papers for school or college. Since the advent of the personal computer, a good majority of kids these days won%u2019t even type, they%u2019ll just copy and paste things and turn it in as their own, which in my book is still considered plagiarism.

I know the teachers have it tougher by having to read every paper and then double check it for plagiarism.

[mitch0927]

"I would believe anything that Wikipedia" Meant to say I wouldn''t believe anything that Wikipedia would have to offer...

[tuckerndfw]

Everything we read or hear is presented with a bias.

Wikipedia is no different than CBS or any other "commercial" outlet. Except Wikipedia has a lot more "editors" and "reporters."

Here is a clue about how to arrive at the "truth":

Read or listen to what the opponents say with as much interest as what the proponents claim.

Wikipedia is no better or worse than any other outlet and the information must be read with a very critical (skeptical) view. Which is also true of CBS or any other source.

[toolmangler-2009]

You talkin'' about paranoia! This is further proof that "Big Brother" is alive and well. Since they can check on who is doing what to whom, you know they won''t stop there. The knowledge that you had the temerity ( AUDACITY, HARDIHOOD, EFFRONTERY, NERVE, CHEEK, GALL, CHUTZPAH) to edit something you thought was improper or wrong on a ''public website'' will goad these people into hacking your computer just to see what else you have been up to. Turn your electronic snitches on wide open and see what I mean. enjoy!!!

[global_chick]

I can''t believe this is a surprise to anyone. If you saw something on the Internet that you didn''t like, why wouldn''t you change it?

[feelfree1]

Re: "And folks from The New York Times, Fox News, the FBI, the CIA and many other groups and organizations have also been busy cutting and pasting their version of Wikipedia history."

Gee, what a surprise! The terrorists at the FBI and the CIA will do anything for a laugh!

At least CBS Nooz has the decency to foist their unsubstantiated, pro-fascist, poopaganda on us from their own site, or should I say "SITE"?!

[swift9]

Wikipedia reminds me of that old joke about the encyclopedias in the Soviet Union with the loose leaf pages.

[postmoderner]

Hey Differentia9 - All closed encyclopedias remind me of of a narrow perspective from elite white Western men. And that''s the same people who are editing their own entity''s entries.

[postmoderner]

Hey Differentia9 - All closed encyclopedias remind me of of a narrow perspective from elite white Western men. And that''s the same people who are editing their own entity''s entries.

[roger gonnet]

Scientology founder Hubbard was much inspired by Orwell. His cult is always searching digging "facts" about all his members as his enemies. Scientology is rewriting history, with its own brand of the Dept of Truth: recently, it has rewritten no less than 18 books of the founder, pretending they had been falsified on the first versions. Problem: Hubbard himself had accepted these versions of his works.
Scientology is orwellian.

[baycat57]

Left or right, the Labour party and even a few jokers have made changes to Wiki to ''subvert truth''.
My question is, whose ''truth''.
Histories have always been written by the victors - right or wrong. And history has been amended many times as the truth - the real truth - has been accepted and acknowledged.
It must be also be accepted that Wiki''s very strength is also its greatest weakness - that it can be amended by anyone, even, or especially, those with a specific agenda.
As has been proven...
To be honest and ''truthful'' even the least savory facts must be included, without supposition and labels, and let the reader decide for themselves.
So, for example, an entry about Scientology, could mention that some people believe that Scientology is a cult. Does that mean that it is - no,it simply means that some people believe it is so.
As another example, it is not necessary to label Fox a ''conservative'' news station, any more than it is to label CBS a ''liberal'' station. However, a mention that some consider it so would be an accurate description that would also illustrate the increasing polarization of our society.
Sadly, for myself I see this as only more evidence of that polarization.
It seems as though we now honor the freedoms and liberties envisioned by our forefathers more in the breech than in the observance, and then only when convenient.