Wikipedia, founder Jimmy Wales, & Propaganda

[Myra Bronstein]

"Peter Andrews writes:

The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.

For example, the page about JFK's assassination discusses the controversy but all evidence linking the killing to the CIA is missing. It is difficult to believe that nobody in the world is interested in adding this information, so most probably it has been removed by CIA staff. Do you see any need to actively protect these areas of Wikipedia, so that their contents are not so obviously government propaganda? Or do you yourself censor the entries so that they comply with official government policy?

Jimmy Wales replies:

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you, as the old saying goes.

When the cumulative wisdom of thousands of individuals working in complete freedom from points all over the globe in a transparent public system leads to a certain result you don't like, it is probably better to check your premises than to assume that it is the result of a CIA plot. Please.

The truth is that people who are eager to push bizarre theories based on random speculation by lunatics do not generally find a fact-based, open culture of dialogue and debate to be to their liking. I think this is one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia, it allows ordinary people a quick way to rely on a resource where good people have thoughtfully sorted through the noise to arrive at a broad presentation of the truth. Including the truth about what the CIA has done or not done, when reliable evidence supports it.

But to answer your question a bit more directly: no, Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10970

[John Simkin]

Bobbie Johnson article in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/...eaccountability

Editing your own entry on Wikipedia is usually the province of vain celebrities keen for some good PR. But a new website has uncovered dozens of companies that have been editing the site in order to improve their public image.

The Wikipedia Scanner, which trawls the backwaters of the popular online encyclopaedia, has unearthed a catalogue of organisations massaging entries, including the CIA and the Labour party.

Workers operating on CIA computers have been spotted editing entries including the biography of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, while unnamed individuals inside the Vatican have worked on entries about Catholic saints - and Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams.

Meanwhile, an anonymous surfer from Labour's Millbank headquarters excised a section about Labour Students which referred to "careerist MPs" and criticisms that the party's student movement was no longer seen as radical.

And somebody from a computer traced to Democrat HQ edited a page on conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh, calling him "idiotic", "ridiculous" and labelling his 20 million listeners as "legally retarded".

But the biggest culprit that the Scanner claims to have discovered is Diebold, a supplier of voting machines, which it says has made huge alterations to entries about its involvement in the controversial "hanging chad" election in the US in 2000. The company was criticised in the wake of the disputed results, but edits made by its employees on Wikipedia have included the removal of 15 paragraphs detailing the allegations.

"In August 2003 Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fundraiser for George W Bush ..." the deleted text read. "When assailed by critics for the conflict of interest ... he vowed to lower his political profile."

The change, made two years ago, was quickly reversed and the culprit warned off for "vandalism". A Diebold official was not available for comment.

[Myra Bronstein]

"Peter Andrews writes:

The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.

For example, the page about JFK's assassination discusses the controversy but all evidence linking the killing to the CIA is missing. It is difficult to believe that nobody in the world is interested in adding this information, so most probably it has been removed by CIA staff. Do you see any need to actively protect these areas of Wikipedia, so that their contents are not so obviously government propaganda? Or do you yourself censor the entries so that they comply with official government policy?

Jimmy Wales replies:

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you, as the old saying goes.

When the cumulative wisdom of thousands of individuals working in complete freedom from points all over the globe in a transparent public system leads to a certain result you don't like, it is probably better to check your premises than to assume that it is the result of a CIA plot. Please.

The truth is that people who are eager to push bizarre theories based on random speculation by lunatics do not generally find a fact-based, open culture of dialogue and debate to be to their liking. I think this is one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia, it allows ordinary people a quick way to rely on a resource where good people have thoughtfully sorted through the noise to arrive at a broad presentation of the truth. Including the truth about what the CIA has done or not done, when reliable evidence supports it.

But to answer your question a bit more directly: no, Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10970

His standard of 'reliable evidence' is the problem, not to mention his predjudices on other things showing under his facade.....some things never change.....even the HSCA mentioned the 'c' word. Maybe we should post on the Widipedia site actual links to real original CIA et al. documents....and when they are removed scream bloody bias and hidden agenda [and backers/censors].

Yes... so many problems are evident in his comments that it's hard to know where to begin.

At best he's outed himself as someone with a personal agenda that includes suppression of information that does not conform to the party line, and a person seemingly devoid of integrity.

At worst he's outed Wiki (in case there were any remaining doubt) as a website with a political and/or business agenda, a propaganda tool of the regime.

I like your idea Peter.

I think Wiki is too sinister to ignore.

[Denis Pointing]

"Peter Andrews writes:

The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.

For example, the page about JFK's assassination discusses the controversy but all evidence linking the killing to the CIA is missing. It is difficult to believe that nobody in the world is interested in adding this information, so most probably it has been removed by CIA staff. Do you see any need to actively protect these areas of Wikipedia, so that their contents are not so obviously government propaganda? Or do you yourself censor the entries so that they comply with official government policy?

Jimmy Wales replies:

I could tell you but then I would have to kill you, as the old saying goes.

When the cumulative wisdom of thousands of individuals working in complete freedom from points all over the globe in a transparent public system leads to a certain result you don't like, it is probably better to check your premises than to assume that it is the result of a CIA plot. Please.

The truth is that people who are eager to push bizarre theories based on random speculation by lunatics do not generally find a fact-based, open culture of dialogue and debate to be to their liking. I think this is one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia, it allows ordinary people a quick way to rely on a resource where good people have thoughtfully sorted through the noise to arrive at a broad presentation of the truth. Including the truth about what the CIA has done or not done, when reliable evidence supports it.

But to answer your question a bit more directly: no, Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10970

His standard of 'reliable evidence' is the problem, not to mention his predjudices on other things showing under his facade.....some things never change.....even the HSCA mentioned the 'c' word. Maybe we should post on the Widipedia site actual links to real original CIA et al. documents....and when they are removed scream bloody bias and hidden agenda [and backers/censors].

Yes... so many problems are evident in his comments that it's hard to know where to begin.

At best he's outed himself as someone with a personal agenda that includes suppression of information that does not conform to the party line, and a person seemingly devoid of integrity.

At worst he's outed Wiki (in case there were any remaining doubt) as a website with a political and/or business agenda, a propaganda tool of the regime.

I like your idea Peter.

I think Wiki is too sinister to ignore.

Myra, you dont need to look too hard to find the CIA in Wiki, have a look at this link:http://www.geocities.com/Berlet_archive/virgin.htm

[Myra Bronstein]

Hey, lookie here:

http://amapedia.amazon.com

"Amapedia is a community for sharing information about the products you like the most.

Amapedia is the next generation of Amazon.com’s product wiki feature; all of your previous contributions were preserved and now live here.

Check out our new features, like advanced search and side-by-side comparisons, or jump to a random article."

Either another propaganda tool for the Big Bad, or another way to spread the truth.

...

For example, in edit mode:

"Create 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy'..."

Edited August 15, 2007 by Myra Bronstein

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Another version of the story John posted from the Gurdian Note this one features a prosaic reference to the CIA and Buffie and Vampire Slayer. Is this an attempt to make is seem like harmless doodeling of a few CIA employees on lunchbreak? Vampire slayer at lunch to mix in with President Slayer at tea?

Also note the author's quick statement that the CIA doodeling on Wikipedia did not seem to have much of a political agenda? Yet there is no example given. Would a young wired reported RECOGNIZE a CIA agenda in, say, a change made to a Wikipedia article on Iraq in 1958? Perhaps this reporter is protesting too much?

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights...08/wiki_tracker

[Robert Howard]

Sometime the Associated Press actually delves into labyrinth's, as they did in today's paper with the story.......

Be careful what you Wik for, you might just get an edit

CIA, Vatican among those very active at online encyclopedia

Guess who's been messing with Wikipedia,

which bills itself as the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit?

The CIA, the Democratic Party, the Vatican and the voting machine supplier Diebold.

All have anonymously edited articles, according to the BBC and various technical publications.

The invisible editors were outed by Wikipedia Scanner, an application recently invented by graduate student Virgil Griffiths, which has compared 5.3 million edits in the past five years against more than 2 million Internet addresses whose owners are public knowledge.

A computer traced to a CIA address added "Wahhhhhh!" to a profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

CIA employees, perhaps seeking distraction from their jobs, also made tweaks on articles about TV shows.

Someone using a computer owned by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh "idiotic," a "racist" and a "bigot," and said of his listeners: "Most of them are legally retarded."

Vatican computers removed links to newspaper stories written in 2006 about Gerry Adams, leader of Ireland's Sinn Fein party. The articles alleged Adams' fingerprints were found on a car used in a double murder in 1971. A section that was titled "Fresh murder question raised" is no longer accessible.

Computers registered to the Church of Scientology were used to remove criticism of the church from the page about it.

Diebold, which supplied machines used in some controversial votes, removed 15 paragraphs from the entry about it. One had named its chief executive as a top fundraiser for George W. Bush. Others contained information about and links to charges that the 2000 presidential election was rigged. The paragraphs have since been reinstated.

Griffiths notes that the program cannot identify the individuals editing the articles.

"Technically, we don't know whether it came from an agent of that company; however, we do know that edit came from someone with access to their network," he wrote on the Wikipedia Scanner Web site.

Diebold did not respond to requests to comment. Other organizations responded the way the CIA did. "I cannot confirm that the traffic came from agency computers," a CIA official told the BBC. "I'd like in any case to underscore a far larger and more significant point that no one should doubt or forget: The CIA has a vital mission in protecting the United States, and the focus of the agency is there, on that decisive work."

Wikipedia Scanner may also protect Wikipedia. It "may prevent an organization or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to," a Wikipedia official said.

[Ron Ecker]

Here's a New York Times article on the WikiScanner.

Since Wired News first wrote about WikiScanner last week, Internet users have spotted plenty of interesting changes to Wikipedia by people at nonprofit groups and government entities like the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the most obviously self-interested edits have come from corporate networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technolo...amp;oref=slogin

[Myra Bronstein]

Here's a New York Times article on the WikiScanner.

Since Wired News first wrote about WikiScanner last week, Internet users have spotted plenty of interesting changes to Wikipedia by people at nonprofit groups and government entities like the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the most obviously self-interested edits have come from corporate networks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technolo...amp;oref=slogin

I looked through the list of edits from the four CIA IPs and didn't find any having to do with the assassination of President Kennedy, or with any assassination. Very disappointing. So far no paydirt with the wiki scanner.

[John Simkin]

Michael Deaver died over the weekend. All the obituaries miss out an important part of his career. As most members know, most of my pages appear near the top of Google searches. Not so, with Deaver. My page is nowhere to be found. Wikipedia is of course at number one. Deaver was being protected by those who control Google and Wikipedia. What is it that the ruling elite do not want you to know about Deaver. It is the following:

Michael Deaver co-founded the public relations company, Deaver and Hannaford in 1975. The company "booked Reagan's public appearances, research and sell his radio program, and ghost-write his syndicated column." Peter Dale Scott claims that "all this was arranged with an eye to Reagan's presidential aspirations, which Deaver and Hannaford helped organize from the outset".

In 1977 Deaver and Hannaford registered with the Justice Department as foreign agents receiving $5,000 a month from the government of Taiwan. It also received $11,000 a month from a group called Amigos del Pais (Friends of the Country) in Guatemala. The head of Amigos del Pais was Roberto Alejos Arzu. He was the principal organizer of Guatemala's "Reagan for President" organization. Arzu was a CIA asset who in 1960 allowed his plantation to be used to train Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Peter Dale Scott has argued that Deaver began raising money for Ronald Reagan and his presidential campaign from some of his Guatemalan clients. This included Amigos del Pais. One BBC report estimated that this money amounted to around ten million dollars. Francisco Villgarán Kramer claimed that several members of this organization were "directly linked with organized terror".

Deaver and Hannaford also began to get work from military dictatorships that wanted to improve its image in Washington. According to Jonathan Marshall, Deaver was also connected to Mario Sandoval Alarcon and John K. Singlaub of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). In the book, The Iran-Contra Connection (1987) he wrote: "The activities of Singlaub and Sandoval chiefly involved three WACL countries, Guatemala, Argentina, and Taiwan, that would later emerge as prominent backers of the contras.... these three countries shared one lobbying firm, that of Deaver and Hannaford."

In December, 1979, John K. Singlaub had a meeting with Guatemalan President Fernando Romeo Lucas García. According to someone who was at this meeting Singlaub told Garcia: "Mr. Reagan recognizes that a good deal of dirty work has to be done". On his return, Singlaub called for "sympathetic understanding of the death squads".

Another one of Deaver's clients was Argentina's military junta. A regime that had murdered up to 15,000 of its political opponents. Deaver arranged for José Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, the economy minister, to visit the United States. In one of Reagan's radio broadcasts, he claimed "that in the process of bringing stability to a terrorized nation of 25 million, a small number, were caught in the cross-fire, amongst them a few innocents".

Peter Dale Scott argues that funds from military dictatorships "helped pay for the Deaver and Hannaford offices, which became Reagan's initial campaign headquarters in Beverly Hills and his Washington office." This resulted in Ronald Reagan developing the catch-phrase: "No more Taiwans, no more Vietnams, no more betrayals." He also argued that if he was elected as president he "would re-establish official relations between the United States Government and Taiwan".

What Deaver's clients, Guatemala, Taiwan and Argentina wanted most of all were American armaments. Under President Jimmy Carter, arms sales to Taiwan had been reduced for diplomatic reasons, and had been completely cut off to Guatemala and Argentina because of human rights violations.

An article published in Time Magazine (8th September, 1980) claimed that Deaver was playing an important role in Reagan's campaign, whereas people like Campaign Director William J. Casey were outsiders have "valuable experience but exercise less influence over the candidate."

During the campaign Ronald Reagan was informed that Jimmy Carter was attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran to get the American hostages released. This was disastrous news for the Reagan campaign. If Carter got the hostages out before the election, the public perception of the man might change and he might be elected for a second-term. As Deaver later told the New York Times: "One of the things we had concluded early on was that a Reagan victory would be nearly impossible if the hostages were released before the election... There is no doubt in my mind that the euphoria of a hostage release would have rolled over the land like a tidal wave. Carter would have been a hero, and many of the complaints against him forgotten. He would have won."

According to Barbara Honegger, a researcher and policy analyst with the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign, William J. Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections. Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.

On 22nd September, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. The Iranian government was now in desperate need of spare parts and equipment for its armed forces. Jimmy Carter proposed that the US would be willing to hand over supplies in return for the hostages.

Once again, the Central Intelligence Agency leaked this information to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. This attempted deal was also passed to the media. On 11th October, the Washington Post reported rumors of a “secret deal that would see the hostages released in exchange for the American made military spare parts Iran needs to continue its fight against Iraq”.

A couple of days before the election Barry Goldwater was reported as saying that he had information that “two air force C-5 transports were being loaded with spare parts for Iran”. This was not true. However, this publicity had made it impossible for Carter to do a deal. Ronald Reagan on the other hand, had promised the Iranian government that he would arrange for them to get all the arms they needed in exchange for the hostages. According to Mansur Rafizadeh, the former U.S. station chief of SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, CIA agents had persuaded Khomeini not to release the American hostages until Reagan was sworn in. In fact, they were released twenty minutes after his inaugural address.

Reagan appointed William J. Casey as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this position he was able to arrange the delivery of arms to Iran. These were delivered via Israel. By the end of 1982 all Regan’s promises to Iran had been made. With the deal completed, Iran was free to resort to acts of terrorism against the United States. In 1983, Iranian-backed terrorists blew up 241 marines in the CIA Middle-East headquarters.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MDdeaver.htm

[Len Colby]

"Peter Andrews writes:

The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.

Mr. Andrews like so many truthers seems to have trouble separating truth from fantasy. Can anybody here like to a study showing that "a majority of people around the world seriously doubt aspects the "official" explanation presented by Wikipedia.