Log in

View Full Version : CIA influencing Wikipedia



Wanted Man
8th August 2007, 18:11
Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services
Is the Net's popular encyclopedia marred by disinformation?

Ludwig De Braeckeleer

Published 2007-07-26 11:57 (KST)

While researching my next article about the Lockerbie bombing, I witnessed an incident that made me wonder whether intelligence agents had infiltrated Wikipedia.

Anyone who knows the universal success of Wikipedia will immediately grasp the importance of the issue. The fact that most Internet search engines, such as Google, give Wikipedia articles top ranking only raises the stakes to a higher level.

The Incident

In the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, the finger of suspicion quickly pointed to a Syria-based Palestinian organization -- the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command (PFLP-GC) -- hired by Iran. The terrorist group was created by a former Syrian army captain, Ahmed Jibril, who broke away from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in 1968.

I had learned from a recently released U.S. National Archives file that Shin Bet, the Israeli Security Agency, had infiltrated the PFLP and helped the Entebbe hijackers (Israeli commandos rescued the hostages in Uganda in 1976), so I wanted to learn more about the link between the PFLP and the PFLP-GC. I also wanted to learn more about allegations made by David Colvin, the first secretary of the British Embassy in Paris, concerning the rather bizarre collaboration between the PFLP and the Shin Bet.

As I could not locate the article in which I had learned about the allegations, I consulted the article on the Entebbe Operation on Wikipedia, where I knew the story had been noted. To my surprise, I found that all references to the alleged collaboration between the PFLP and the Shin Bet had been suppressed. Moreover, it is no longer possible to edit the page.

A Long, Undistinguished History

Conducting false flag operations and planting disinformation in the mainstream media have long belonged to the craft of the spies. In the months preceding the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies used both techniques abundantly.

A copy of the CIA's secret history of the coup surfaced in 2000. Written in 1954 by the Princeton professor who oversaw the operation, the story reveals that agents from the CIA and SIS (the American and British intelligence services) "directed a campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist Party, and planted articles and editorial cartoons in newspapers."

The section of the report concerning the media speaks volumes: "The CIA was apparently able to use contacts at the Associated Press to put on the newswire a statement from Tehran about royal decrees that the CIA itself had written. But mostly, the agency relied on less direct means to exploit the media.

"The Iran desk of the State Department was able to place a CIA study in Newsweek, using the normal channel of desk officer to journalist. The article was one of several planted press reports that, when reprinted in Tehran, fed the war of nerves against Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh," the document said.

Half a century later, the technique of disinformation is as important as ever to intelligence agencies. In the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Pentagon set up the Defense Department's Office of Strategic Influence with a mission "to provide news items and false information directly to foreign journalists and others to bolster U.S. policy and the war on terrorism."

The new office attracted so much criticism that the Bush administration eventually shut it down in February 2002. Even defense officials publicly denounced the dangers of such a program, which could have left the department without a shred of credibility.

"We shouldn't be in that business. Leave the propaganda leaks to the CIA, the spooks [secret agents]," a defense official said.

Is Wikipedia Harboring a Secret Agent?

According to clues accumulated by ordinary citizens around the world, it could be that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are riding the information wave and planting disinformation on Wikipedia. If so, tens of thousands of innocent and unwitting citizens around the world are translating and propagating their lies, providing these agencies with a universal news network.

The Salinger Investigation of the Pan Am 103 Bombing

Pierre Salinger was White House press secretary to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Salinger also served as U.S. Senator from California and a campaign manager for Robert Kennedy.

But Salinger is also famous for his investigative journalism. Hired by ABC News as its Paris bureau chief in 1978, he became the network's chief European correspondent in 1983.

During his distinguished career, Salinger broke important stories, such as the secret negotiations by the U.S. government with Iran to free American hostages in 1979-80 and the last meeting between U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein in 1990, during which she led the Iraqi president to believe that the U.S. would not react to an invasion of Kuwait.

Salinger, who was based in London, spent a considerable amount of time and energy investigating the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. He and his collaborator, John Cooley, hired a young graduate, Linda Mack, to help in the investigation.

"I know that these two Libyans had nothing to do with it. I know who did it and I know exactly why it was done," Salinger said during his testimony at the Zeist trial, where one of the Libyans was convicted of murdering the 270 victims.

"That's all? You're not letting me tell the truth. Wait a minute; I know exactly who did it. I know how it was done," Salinger replied to the trial judge, Lord Sutherland, who simply asked him to leave the witness box.

"If you wish to make a point you may do so elsewhere, but I'm afraid you may not do so in this court," Lord Sutherland interrupted.

Searching for the True Identity of 'Slim Virgin'

Slim Virgin had been voted the most abusive administrator of Wikipedia. She upset so many editors that some of them decided to team up to research her real life identity.

Attempts to track her through Internet technology failed. This is suspicious in itself as the location of normal Internet users can easily be tracked. According to a team member, Slim Virgin "knows her way around the Internet and covered her tracks with care."

Daniel Brandt of the Wikipedia Review and founder of Wikipedia-Watch.org patiently assembled tiny clues about Slim Virgin and posted them on these Web sites. Eventually, two readers identified her. Slim Virgin was no other than Linda Mack, the young graduate Salinger hired.

John K. Cooley, the collaborator of Salinger in the Lockerbie investigation, posted the following letter to Brandt on Wikipedia Review, which has been set up to discuss specific editors and editing patterns and general efforts by editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy:

She claimed to have lost a friend/lover on pan103 and so was anxious to clear up the mystery. ABC News paid for her travel and expenses as well as a salary'

Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of Qaddafi [Libyan President Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi], although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Megrahi and Fhimah in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the commissioning power. [In 2001, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison; Lamin Khalifah Fhimah was acquitted.]

Salinger came to believe that [first name redacted but known to be Linda] was working for [name of intelligence agency redacted but known to be Britain's MI5] and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us.

Soon after Cooley wrote to Brandt, Linda Mack contacted him and asked him not to help Brandt in his efforts to expose her. All doubts about Slim Virgin's true identity had vanished. Today, Linda Mack is rumored to reside in Alberta, Canada, under the name of Sarah McEwan.

Ludwig Braeckeleer has a Ph.D. in nuclear sciences. He teaches physics and international humanitarian law. He blogs on The GaiaPost.
©2007 OhmyNews

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/ar...374006&rel_no=1 (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1)

Clearly, the "open format" of Wikipedia causes problems, because anyone can edit it. But the online encyclopedia has also really taken a bureaucratic turn recently. Admins can easily choose to "protect" an article to make sure that certain versions of the story cannot be changed. And apparently, this allows pro-imperialist zealots to become admins, and do just that, in order to protect articles on issues sensitive on this subject.

More about SV:

http://www.geocities.com/Berlet_archive/virgin.htm

Nothing Human Is Alien
8th August 2007, 18:26
I don't doubt that there are "intelligence agents" on Wikipedia.

On another note that site could use some plain old intelligence.


the online encyclopedia has also really taken a bureaucratic turn recently

Indeed it has; and anti-communism is at an all time high, among the articles and the admins (and that's certainly related).

Kwisatz Haderach
8th August 2007, 21:55
Originally posted by Compań[email protected] 08, 2007 07:26 pm
Indeed it has; and anti-communism is at an all time high, among the articles and the admins (and that's certainly related).
Damn it... I used to be quite active on wikipedia, but I've gradually scaled back my activities and took a very long break over the past few months because I couldn't deal with the bullshit any more. But I do plan to return, and if there are specific articles under sustained reactionary assault, drop me a line.

It is indeed well known that there are people on wikipedia who seem to have a suspiciously large amount of free time to edit and who are aggressively pushing various reactionary viewpoints. Perhaps we should consider working out an organized response. There is no doubt that wikipedia is the single most influential website on the internet.

Wanted Man
9th August 2007, 02:19
Originally posted by Compań[email protected] 08, 2007 06:26 pm
On another note that site could use some plain old intelligence.


the online encyclopedia has also really taken a bureaucratic turn recently

Indeed it has; and anti-communism is at an all time high, among the articles and the admins (and that's certainly related).
That's my statement, actually. But yeah, it's hardly "recent", rather it's a direction that the place has been going into for the past 2 years or so. Even an outsider can see from the other side that something is rotten in the Kingdom of Wales. While he has been a nice guy, it's ridiculous that the ideas of a wealthy pornographer are still that important in "an encyclopedia for the poor African kid". Time to step aside. Or better yet, accept that the problem can't be solved inthis context, and that a new approach is needed,

Goatse
15th August 2007, 19:51
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm

Summary: IPs traced to the CIA have been editing Wikipedia. Some have just been vandalism but some have been more subtle changes.

Karl Marx's Camel
15th August 2007, 19:59
I am suprised by their stupidity. Thought the CIA was smarter. I also suspect they are involved in the Fidel Castro article. Either that or they have a stupid admin, considering I was banned for stating the fact that Fidel hasn't been President since 1959. I received a warning and when I documented it, I was banned.

I also suspect P&G of editing the Procter & Gambler wikipedia article.

RevLeft -> Editing Post CIA influencing Wikipedia

RedCommieBear
15th August 2007, 20:29
Already a thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69627)

I guess this was just a logical step. I mean, politicians (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728983.ece) are editing their own articles. While wikipedia is great for quick references, the truth-by-consensus model that sometimes infects pages, particularly controversial ones, isn't exactly reliable. It's still a great tool, though.

Edit: added a few more adjectives

Goatse
15th August 2007, 21:46
We should do a campaign to "retake" Wikipedia and fix its anti-communist bias.

Nothing Human Is Alien
15th August 2007, 22:01
Merged.

RedHal
16th August 2007, 03:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:46 pm
We should do a campaign to "retake" Wikipedia and fix its anti-communist bias.
"retake"? Isn't the founder of wiki a devotee of Ayn Rand? Wiki was anticommunist from it's inception.

Ismail
16th August 2007, 05:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:39 am
"retake"? Isn't the founder of wiki a devotee of Ayn Rand? Wiki was anticommunist from it's inception.
Correct.

"Wales is a self-avowed 'Objectivist to the core', to the extent of having named his daughter Kira after the heroine in Ayn Rand's We the Living, although he says, 'I think I do a better job — than a lot of people who self-identify as Objectivists — of not pushing my point of view on other people.' When asked by Brian Lamb in his appearance on C-SPAN's Q&A about Rand, Wales cited 'the virtue of independence' as important to him personally. When asked if he could trace 'the Ayn Rand connection' to having a political philosophy at the time of the interview, Wales reluctantly labeled himself a libertarian, qualifying his remark by referring to the Libertarian Party as 'lunatics' and citing 'freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them' as his guiding principles. From 1992 to 1996, he ran the electronic mailing list 'Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy.' A photo of Wales is featured on the cover of the June 2007 issue of the libertarian magazine Reason." - Wikipedia page on Jimbo Wales

The Author
1st September 2007, 02:46
More evidence that Wikipedia is not the definitive reference source:


Dutch royals caught revising Wikipedia

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 30, 12:30 PM ET

A Dutch royal couple acknowledges altering a Wikipedia entry about a 2003 scandal that forced the prince to renounce his claim to the throne.

Prince Johan Friso, son of the reigning Queen Beatrix, and Princess Mabel of Oranje-Nassau are the latest to be embarrassed in a spate of discoveries of vanity changes to Wikipedia entries. Such self-serving amendments are frowned upon in the Web encyclopedia that "anyone can edit."

The original scandal broke in 2003 when Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende refused to support the prince's marriage to the princess, then known as Mabel Wisse Smit.

The prime minister said he objected because she had given him "incomplete and incorrect information" about a romantic liaison she once had with a druglord. Wisse Smit later conceded knowing the drug dealer but denied any sexual relationship.

With government approval of the marriage withheld, the prince had to choose between Wisse Smit and his place as second in line to the throne. They married in 2004.

On Jan. 8, 2006, someone using a computer at Huis ten Bosch, the royal palace in The Hague, altered the Wikipedia entry on Wisse Smit that had said she "gave misleading and false information" to Balkenende. The new entry removed the words "and false."

Wikipedia shows the time and IP address — the numerical identifier of each computer on the Internet — of edits made by someone who doesn't sign on with a user name.

After the connection between the 2006 edit and the palace recently circulated in the Dutch media, Friso and Mabel acknowledged they were the revisionists.

"They both made the changes together in order to make the entry match the letter which they sent to the prime minister (explaining why they misled him) in 2003," spokesman Chris Breedveld said Thursday. The couple feel that due to repeated mistakes in the media, an "incorrect version of events has arisen," he said.

Similar self-interested Wikipedia edits have popped up for years in government and business. The finds accelerated this month after a U.S. graduate student developed an online "Wikiscanner" to more easily track the sources.

midnight marauder
1st September 2007, 03:44
this site (http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/) may be of interest to some of you. it's a new project that puts wiki articles through and algorithm and highlights parts of articles that come from editors with records of being untrustworthy. a pretty interesting subject to say the least.

spartan
3rd September 2007, 22:55
is there a left wing version of wiki which is free of this shit?

Ismail
4th September 2007, 05:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 04:55 pm
is there a left wing version of wiki which is free of this shit?
http://www.redapollo.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

spartan
4th September 2007, 20:03
thank you Mrdie! :)

Wanted Man
4th September 2007, 20:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 02:46 am
More evidence that Wikipedia is not the definitive reference source:
Hehe, I didn't realize that that bit of news made it to the outside world. Pretty funny.

RNK
5th September 2007, 06:57
Rather than "retake" Wikipedia, wouldn't it be possible to promote a "Leftipedia" that contains.. well, more truth?

ComradeR
5th September 2007, 10:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:57 am
Rather than "retake" Wikipedia, wouldn't it be possible to promote a "Leftipedia" that contains.. well, more truth?
While i agree with this wouldn't a "Leftipedia" become a major target for right-wing vandals?

RedAnarchist
5th September 2007, 10:51
I have a suggestion - members of RevLeft should all create their own Wikipedia account and we can make a list of the articles most at risk from reactionary attack. Then e can ensure that someone checks a few of them every so often and makes sure that they remain unbiased.

Gobythebear
3rd October 2007, 01:45
Originally posted by ComradeR+September 05, 2007 09:34 am--> (ComradeR @ September 05, 2007 09:34 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:57 am
Rather than "retake" Wikipedia, wouldn't it be possible to promote a "Leftipedia" that contains.. well, more truth?
While i agree with this wouldn't a "Leftipedia" become a major target for right-wing vandals? [/b]
And some people will automatically think it's wrong.

YSR
3rd October 2007, 06:57
I rather think Wikipedia is fantastic. Of course there are problems with abusive administrators, but it's actually a rather great example of compromise and consensus. It's also information anarchy, which I think is great.

Wikipedia has the potential to be a people's encyclopedia. Of course, right now, many poor people don't have internet access, so that's fucked up. But the potential is there. Wiki's are way more democratic than, say, a "scholarly encyclopedia."

Wanted Man
6th October 2007, 14:51
YSR, you do not reach the truth just by compromise and consensus. A statement is not true just because a large enough group of over-opinionated dorks* agrees with it. See Colbert (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/wikiality.html). "Bringing democracy to knowledge" as he parodies it is just a terrible idea.

That ideal isn't even being put into practice anymore, by the way. If you do not have a username (which automatically makes you more suspect to fervent Wikipedians) and edit a popular article, it will be reverted within seconds. Only if you battle it out on the Talk Page for weeks and convince other people with too much time on their hands, you might be able to keep it. Any subject that is too controversial will simply be protected from edits by guests and new users, or even from anyone who isn't an admin. That way, the great model of consensus and compromise has the same consequences on the internet as it had on Dutch society**: subjects become taboo, and anyone with an alternating opinion is labelled a troublemaker and becomes either ignored or demonized. As a result, structural debate collapses, and when a serious event happens, nobody knows how to deal with it because they only know how to bureaucratically compromise.

*Because of its userbase, Wikipedia is by definition biased towards a certain demographic: young, male, white, middle class, etc. It's no coincidence that Wikipedia can tell us more about PokÉmon, pop stars, internet memes, YouTube users, etc. Which are all very nice subjects, but their prominence on Wikipedia is at the cost of actual encyclopedic content.

**Social-democratic, Christian and Liberal parties practiced consensus and compromise for decades and became increasingly distant from the population, culminating in the stagnation of the "purple" socialist-liberal governments during the 90s. When Pim Fortuyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) popped up, boring bureaucrats like Ad Melkert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Melkert#Elections_of_2002) failed to deal with it. A massive reactionary backlash followed with the deaths of Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29), as well as the current rise of Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders).

YSR
6th October 2007, 19:21
Well, I'm not going to use Wikipedia as a case study to defend consensus practice, because it's clearly flawed because of its ultimate control by bourgeois actors.

Though as I said: "Wikipedia has the potential to be a people's encyclopedia. Of course, right now, many poor people don't have internet access, so that's fucked up. But the potential is there."

And I stand by that. "Scholarship" is just as biased as anything else, but it is the definitive bias.

Wanted Man
6th October 2007, 23:22
Then we really only disagree on a point that seems minor. I don't really think that Wikipedia "has potential", but the ideas behind it, its successes and its failures should be considered in order to build up something much greater. Or as Matthew White put it here (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Finale).

Comrade Nadezhda
7th October 2007, 01:22
I will say that yes it does seem to be very anticommunist. a lot of things on wikipedia are biased. there are countless articles where this is proven to be true, and the fact that the most controversial topics are protected shows that. that is generally the problem. if it was biased then certain topics wouldnt be protected moreso than others and there wouldnt be protection on more topics regarding communism and the such than other topics.