See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
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. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.

Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith --

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,653
Location
MS
Oh so there were space aliens held at Area 51 that later went on to impersonate Elvis. Woe is me. The sky is falling. :mecry:
 

bitslammer

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Cincinnati, OH USA
I don't see this as surprising at all. By it's nature Wikipedia is wide open for abuse.

As far as Diebold I think they should be kicked out of the evoting process by the very virtue of them not making the source code open for scrutiny. We have to be able to vette and trust our viting systems and they've been crooked from day 1.
 

HarryN

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,976
Location
Pleasanton (Bay Area), CA, USA
Well, a couple of comments from the red seats section.

1) At least for me, wikipedia is now really becoming a major and quick source of quite detailed, quality information. In most cases, it is more accurate, and a lot easier to find info on that a normal search engine.

The only way I can see really putting more control is place, is to start assigning "ownership" to each topic, which is a bit challenging, but might be worthwhile.

As far as comparing it to youtube - well, no. Not even close. Youtube is just entertainment. Wikipedia is actual useful info, esp for kids class projects, etc.

2) Voting Machines - To be honest, there are so many other areas of the voting process that are rigged, that I am not particularly worried about this one. From a practical perspective, almost any device / software / system can be cracked - maybe all of them. If the code is open sourced, that really just opens the door a bit wider for manipulation - at least IMHO. Of couse, I have been wrong many times before, so this could be one of those as well.

From a "voting process" perspective, I actually am increasingly comfortable with our methods of voting in CA with the scanners. This gives a hard copy, plus a digital copy for couning. That is actually better than we have ever had before.

Now, if you go and open the door to "voting quality improvements", here are some of my pet peeves:

- Require every legally cast vote to be counted - including absentees
- Make the electoral votes of each state reflect the actual cast votes - not a winner takes all.
- Allow convicted felons to vote 1 year after their conviction - regardless of status. Sounds funny till you start thinking about how many gov'ts imprison people they don't really like. Besides, how much will they actually affect the system ?
- Use the number of "US citizens" instead of "people" to determine the number of electoral votes of each state, and the distribution of Congressional seats.
- Require the number of voting machines in a region to be based on the number of voters in the prior presidential election. You would be surprised how many areas are consistently low on voting capacity, with multi hour lines, in areas with "undesirable voting implications"
- Ban the access of "voter lists" on election day. This practice is used entirely by well funded groups to sway election results by chasing down likely favorable voters for one result or another.
- Reduce the number of elections per year to no more than 2.

Ok, sorry, I think I went OT.
 

greenlight

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
4,298
Location
chill valley
Youtube is just entertainment. Wikipedia is actual useful info, esp for kids class projects, etc.

Just because the ratio of information to entertainment is different, does not make youTube JUST entertainment. There's a lot going on at youTube, and if you are interested in a certain subject, there's a lot to learn there.:poke:
 

bitslammer

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
637
Location
Cincinnati, OH USA
Ummmm....who cares? It's Wikipedia....only a few steps up from Digg or YouTube.


That's not the point. The point is the corporate mentality they display by trying to secretly alter any negative display of public opinion for that that is unfavorable to them. If they want to display respectable behavior and actually gain people's trust being open and honest goes a lot further than skulking around in the shadows trying to smooth things over.

Look at how well Mattel has handled their recall. Open, honest, and sincere acknowledgment of the situation. They're PR people obviously studied the Tylenol incident.

True that the Wikipedia incident themselves are a tempest in a teapot but as long as we, the general public just continue to shrug such matters off and not voice our displeasure then there's no reason for companies like Diebold to strive to behave more ethically.
 

StefanFS

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
1,262
Location
Silicon Road 1, Sweden
Ummmm....who cares? It's Wikipedia....only a few steps up from Digg or YouTube.

J*sus, that's cold. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the achievement that is called Wikipedia? It's one of the biggest (the biggest?) encyclopaedic databases/libraries in the history of our species! And it's free and editable. I love it. It has a big role in providing people with correct info on certain things that may be corrupted in the mainstream media. Of course a lot of different interests try to manipulate what they perceive as a threat, that is being dealt with as I understand it.
 

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
surprise no one has commented on the usage of data mining to bring out patterns of systematic corporate abuse of wilki.

for those familiar with large databases, data mining is a familiar topic.

from wilki:

Data mining has been defined as "the nontrivial extraction of implicit, previously unknown, and potentially useful information from data" [1] and "the science of extracting useful information from large data sets or databases" [2].

Data mining involves sorting through large amounts of data and picking out relevant information. It is usually used by Business intelligence organizations, and financial analysts, but is increasingly used in the sciences to extract information from the enormous data sets generated by modern experimental and observational methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
I don't consider wikipedia to ever be 'correct' information. By it's very nature, the most recent edit is as likely to contain misinformation as it is to contain valid content. The induced errors need not be nefarious in nature. After all, even I've been known to share my flawed understanding of a subject or two. Mistakes happen.

There is, of course, a more important reason that I don't use wiki as an authoritative source. It can (and has) been altered for political, personal and business reasons. Several such alterations have been detailed in the press and even in the courtroom.

On the third hand, the wiki info is not any worse than any other web page. Very few web pages have any substantive editing at all.

It is a shame that employees of our government are stooping to altering wiki info. That's far from the worst of their actions, so I don't dwell on it.


Daniel
 

Coop

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
2,199
Location
Tilburg, the Netherlands (perfectly reachable by U
Things like this really kick a dent in a companies reputation. Dieblod would have done better adding a couple of paragraphs on what they have done to prevent further issues with their products in the future.

I love Wikipedia, it's a great source of information. While not always accurate, it's usually good enough for household use. Unfortunately, people can delete valuable info and add nonsense just as easily as they can add valuable information and delete nonsense.

I think the best way to prevent this is to make sure that the info you post there is objective, so the concerning parties won't feel the need to delete stuff. But it seems some people just feel the need to use Wikipedia as just another means to fling poo....
 

AndyTiedye

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
2,033
Location
Santa Cruz Mountains
Diebold's voting machine division has become a liability to them.

Banks that use Diebold ATMs must be very concerned about the security
of those machines, with what we know of their election systems.

The best thing for Diebold now would be to offer their election systems division to the EFF for $1.
 

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
besides diabold there's many others. here's a more complete list.

" Boeing and a threat to its supremacy

Boeing has made it clear that it is not just one of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers, but is in fact the leading company in this field.

The church's child abuse cover-up

Barbara Alton, assistant to Episcopal Bishop Charles Bennison, in America, deleted information concerning a cover-up of child sexual abuse, allegations that the Bishop misappropriated $11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals. When challenged about this, Alton claims she was ordered to delete the information by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.

Amnesty and anti-Americanism

A computer with an Amnesty International IP address was used to delete references accusing the charity of holding an anti-American agenda.

Dell computer out-sourcing

Dell removed a passage about how the company out-sourced its support divisions overseas. "

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2874112.ece
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,653
Location
MS
J*sus, that's cold. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the achievement that is called Wikipedia? It's one of the biggest (the biggest?) encyclopaedic databases/libraries in the history of our species! And it's free and editable. I love it. It has a big role in providing people with correct info on certain things that may be corrupted in the mainstream media. Of course a lot of different interests try to manipulate what they perceive as a threat, that is being dealt with as I understand it.

You read my post correctly. It is only a few steps up from YouTube or Diggs. All three examples are EASILY and commonly subjected to random manipulation of information resulting in near total unreliability since you never know when your topic query has been "polluted."

A REAL encyclopedia does not subject itself to hacking/data/emotional manipulation. I have nothing against people spending their time working on it, but touting it as reliable is simply not recognizing the major design flaw it has currently.

Try quoting Wiki as a source in a court case, or when needing absolutely empirical data.

A perfect example is trying to use it for objective information on the complex topic of Global Warming. The bias in favor of global warming activism is interwoven faithfully, with crucial arguments, facts, and dissention edited out. Virtually none of the conclusions of eminent scientists represented in this excellent 10 part series are given their just credibility in Wiki. Yet people will represent Wiki's discussion on the subject as a comprehensive and valid resource....and not even know what has been "randomly" manipulated unless they find credible dissenting articles like this, and take the time to read all 10 parts.
 

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
Lux, you may be technically correct.... but try googling common topics and wilki more than likely will be one of the links that pops up.

this is saying wilki has the generally accepted version of the truth. it's weakness is it's strength. meaning the ability for anyone to edit what they don't like.

the fact that folks edit things from wilki they don't like is old news. but when data mining exposes the systematic way corporate changes wilki is new. no doubt corporate spinmasters do the same thing in the general media.

this new data mining tool exposes what corporates are trying to cover. that would NEVER happen with conventional advertising campaigns.

this database tracks ALL of the changes/edits made to wilki and is traced by IP. one cannot define what person made changes. but it's fair to say if it came from same IP, it came from same organization.

your global warming topic example is not valid. even bonified experts cannot agree upon global warming.
 
Last edited:

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,653
Location
MS
cy, I basically agree with much you just posted. My point is that by virtue of the easy and random manipulation of Wiki, whether done by activists, or corporate data mining....the same Wiki perversion exists. In the voting machine example, you get a random reinterpretation on that topic, at some point in time that the average Wiki user will have no awareness about...making Wiki nothing more than a interesting series of vignettes on any subject.

It does not in any way mean that Wiki represents the "generally accepted version of the truth." It only means that whoever has "pounded" and manipulated Wiki, will have their version of "the truth" represented as such. It is similar to manipulating google's ranking system. It can be done by hackers, crackers, [insert favorite cause here] activists, governments, corporations, lobbyists, organizations, or Johnny and his friends down the street.

On some topics that are being scrutinized by objective, leading experts/authorities...who persist in correcting false manipulations over time....that information may be reliable. However, because Wiki can be randomly corrupted in any subject, and at any point in time, it makes Wiki as unreliable as Youtube or Diggs....because you never know if the exact topic you are looking at today is accurate or objective.

My example on global warming, its causes, accuracy, and projections is a perfect illustration of Wiki's serious shortcomings, because when you read the Wiki link on the topic, there is no question how the script reads, and what needs to be done.

There is no inclusion of at least the specific CREDIBLE challenges of the 10 point article I linked in my last post. I checked. Those sources have been dismissed and mischaracterized. If someone tried again to input that credible series of questions and global warming fallacies, it would be removed by the pro-global warming activists....which to me are no different from the Diebold/CIA employees with regards to their perversion of Wiki.

It comes down to who has the most keyboards and motivation to have their opinion represented. There is no reliable validity in that information model, anymore than what is presented in the general media.
 

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
didn't mean for this thread to turn into defending wilki for what it is.

it is what it is... warts and all. wilki is the largest/best data base of raw topics in existence.

don't think it's fair to compare wilki to you-tube. there's a few similar profiles, but it's a stretch to call wilki you-tube. not that you-tube is bad. it's just different.

that's all we've been doing lately is watching you-tube and veoh lately.

I would not do a search on you-tube to find out info on say... MRI. but on the same token, would not do a search on wilki for latest Kenichi release. Oopsss.... I've done several searchs on wilki for info about Last exile, Claymore, etc.

wilki and you-tube are both super coool... they just are different.
 

VidPro

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,441
Location
Lost In Space
wiki is just another encyclopedia, i remeber reading the hard copy encyclopedias as a kid, and wondering where the Humans were in it.
as if everything that was ever invented, pictured, or talked about came from some corporate structure.
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,653
Location
MS
Well in a general comparison, Wiki is obviously not the same model as YouTube or Digg, and obviously Wiki in its essence strives to be an encyclopedic type of resource that is updated.

I'm specifically addressing the topic objection about Diebold/CIA manipulation which everyone gets all excited about, like Wiki is otherwise reliable. The various manipulations of what you read as the "latest truth" on a subject is no different in the end result of inaccurately displayed data/information when anyone, group, agency, company, etc. randomly pollutes any one topic. The ordinary reader is not going to realize when, or how much a topic is not accurate on any given day.

As a result, it makes it a good way to keep a lot of people busy and entertained...but it cannot be relied upon for truth or accuracy. That is the comparison to the YouTube or Digg or the many Bloggs.
 
Top