The following article is from the BBC and has been shortened for the purpose of less reading.
The complete article is on the link below. Wikipedia is not a good source to quote in any research you do because anyone can change the information any time. - Mr McAllister. Happy reading.
Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes Science and technology reporter, BBC News
The tool detected changes to a page about Mahmoud AhmadinejadAn online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.
Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president. The tool, developed by a US researcher, trawls a list of 34m edits and matches them to the net address of the editor. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia that can be created and edited by anyone. Most of the edits detected by the scanner correct spelling mistakes or factual inaccuracies in profiles. However, others have been used to remove potentially damaging material or to deface sites. On the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the tool indicates that a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency. A warning on the profile of the anonymous editor reads: "You have recently vandalised a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behaviour." It is claimed the entry was changed by a CIA computer user
Other changes that have been made are more innocuous, and include tweaks to the profile of former CIA chief Porter Goss and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey.
When asked whether it could confirm whether the changes had been made by a person using a CIA computer, an agency spokesperson responded: "I cannot confirm that the traffic you cite came from agency computers. "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 this agency is there, on that decisive work."
The site also indicates that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh. The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."
We really value transparency and the scanner really takes this to another level Wikipedia spokesperson The IP address is registered in the name of the Democratic National Headquarters. A spokesperson for the Democratic Party said that the changes had not been made on its computers. Instead, they said that the "IP address is the same as the DCCC". The DCCC, or Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is the "official campaign arm of the Democrats" in the House of Representatives and shares a building with the party. "We don't condone these sorts of activities and we take every precaution to ensure that our network is used in a responsible manner," Doug Thornell of the DCCC told the BBC News website. Mr Thornell pointed out that the edit had been made "close to two years ago" and it was "impossible to know" who had done it.
Wikipedia already collects the IP address or username of editors Wikipedia Scanner also points the finger at commercial organisations that have modified entries about the pages. One in particular is Diebold, a company which supplies electronic voting machines in the US. In October 2005, a person using a Diebold computer removed paragraphs about Walden O'Dell, chief executive of the company, which revealed that he had been "a top fund-raiser" for George Bush. A month later, other paragraphs and links to stories about the alleged rigging of the 2000 election were also removed. The paragraphs and links have since been reinstated. Diebold officials have not responded to requests by the BBC for information about the changes.
The Wikipedia Scanner results are not the first time that people have been uncovered editing their own Wikipedia entries. Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to Wikipedia spokesperson Staff at the US Congress have also previously been exposed for editing and removing sensitive information about politicians. An inquiry was launched after staff for Democratic representative Marty Meehan admitted polishing his biography
The new tool was built by Virgil Griffith of the California Institute of Technology. It exploits the open nature of Wikipedia, which already collects the net address or username of editors and tracks all changes to a page. The information can be accessed in the "history" tab at the top of a Wikipedia page. By merging this information with a database of IP address owners, Wikipedia Scanner is able to put a name to the organisation and firms from which edits are made. The scanner cannot identify the individuals editing articles, admits Mr Griffith. "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 site. A spokesperson for Wikipedia said the tool helped prevent conflicts of interest. "We really value transparency and the scanner really takes this to another level," they said. "Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to." BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
I think that Wikipedia is not a good place to find your information and cite it because you don't know when the information is going to be edited. The articles go through the Wikipedia Scanner for revision. Anyone can edit the information, so the information you get might not be accurate. I was completely shocked when I read that CIA was involved in the editing process. This article was chosen to teach us not to use Wikipedia to research and cite the information. This article relates to class as well because we usually research a lot, and I know everyone uses Wikipedia. From now on we must not always use Wikipedia to research.
Wikipedia is not really a good site for information.You dont really now whether it is right or wrong information.I think we shouldn't use wikipedia cause we dont know when it is right or wrong.
02372 said....
I think that Wikipedia is an unreliable source to find out information about ANYTHING!! That is because users could just be adding nonsense to the information. I believe that Wikipedia Scanner is a great because it can track people's IP adresses. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that the CIA, out all people were in this editing plot. I would love to thank Virgil Griffith for making such a life saver. This relates to classes because 95% of out school children use wikipedia as their information guide.Wikipedia is a unreliable source.
I agree with the other people that don't Wikipedia is not the best place to find information because people always edit the article. Also, Wikipedia is really hard cite because you don't really know who had edited it last, which is another reason Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy site. I am glad that there is a Wikipedia Scanner, but I don't think it's really doing much other than checking the spelling and grammar. I think the Scanner should also check if the information is accurate or not.
After I've read this, I was very worried because most of the time, I go to Wikipedia to get information for my essays. After I've read this article, I had to wonder why people would do such a thing...
I now understand why we had to read this article. We had to read this article so we would know that Wikipedia isn't the best site to find information and that we should use other sites.
This blog that I read has proved to me that Wikipedia isn’t a good site at all. I always told everyone who used Wikipedia that we shouldn’t use it but sometimes we get too tempted to just use it because there is information on our topics. Before I ever knew that Wikipedia wasn’t a reliable site, I always used it for anything. Wikipedia was my main source when I didn’t know anything about all the editing and correcting things. Probably, I used it for most of my projects, reports, hw, etc… I honestly have always been lazy to look for all the citation when I use information from other sites. It was shocking that the CIA and the DCCC was included because I thought they were supposed to protect the people and be responsible people and to honor their country. Actually though, I didn’t really believe that they would do that. I bet someone else hacked into the computer and wrote it to accuse CIA or DCCC for doing it all. Hopefully no one will do that again to the site of Wikipedia. I wish Wikipedia had a program where they can check everything people edit before they put it up. But if they can’t, than people shouldn’t access to Wikipedia for information. When we are trying to use some site, we should always check the citation information first so that we can trust that site to tell us the correct facts. Wikipedia is a source that is hard to depend on and use because we will never know when the writings will be edited and changed. I think this blog taught us that we can’t trust everything we think is right and things we see. I bet that we were told to read this blog because we had to cite our sources and learn how to know if we can trust on any cites. We shouldn’t trust everything that we want to use just because we are lazy to find all the citation. Also, we aren’t going to be very successful with Wikipedia teaching us stuff that might have been made up so we shouldn’t use Wikipedia for anything.
I think Wikipedia was a not okay site, but after the research of the cold war and everything that you gave us for reserach, my mind change. You are changing my mind again, because while i was researching I found out that it was kind of okay because like the words and everything was good and historical. But after this article i changed my mind because the professor or the professional was saying that it wasn't true. I think Wikipedia is not a good site, because sometime people or even someone near my edit. It was that shoking because it was reapeating the same info or telling the same things as past.
Anyway it was a article that change my mind.
After reading this information i was completly shocked of how untrustful wikepidia is. No one knows when the cite is being published and any one can edit the information that is why you might be researching a false information. The articles only go through a wikepidia scanner which only corrects the spelling. Beggining of this second I will never use the cite wikepidia.
9/6/07
Wikipedia really allows me to find various information but as expected, not all information was trustable. Everybody are able to access and edit Wikipedia, and that is the positive but negative fact. Anybody could edit the article into something different or put up wrong information. Well, this was funny though, at the fact people try to show their protesting through editing articles into silly ways. However, my opinion is that I keep on using Wikipedia but with other sources. If I can use the secondary source to find out if the article is telling the truth, it would enable me to search freely in Wikipedia. Or, if there is a part that seems suspicious, I could simply search about that in the web and check whether it is true or not. My opinion is that Wikipedia is not the final source to research, but the information gathered to one place and just like a buffet, I get to choose from it. After all, Wikipedia does contain many things and it is worth it to search about it. I think Mr. Mcallister posted this article to show that we shouldn’t become lazy to double check from whatever source we use, and that trusting only on Wikipedia is a bad choice. Not only Wikipedia, but we should always search once more about information on web to ensure ourselves that it is a true fact.
I have to say that I have never trusted "Wikipedia" and most of the people that know me know that I am a strong supporter of google.
This article does not make me trust Wikipedia at all. When I did once have an open mide and tried Wikipedia I did not like it because it was very hard to cite, and I could never know who edited it last. I dont think it was-is a very good idea to let ANYONE just go up to a website and be able to edit it. Still all the same this hasent made me any less trusting of goggle.
Before I read this article, I did not know that anyone can legally change the information of the site which can be easily searched. I did not know CIA was involved, looks like an abbreviation of something like a famous organization which I heard so many times. Also, I did not know there are so many people even the people included in the company change the information with abuse of their anonymousness. I agree with pursuing the IP and finding out who massed up the information. However, it is better to make people have responsibility by allowing only the identified people can edit the writings, not just wasting time with finding the childish people.
Once I read the Korean news article about Wikipedia. It was about in high school somewhere in U.S.A., when the teacher was grading the report; he saw two same reports which are absolutely wrong and he found that the sources was from Wikipedia. I even knew the information of Wikipedia is uncertain and without the origin, but I usually used Wikipedia because of a lot of information, unless it is true information or not. For the next time when I use Wikipedia, I think I have to check if it is right information or not more carefully by researching the other kind of sources.
Even though, I knew about Wikipedia being untrustworthy I never knew such people like the CIA were involved vandalizing the information. Also, cites like Wikipedia should not let unknown people just change the information because people can use that information for a really important test and not know Wikipedia is bad. Although, most people know Wikipedia is bad, it is mainly the first thing that comes up when you do Yahoo or Google searches. So, I think that people should look at Wikipedia then, check if their information are correct on different cites and check if that cite got their information from Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia could check their information everyday so they can insure that their information is correct and not vandalized. This shows Wikipedia’s and our laziness and our problems. I know that a lot of people use Wikipedia at school because it is convenient and Wikipedia has a lot of sources and you don’t have to go to five different sources or cites to find information. Also, I know that for my research I tend to use Wiki because it is nice to have all that information in one place and not have a scavenger hunt looking for the information which wastes a lot of valuable time.
I was sort of shocked after reading this article...
I sort of knew that 'Wikipedia' wasn't really a reliable place to research but I never thought that someone could change the information. I was shocked when I read that CIA was invloved in this.I think that the 'Wikipedia' scanner isn't able to scan if the information is right or wrong so it would be much better if the scanner could scan the information not only the spelling or the grammer.
I remember reading a Korean article about 'Wikipedia'. It was in U.S.A. When the teacher was grading the essay, he saw two research that had inaccurate information and the teacher found out that they both used 'Wikipedia' as their sources.
Most of the time when we research in Google or Yahoo, the first thing that comes out is 'Wikipedia' so most of the people use 'Wikipedia'. I think there should be a program where they can check list of people who edited the information.
I think we should check the information before writing or pasting it on to our essay or report.
I think most of the people uses 'Wikipedia' because it's easier and more convient and you don't have to go to other sites looking for all the informations you need.
I think this article was chosen because people use sites without checking if the informations accurate or inaccurate.
THANKS FOR THE ARTICLE
Whoooaah. Wikipedia? A non-reliable site? After reading this article, I was kind of shocked. I had heard once before that Wikipedia was not the best free encyclopedia on the internet, but I had used this site a lot before for research papers, reports, etc. At first I thought that this was a lie. I did hear once that anyone could access Wikipedia, edit any kind of topic that was already on Wikipedia and save it, or just add any another article you wanted, and the results would come up if you typed it into Wikipedia. Interestingly, when I was researching on the web, and for example, if I was researching the Cold War, then I would type the Cold War into Google and almost always there would be results in Wikipedia. I used Wikipedia a lot before, and I thought that the answers were correct. I think that Wikipedia has more or less correct information. However, when it came to citing your sources, it was a little difficult to find who edited it last, or who even brought the topic up at first. When I looked in other sites, such as Grolier.com, the answers came out pretty similar. I felt like maybe next time I shouldn’t use Wikipedia as much after reading that the CIA and the DCCC was involved in this. Maybe next time I shouldn’t be so lazy not to even compare with other articles to see if the information is true or not. We shouldn’t trust everything that we see. Yet, I feel like I still need more evidence to convince myself that Wikipedia isn’t the most trustworthy website on the internet.
02388
Sorry Mr. Mcallister if I press other on the blogger, the computer freezes for some reason.
02833
The trustability of Wikipedia's information is falling. I have used Wikipedia several times but have often been suspicious of its real accuracy. Now I can see that many people are tampering with the site unfairly to gain advantage and influence in government, business, and Intelligence articles. I can see why Wikipedia's articles would be useful for influencing public opinion and others, but it has gone too far. Even with the new WIKIPEDIA SCANNER can ALL the tampered information be caught? How can we trust wikipedia now. I believe it is just unfair that we as a public society cannot enjoy the information of wikipedia in it's pure and untampered state just because of some people out there trying to edit articles for their own greedy advantage. For the meantime now I think wikipedia has begun losing our trust. Wikipedia is not worth looking through if such editing has been done. Even if the Wikipedia Scanner can detect people by their IP code and other methods can they track EVERY SINGLE editor? The answer is NO. Unless wikipedia takes firm action in making a stronger information editing filter/barrier and makes stricter laws for the internet traffic editors, Wikipedia has certainly lost my trust. Now all we can do is wait till Wikipedia and its members get a hold of theirselves and fix this crucial problem.
I think this article was chosen beause using citing our sources in research should be in a wide variety of TRUSTABLE sources. From now on we must choose our sources specifically and judge the accuracy of internet articles.
This relates to what we have been doing in class because we recently did a research on many subjects. This article shows us that not all articles are trustable such as Wikipedia and that internet articles are tampered. We must be careful while resarching.
Wow. I never knew that people could change stuff like that on Wikipedia. I never really used it that much, but I think I will use it way less after reading this article. I can't believe that the CIA edited some of the stuff too! It's good that they tried to put like a scanner sort of thing in so that it will be harder for someone to do that. But, I still don't think that's going to stop people. So I don't think that Wikipedia will be one of my main sites for researching. I think this article was chosen, because we just did a lot of research on different topics like WW2 and the Cold War and stuff like that. So it's to show us to always try and double check our work because you can never tell if what you're reading is true or not, especially with the internet for example the Wikipedia situation. We have to remember that sometimes the internet isn't always the best place to find information, sometimes books are better. It relates to class to because there are so many different sites that you can go to, to get research and Wikipedia is one of the main ones that everyone goes to, so maybe we won't go there as much, now that we've read this article. So this was to show us that not everything that's on the internet is true.
I am not surprised and yet I am surprised. I knew that you could edit Wiki, but I thought that now you had to have a user on Wiki to do it. I didn’t know that they had a scanner service on there. I knew that Wiki wasn’t the best site to get information from, but it had lots of it. Now, I will be more careful of Wiki, though in the article, they say that they are increasing the probability of catching anyone who edits an article without permission and that makes me feel a little bit safer about using Wiki. Still, Wiki isn’t the best site to get information, so in the future; I will try to use other sources.
cont. I forgot to add this information. I was enourmously surprised when I saw that the CIA was involved. I never knew that it was such a big deal.
I have always heard from many people that Wikipedia was not trustable, but I didn't know that it had caused many problems. In the past, I used Wikipedia mainly, because it's comfortable and quick to get information, but a teacher had told me that it was not reliable. So after that, I decreased the amount of using Wikipedia. However, I didn't know that people would edit information on celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and the CIA. I am definitely not going to use Wikipedia anymore. I hope that Wikipedia will improve its site and make it a better organization of information. Also, I hope that from now on, we would actually have sites on the internet that we can rely and depend on, while researching.
Thank you for reading my
comment =] lauren kim
I think that Wikipedia is not a good site to find your information because anyone can change in anytime, and also you never know if that informations are true of not. This article shocked me that CIA was involved in editing entries. Before I read this article, I usually used Wikipedia to find my informations because I can get lots of informations right away. I heard people saying that don't consum your time using Wikipedia, however, I didn't know anything about these bad news so I used a lot. I always use google but when I found a site they are almost from Wikipedia. I thought maybe Wikipedia is very useful site, and thats why it always have informations that I am trying to find. Now, I am not going to use Wikipedia, and I know that this site can deceive me any time.
Thanks for the good information
Wikipedia... the free encyclopedia, has been notorious for false information, and misleading facts since its founding. However, the fact that its articles have been altered by government agencies and many groups, associations, and organization is quiet alarming. I, personally use Wikipedia very much, and enjoy its free facts and information, that comes in many languages. Although I have known that, I had trust in the editors and the non-highly-editorial-articles, as well as the articles such as “WWII” where the articles can no longer be edited freely. I believe this can be considered as a lying to the people who had faith and trust on Wikipedia such as me, and lowering themselves down to an organized blog, rather than an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I believe that Wikipedia still can be used as a reference, with certain facts, where you can base your research on. If you want to research on “WWII”, or a tremendously big topic, you maybe able to narrow the topic down to certain degree, and base your research on details. I AM DISAPPOINTED, WIKIPEDIA!!! +_+
Wikipedia used to be one of my homework helpers. However, this articles made a twist in my mind. This article shows that wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is a source that everyone, who have access to the internet, can edit and change. It was new for me that people criticize other people and try to change the history by editting wikipeida. Wikipedia will no longer be one of my homework helpers, unless it becomes a better source with pure facts.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well, I usually find my info on Wiki.I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
I thought that Wikipedia is the most valuable site for finding informations easily but my mind changed because of this article.
I think that Wikipedia is not a good site to find the best quality answer for the information because people could get into the informations and wreck it. Means that everyone can put the wrong answers on it.
This is a serious problem because most of the people in this world use the Wikepedia to find the information, and Wikepedia is not a good site to find the information so everyone was getting tricked by the site. So, I'll change my site to other sites to find the information that I want.
Well... I usually find my info on Wiki...I did know that someone would tell us the fact that we need, but didn’t know that someone could change the information into wrong answers. Not only changing the info but even write a whole information about what the person who answer might think its right but actually giving people wrong knowledge.
Until then, I thought that Wikipedia was the most valuable, usfule site in the World. I think More than 60% of the students who goes to school uses "wikipedia". But by reading this article, I realized that Wikipedia's information could be false any time because people can submit non-sence, non-true "opinion" about a certain thing. Before reading this article, I have used Wikipedia for millions of time, thinking that it is the best site ever. But from know on "if" I am going to use wikipedia, I will becarefull of false details that will mess my reports of information.
I once used Wikipedia's information on something, and found out that its information wasn't right at all! I was quite shocked because I didn't know that anyone could fix the informations on that site! But now I know I have to be more careful on researchings... Yes, I could use Wikipedia, but I should check whether if the information is right or not before using it!!!
P.S. I am sorry about writing this comment a day late ㅜㅜ
when i read this article...i was like woahhhhhh
i knew that wikipedia was not a good source to use, and i never used it. Wikipedia is sometimes a good source, but mostly since people edit it, it may be false. Many people could not kno what theyre talking about, or has the wrong information, so the information you read on wikipedia may be false.
I really didnt know that the CIA was also involved in this situation. We should really be careful where we get our information from.
I don't think Wikipdia is a reliable source to find information in. We don't have any ideas where that information came and who edited it. Everyone has access to edit the information and that’s not good because the information that was given by them might be wrong. I was pretty shocked when I read this article I had no clue that people would do such a thing like that. I used Wikipedia for a lot of my previous essays and from now on I am going to try using other sources for information. There are so many people that use Wikipedia for information and we should all be careful.
After reading this fantastically terrible news about Wikipedia, the CIA, the DCCC, the US democratic party, and many others, I think it is horrible that the site has been violated and vandalized by some stranger who thought it was funny to change the information.
I know that Wikipedia is one of the most used information site for many people including me, my friends, and many other adults. Like the others I am sometimes lazy and just use the site because it is filled with many information which is so easy to use and find. I actually use it almost ALL the time.
Wikipedia is filled with bunches and numerous informations. But it is also filled with lies, pranks, and people who put in non-sense info for their own entertainment.
It is also a problem that the information can also give out a wrong identity to other people. Because of this I think the wikipedia scanner which is so highly rated, should be changed into a more advanced one where the scanner can actually approve of the information or not.
The first thing that comes up on my computer screen when I search something on Google, most of the times, is Wikipedia results. I heard that wikipedia is a source that anyone can use, but also anyone can change the information. But it seemed like it has some good information, so I used it a lot during my homework. I’m very disappointed with wikipedia after reading this article, and now I’m worried that I have turned in the wrong information or researches to my teachers. I didn’t know that changing information can cause this much problem. People are changing however they want, and people who needs pure information, doesn’t get one. I think the idea of wikipedia having the scanner is useless. I hope they have a better idea so that everyone around the world can relay on wikipedia. I think this article was chosen because this not trustable source is what many people use to find results. I thought this wouldn’t make that much of a difference, but now I should be careful. I think Mr. McAllister is trying to tell us that wikipedia isn’t a very good way to do our homework. This article has to do with our class throughout the whole year, because we shouldn’t always use wikipedia, and also, we shouldn’t believe all the information on internet. I am disappointed in wikipedia. Even though I knew it before, this article made me realize how bad it is. I hope the company makes it better so it can be my homework helper again.
Before reading this article, I used Wikipedia, knowing that people could make changes to it, but not really thinking that things this serious could happen. It is sad to think that people want to do wrong things like say something offending about someone else on a site that people use for getting information from. I think that now that I have read about such instances and things, that I will be more cautious to use Wikipedia because I want to know for sure that the information that I am recieving is the truth, not just something someone said because they didn't like someone or some other reason. I will want to use sites that insure that safety for me and others when we use it so that if we share it with others, that the information is valid.
I used wikipedia often but after I go in I really don't read it. Because I knew taht anyone can edit it and put something that is incorrect or not really a good information.Most time sI didn't read it beacuse it was too long. We really can trust wikipedia. After that article on BBC I think ost of people will not use the wikipedia. Eventhough they used it often and really liked but they will not like it. If I made a account and edit the wikipedia information that is goog dor bad but I have bad things more. Many people will get in to wikipedia and lose lots of time and get only few information but many information that doesn't has to anything about the any infromation you want to find. Eventhough they have all the system that they check and fix everything it will not work to bring out the good information, so I can't trust wikipedia. I think no one will.
I always heard from people not to use Wikipedia because anyone can edit in that site. However, I never knew that the CIA was involved in this. I feel that I should be aware of sites and always see a citation. I can get wrong information without ever knowing it, so I should go to sites that can be trusted with real and true information. For example, if I used Wikipedia for my report on the five topics we were covering in Social Studies, then I might have added wrong information and learn the wrong things at the same time. You can learn not to trust such websites on the Internet so easily.
We spend more time with a computer. When I finished to read, I really worried about my homework. Do you know why? When I search something, I just type the terms in the searching area on the total web sites such as Google or yahoo, and usually just click the first web site or next one without thinking. If I think that it is fine site or popular site, I just refer to it. However, it is difficult for me to differentiate the good or bad sites. I easily trust the information for my homework that is provided by any kinds of web sites on the internet.
I think that we load up only right information or knowledge on the internet, because many people learn from the information or knowledge. If wrong knowledge is loaded up on the internet by someone, many people who study with the internet can have wrong knowledge. It is very important to share the right knowledge or information.
I know that wikipedia is not a very
good idea to get information on subjects not to learn at all.
sdfkjheiiofdf
many times i have used wikipedia but i never realized that the information is so risky to cite. I never realized that the CIA is editing it so the information must be more valid than it used to be. I've used wikipedia alot and i just hope that my grades dont go down because of faulty information.
When I was reading this article, I had to agree with what the other people were saying about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a good cite for students and is untrustworthy. I was really shocked. I never knew that Wikipedia was such an unreliable source. I also couldn’t believe t hat the CIA was involved in it. I never knew anything about Wikipedia and I thought that it was a pretty good sight and after reading this article, I got worried because I usually use this cite often for research essays. Now I am thinking that I have written down some wrong info. To me this was a warning and I will later on in the future try not to use it. This relates to class because 95% of the students researched and got information from Wikipedia. I think that Mr. Mcallister was trying to warn us because we probably had some incorrect information and found out that it was a bad cite for research after turning in our research essays.
dhdfhtdfhkgffjytfjhfhgfjhyfhmtgfukytrukytjyhkjkhjkfghmnhmjkhktrfkutuktr
Wikipedia is a site where anyone can change and edit other peoples important or unimportant information. This kind of process is not a very accumulated system and thats why they have made a scanner in which people can't edit other peoples' works. But it is easy to access the same habit before the scanner was made. I wasn't very suprised that the CIA had to do something with the wikipedia incident because these days it is so easily to trick people and the CIA is a special defense association for america the CIA must know better. These days programs are so easily to be hacked. The CIA stands for central intelligence agency which is a pretty big deal to America. Therefore wikipedia is a very complicated process while other prgrams are being hacked. I think that in the future they will make a new program super computer scanner that will sense what everyone does on the computer.
I think that Wikipedia is an unreliable source, because any one can make a site and put up false information. Even though the scanner checks for grammar and spelling, I think they should check for something more important, and that’s how accurate the information is. I was a bit shocked that the CIA and DCCC where in on this because they are the ones who should be putting a stop to this false information. I think that it is really important that the world sees this because about 89.5% of students at an average school use Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not use it for the caution of false information.
This news that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information would have shocked many people. When I research about a fact on the internet I usually find Wikipedia as the first site on the list. To tell the truth, I already knew this fact a year ago when my science teacher told me. She said that her classmates would search up on Wikipedia and change the information after he/she had copied the information down. This was why for every science research project she wouldn’t let us use Wikipedia as a source. I believe that Wikipedia should change their site so nobody except the workers could change the information. Wrong information could mislead people and for their own safety Wikipedia should ensure that nothing can change. I use Wikipedia a lot, and I fear what would happen if I put wrong information on my homework or project. I believe Mr. McAllister chose this article because he knows that Wikipedia is a famous site for facts and that we use it a lot. Now that he put up this article it could have changed people’s opinion on Wikipedia. This article relates to something we did in class by our research assignment. I know that a lot of the information that got was from Wikipedia and other people could have too.
This news that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information would have shocked many people. When I research about a fact on the internet I usually find Wikipedia as the first site on the list. To tell the truth, I already knew this fact a year ago when my science teacher told me. She said that her classmates would search up on Wikipedia and change the information after he/she had copied the information down. This was why for every science research project she wouldn’t let us use Wikipedia as a source. I believe that Wikipedia should change their site so nobody except the workers could change the information. Wrong information could mislead people and for their own safety Wikipedia should ensure that nothing can change. I use Wikipedia a lot, and I fear what would happen if I put wrong information on my homework or project. I believe Mr. McAllister chose this article because he knows that Wikipedia is a famous site for facts and that we use it a lot. Now that he put up this article it could have changed people’s opinion on Wikipedia. This article relates to something we did in class by our research assignment. I know that a lot of the information that got was from Wikipedia and other people could have too.
This news that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information would have shocked many people. When I research about a fact on the internet I usually find Wikipedia as the first site on the list. To tell the truth, I already knew this fact a year ago when my science teacher told me. She said that her classmates would search up on Wikipedia and change the information after he/she had copied the information down. This was why for every science research project she wouldn’t let us use Wikipedia as a source. I believe that Wikipedia should change their site so nobody except the workers could change the information. Wrong information could mislead people and for their own safety Wikipedia should ensure that nothing can change. I use Wikipedia a lot, and I fear what would happen if I put wrong information on my homework or project. I believe Mr. McAllister chose this article because he knows that Wikipedia is a famous site for facts and that we use it a lot. Now that he put up this article it could have changed people’s opinion on Wikipedia. This article relates to something we did in class by our research assignment. I know that a lot of the information that got was from Wikipedia and other people could have too.
thanks for the information i can't undertand all..i know the meaning and what happened..i think wikipedai is not for finding information...
I knew that Wikipedia wasn't a really reliable site to get information, but i didn't know that the CIA and the celebrity was involved. If the CIA was involved in this editing process, the CIA had done an unlawful act toward the community and I was disappointed when I read this. It says that Wikipedia can track down the IP address and the information they have changed which makes me think not to change the information just for a joke. I was first suprised that Wikipedia became so famous and it was the 1st result for every word I googled. I thought that it was very reliable but then I also noticed the [edit] and i just put in some extra words for fun, but now I see that I shouldn't do that anymore. We should not use Wikipedia anymore because it is an unreliable and editable source; the worst encyclopedia on the internet. Since it was fast and easy to search for information, I used Wikipedia numerous times for researching and in finding new information, but I guess I should use other sources such as Britannica etc. This article has influenced not only us, but the whole world about the use of Wikipedia; I wonder what the Wikipedia and the CIA would say about this. Since we won't use Wikipedia anymore, I hope that there would actually be a reliable source that we can all use; a simple, easy, quick acces would be fine.
Whoa! As I was reading this article I was shocked up. I go to Wikipedia to find almost all my information that teachers gave to me. I thought that Wikipedia got good information written by someone who just knows a lot of thing about the topic. Reading this article it just made me freeze for a second. I mean come on! They can’t let anyone edit the information. Who knows if the person who edit doesn’t know lot about the topic then you might get some information that is not correct. Also CIA involved with the editing process?! Wow, that was a big shock for me. This article is really important. The reason is that we are in school where almost everyday we just got to look and research for something, and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who uses Wikipedia so much. I think that this teaches us that even some of the greatest known sites of information you can’t always trust on it. This makes me to look at somewhere else to check if you have similar information. Thank you for such a good information!
I think wikipedia is not a good site to find out your infomation. because this site does not always trustful information.
WOW I got triked! I really thought Wikipedia was the best online site where we can gather informations. Even an 10 years boy can make an information that is fake like saying Nike and Adidas mixed and made Nadidas(?). I really ashamed of who put fake information so other get triked. I'm really glad that CIA was involved to Wikipedia and about whole world is using the site of Wikipideia. I found out that in class 10 of 5-6 are using Wikipedia for researching and finding informations when they are needed. I really want some good and 100% sure information and some security programs to protect some false Wikipedia. Mostly Yahoo and Google is for everything. If we type for example TCIS. and I want to know the map, they will tell more things like there own opinion. Now on I really want some improvements and I will not use Wikipedia as often as I can as before. Thank you for taking a minute or so to reading for my opinion.
Whenever I had homework to research from the internet, I used Wikipedia most of the time. But I was so shocked to know that anyone could edit the information so it can be inaccurate! I knew that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia but I didn't know that it can be full of wrong information. I was very disappointed because Wikipedia was my favorite online encyclopedia...
But from now on, I think I shouldn't use Wikipedia anymore, because I don't want to get wrong information for homework or tests.
I think I can't trust Wikipedia anympre.
After I read this article, I never knew that it was this bad. I think that the one that made Wikipedia has no idea when someone puts lies and curses in Wikipedia. I guess that he was just trying to give everyone a choice to edit the articles in the website, but there are too many lies and the editor’s opinions. Anyone can edit. Then some crazy people might just make the whole article that was just fine into false sentences. I think that the Wikipedia owner should have been knew that and try to fix some problems, but I guess it’s not happening. If this website stays in this way, then it might show a big lie that could confuse everyone in the whole world. Wikipedia is one of the most popular website in the whole world. I think that the owner should really take this problem seriously and know that this popular website is showing all lies to the whole world and confusing people. I hope that this problem won’t get any worse.
hmmm, another ovious one, i peopsonally tried to change some articles about useless stuff just for fun but it always changed back. About these guys from these companies and CIA. Well, if i was the head of Wikipedia, i would just sue the heck out of these companies for vandalizing the information and such.
--
I think this was chosen because Mr. Mcallister was trying to get people to use other search engines
--
This article is related to class because we have started the research on that day
...
i think
...
I think Wikipedia is not best site for information because when I reserch. it has alot of iformation and its good that has lots of intormation but there are so many infotmation so I can't understand
check point
People always told me that Wikipedia was a bad site because anyone can edit it. I didn’t really care because I didn’t use wikipedia but I used wikipedia once on my report on health and the information was easy to follow. From reading this article, I think I used false information on my report. A lot of people in schools use internet sources to find information for their projects or essays and I just want to say to be on the alert if your using wikipedia because it might be wrong information. Why does wikipedia let people edit their cite? I think that is rather stupid because people in this world can put false information like pranksters or people who are, weird. I think the moral of this article is that we shouldn’t believe everything we find because it might be all lies.
People always told me that Wikipedia was a bad site because anyone can edit it. I didn’t really care because I didn’t use wikipedia but I used wikipedia once on my report on health and the information was easy to follow. From reading this article, I think I used false information on my report. A lot of people in schools use internet sources to find information for their projects or essays and I just want to say to be on the alert if your using wikipedia because it might be wrong information. Why does wikipedia let people edit their cite? I think that is rather stupid because people in this world can put false information like pranksters or people who are, weird. I think the moral of this article is that we shouldn’t believe everything we find because it might be all lies.
actually i knew that; but sometimes we can definitively find the information which is not related about ours. in my opinion this is soso~~ if not where could we find inormation? i guss that's pretty normal that we modify wifipedia whatever we want. this web is international and thousands of people are using of so this can have no more safe
I don't think Wikipedia is best site, but good site.
Everyone can edit the information so people can know other person's knowledge and compare opinion.
after reading this blog i think that looking at wikipedia for information is not that good because the wikipedia information could be edited at any moment. Its not that good for your grades too becasue the information could be totally wrong and the citations could be wrong also. It was surpirsing to see that the CIA (the CIA) was involved in the editing of wikipedia. That is very surprising because that means wikipedia can never be trusted becasue even the CIA changed it. Now i dont think we should use wikipedia for projects and stuff.
in my opinion, wikepdia is not that a worst site to find your information but sometimes we might just be careful because you may get the information that is not right for your project. i actually knew about this because while i was in canada, soemeone from our school could definitively modify the information belong. i was pretty surprised about it. and that was from that time that i didn't relly used much wikepedia
what i thought abouyt that is i thought that everyone knew about that.
in my opinion, wikepdia is not that a worst site to find your information but sometimes we might just be careful because you may get the information that is not right for your project. i actually knew about this because while i was in canada, soemeone from our school could definitively modify the information belong. i was pretty surprised about it. and that was from that time that i didn't relly used much wikepedia
what i thought abouyt that is i thought that everyone knew about that.
in my opinion, wikepdia is not that a worst site to find your information but sometimes we might just be careful because you may get the information that is not right for your project. i actually knew about this because while i was in canada, soemeone from our school could definitively modify the information belong. i was pretty surprised about it. and that was from that time that i didn't relly used much wikepedia
what i thought abouyt that is i thought that everyone knew about that.
clara jeon
i agree with other people that wikipedia is not good information. because people don't know it is true information and any body can change the infomation. i think information must be ture and it has to useful. we don't know it is right or wrong and i never saw this site befor. so i think wikipedia is not good site to have information
Post a Comment