Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11-03-07 Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia!

11-03-07 Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia!

Ratings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Mar 07, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia!
1) Joseph Zernik wrote:
 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:11:10 +0200To: lawsters@googlegroups.comFrom: joseph zernikSubject: Wikipedia? Wikipedic!!!Hi Jon:Regarding your accolades of Wikipedia, I can only add that encyclopedic projects have always been a goodreflection of their times and places...For the French Enlightenment that was the Encyclopedists - Voltaire, Diderot, etc, who sparkled a new era...For the US here and now, there is Wikipedia, with its anonymous editors, and practices, as detailed below,regarding notability...For your convenience, I am also adding a link and the full text of the study by CalTech about the Wikipediaencyclopedists, as reported in Wired magazine in 2007...The subject matter is of interest in itself... talking corruption of US government and the demise of democracyitself...
Adequate Disclosure: At one point I added some minor note on some subject in Wikipedia, I cannot even recallwhich one, unrelated to Richard Fine. It was expediently deleted, with a statement that the contributor was "oneof the leaders of the Richard Fine movement"... I took it as a compliment, although it was news to me that such"movement" existed, or that I was one of its leaders...
[1] 07-08-14 Wired - See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The CIA, A Campaignhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47616724/  __________ 
See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, aCampaign
By John Borland 08.14.07
Page 2/2 March 7, 2011On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-votingmachine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, suchchanges typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of thecomputer 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 isfar from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries totheir corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions ofmanipulation, 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-- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations wherethose edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block ofinternet IP addresses.Inspired by news last year that Congress members' offices had been editing their own entries, Griffith says hegot curious, and wanted to know whether big companies and other organizations were doing things in a similarlyself-interested vein."Everything's better if you do it on a huge scale, and automate it," he says with a grin.This database is possible thanks to a combination of Wikipedia policies and (mostly) publicly availableinformation.The online encyclopedia allows anyone to make edits, but keeps detailed logs of all these changes. Users whoare logged in are tracked only by their user name, but anonymous changes leave a public record of their IPaddress.The organization also allows downloads of the complete Wikipedia, including records of all these changes.Griffith thus downloaded the entire encyclopedia, isolating the XML-based records of anonymous changes andIP addresses. He then correlated those IP addresses with public net-address lookup services such as ARIN, aswell as private domain-name data provided by IP2Location.com.The result: A database of 34.4 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging fromthe CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's netaddress has made.Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material toentries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material.Voting-machine company Diebold provides a good example of the latter, with someone at the company's IPaddress apparentlydeletinglong paragraphsdetailingthe security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's CEO's fund-raising for President Bush.The text, deleted in November 2005, was quickly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised theanonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."A Diebold Election Systems spokesman said he'd look into the matter but could not comment by press time.Wal-Mart has a series of relatively small changes in 2005 that that burnish the company's image on its ownentry while often leaving criticism in,changing a linethat its wages are less than other retail stores to a note thatit pays nearly double the minimum wage, for example. Another leaves activist criticism on community impactintact, whilecitinga "definitive" study showing Wal-Mart raised the total number of jobs in a community.
2) At 04:18 AM 3/7/2011, Jon wrote:
On 03/06/2011 07:05 PM, joseph zernik wrote:
Page 3/3 March 7, 2011I guess you see the entry of "Constitution Society" as anachievement... I believe that we first have to establish what the factson the ground are...Trust it or not, Wikipedia is a kind of online "Establishment", ranked near the top on any websearches. That is power, and if we want to gain power to do the things we want, we have toplay in that arena, even if the odds are against us. It is just like the courts. They may becorrupt, but it is the main arena unless or until we can build an alternative.Yes, there is bias in Wikipedia. I have done a lot to fight it , with some success. If I had morehelp we could do a lot more. In Wikipedia, as in everything else, power goes to those whoshow up and do the work.I also have a wiki site, but lack the time to monitor it. Could use help for that, too.
-- Jon----------------------------------------------------------Constitution Society
http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322
twitter.com/lex_rexAustin, TX 78757 512/299-5001
jon.roland@constitution.org ----------------------------------------------------------
3) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:05:07 Joseph Zernik wrote:
 To: lawsters@googlegroups.comFrom: joseph zernikSubject: wikipedia? Wikipedic!!!Jon:Funny, if I were you, I would not be part of that scam...Please Google "Wikipedia" crossed with "Caltech".Already a few years ago a PhD student in CalTech conducted research, to uncoverthe identities of the anonymous editors, based on their IP addresses. There were lotsof them in US Government and large corporations...The editing of Wikipedia looks that way as well... Should we call it "Political"? Ormaybe simply "Wikipedic"?For example:
No matter what, Wikipedia editors repeatedly deleted any mention of the story ofRichard Fine, direct or indirect, by me or by others... for "lack of notability". At thesame time, the most obscure shopping malls around LA had entries on the site.
The very long entry on "Human Rights in the United States" is largely self-congratulatory... Things are not perfect, but close... No matter how much I tried toadd at the end, under the "Misc" section, a one line mention of each of the twoworst Human Rights atrocities of the past decade in the US, they were deleted.The first was reference by a UN rapporteur report and an article in the Nation, andthe second - by a plethora of official, experts, and media reports. There was noexplanation at all for these deletions, not even the claim of "lack of notability":
During Hurricane Katrina, the wardens left the prisoners locked, to drown asthe water was rising. The number of the dead was never officially disclosed...

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->