Guantanamo Officers Caught Modifying Wikipedia

James Hardine writes "Wikileaks reports that US armed forces personnel at Guantanamo have conducted propaganda attacks over the Internet. (The story has been picked up by the NYTimes, The Inquirer, the New York Daily News, and the AP.) The activities documented by Wikileaks include deleting Guantanamo detainees' ID numbers from Wikipedia, posting of self-praising comments on news websites in response to negative articles, promoting pro-Guantanamo stories on the Internet news focus website Digg, and even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual'). Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job — posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'"

Tag suggestion

[by Anonymous Coward]

This lowly anon humbly suggests tagging the story "ministryoftruth".

Seems rather appropriate.

In other news,

[by Anonymous Coward]

The mass communications officer is expected to make a full recovery as a Slashdot editor and meta-moderator.

Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job???

[rwyoder (759998)]

Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Bush blasted Wikileaks for identifying one 'mass communications officer' by name, who has since received death threats for 'simply doing his job -- posting positive comments on the Internet about Gitmo.'

Lemme guess: The officers name is Winston Smith, and he is assigned to the Ministry of Truth?

Eerie Similarity Between Washington and Moscow

[reporter (666905)]

There is an eerie similarity between (1) this incident involving military officers employed by Washington and (2) several incidents involving bloggers employed by the Kremlin. The American military officers modified information on a website by removing negative statements about the American government and by adding favorable statements. The officers also added negative statements about "enemies" of the USA.

As for the pro-Kremlin bloggers, A recent report [rferl.org] by Radio Free Europe states, "A new generation of pro-Kremlin bloggers, for example, is being cultivated to spread Putin's word online -- and to rapidly disrupt the activities of Russia's opponents, both real and imagined.

When Kasparov's Other Russia held a rally in Moscow on April 14, for example, a group of pro-Kremlin bloggers from the Young Guard youth movement flooded the Internet with reports of a smaller pro-regime demonstration on the same day. In doing so, they crowded out postings about the opposition march on Russia's top web portals -- creating a virtual news blackout in one of the last refuges of free media in the county. Pavel Danilin, the pro-Putin blogger who spearheaded the effort bragged to 'The Washington Post' that his team 'played it beautifully.'"

Is Russia becoming more like the USA, or is the USA becoming more like Russia?

Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job???

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

According to the article:

Wolff, Richard M. MC1, USN, Mass Communication Specialist/Webmaster
Joint Task Force Guantanamo APO AE 09360 Cuba
Phone: [phone]
Ph DSN: 660-8135
Email: [e-mail]
Alt Email: [e-mail]

Wouldn't want that to get misplaced.

Re:Altering Wikipedia is an assigned job???

[Smauler (915644)]

The difference is that the officers were doing a job paid for by you. It is entirely appropriate that the public know where their money is going and who is spending it doing what. If the officers did this in their own private time, there would be a conflict of interest issue, but there would be no reason to leak their details. If the officers did this on your payroll, you have every right to know what they did, why they did it, and if they should have done it. If you are paying for something you have a right to know what people are doing with your money, obviously with certain exceptional limitations, this being far from any of those.

This is why military intelligence is an oxymoron

[rgoldste (213339)]

I'm shocked that the military would try to edit Gitmo facts out of Wikipedia. Don't they know that pages' history is saved, so that improper deletions can be easily restored? Don't they know that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of editors paranoid enough about the Bush administration and war on terror to monitor the Gitmo page? Couldn't the military be doing something, um, useful to prosecute the war on terror? Didn't the military realize that these efforts would come back to bite them in the ass (thanks Wikileaks!) and further hamper their efforts?

And regarding Lt. Col. Bush's "He was just doing his job" defense, I'd like to note that that defense hasn't been recognized in law since at least Nuremburg.

We apparently can't get ethical intelligence officers, but can we at least get intelligent intelligence officers?

Something is very broken when....

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

a military prison has a spin-meister.

Military prisons have a purpose

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Yes, the military is a state within a state. There are military laws, military police, military prisons etc. There are even military driver's licenses (I have a tank driver's license even though I've never been in a tank - go figure). For example, there are crimes such as desertion which have no civilian parallel. This pretty much holds for all countries.

But Guatanemo is being used outside of normal military usage which is probably why they also need spin meisters to make their case.

What's really funny

[zullnero (833754)]

Is the officer defending his guy for "just doing his job" to abuse privately owned and operated websites and spread misinformation. His job? I'm sorry, but spreading (mis)information is what the whole .gov domain was created for. There's no need to deface private websites and spam comments pages...and be paid to do it with our tax dollars. You do that, you deserve what's coming to you and it should be the military's duty to make sure they aren't assigning soldiers to such incredibly wasteful activities.

The incompetence of goverment....

[budword (680846)]

The incompetence of government is our only real chance at safely. These people are the reason I don't believe the government has covered up UFO's or a massive 9/11 conspiracy. They aren't competent. They can't find their own ass using both hands, much less scratch it without getting caught. The fixed ratio of stupidity to malice being constant means the damage these people can do will be sort term. (Short term being years though.) Much the same way the malice/stupidity ratio lead to the Nazi's being responsible for the very mistakes that lead to their defeat.

Re:Minor gripe

[Wordplay (54438)]

I wouldn't. Propaganda just means tilting public opinion towards positive through use of the media and other mass communications, with an implication (but not requirement) that it's less than honest. That could be adding positive info, that could be deleting negative info, given access. Wiki is unusual in that it would actually let you do the latter, oversight considerations aside.

Enough people don't understand that Wiki's only -really- valid as a collection of other cites and take it at face value that this sort of thing could be very effective if it's not outed.

Re:Minor gripe

[Original Replica (908688)]

Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?

Because they are a part of the modern military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations [wikipedia.org] (read it quick before it get's edited)

Now you might think that it would be wrong for the US Government to use a part of the military against US citizens, but then you would be supporting the terrorists. Here's why: The Terrorists can read the internet. It's OK to trample on you if it is in the name of Stopping The Terrorists. Any red blooded American should be proud to read purposefully distorted information, because they know that it is the only way to Stop The Terrorists and protect Freedom. America, fuck yeah.

Re:Fuck Bush

[LingNoi (1066278)]

Only people who share your viewpoint may edit wikipedia. People who have first hand knowledge may not. That is the cardinal rule.

Did you even read the summary?

...even altering Wikipedia's entry on Cuban President Fidel Castro to describe him as 'an admitted transsexual' (misspelling the word 'transsexual')

You're telling me that they have first hand knowledge of this?

Oh right you just wanted to troll about Wikipedia, my mistake.

Re:Wow what a shock

[niiler (716140)]

While it is true that every bit of information out there is shaded by personal perceptions, I can better make my own informed decisions vis-a-vis said information if I know who is communicating it to me. What this information officer was doing is repugnant in a democratic society where people need to make informed choices. Saying that we've been doing it since forever doesn't set precedent as propaganda's general purpose is to control the public opinion: it seems antithetical to democratic societies. And while Wikipedia is not perfect on political topics, at least it's something and we can make discoveries about the editorial leanings of the contributors.

Re:Wow what a shock

[symbolic (11752)]

This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of obscuring or removing factual information portraying what actually happened. To lie about something factual is entirely different than offering an opinion. And the motive is obvious - to circumvent accountability.

Re:Wow what a shock

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

Exactly... Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia that *anyone* can change it!

That is the point of wikipedia. That is not the important part of this story and, in fact, it mentions Digg and several other sites. The point of this story is the government is spending our tax dollars to spread "positive reviews" and misinformation related to government projects, thereby undermining the fourth estate. The other point of this story is they are incompetent at it and admit to doing it. Can't you muster up just a little bit of indignation that instead of providing ten poverty stricken youth with full scholarships to university we're paying at least one incompetent hack that money to lie to us on Web forums?

Ignorant

[HalAtWork (926717)]

So ignore a truth unless the person saying it is guilt-free? Facts don't stand on their own anymore?

Re:Ignorant

[ultranova (717540)]

Who says that wikileaks has "facts". They are an organization with international support, and so to some extent, act against the interests of the united states as a sovereign nation.

Please explain how your conclusion (Wikileaks acts against the interest of the United States as a sovereign nation) in the second sentence follows from your claim (Wikileaks has international support) ? And please explain how the implied statement that Wikileaks doens't have facts in the first sentence follows from your conclusion in the second ?

Or are you simply spreading FUD about Wikileaks in an attempt to discredit it ?

Re:Ignorant

[AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807)]

nono, i think he's right. Colbert's been saying for quite some time that the facts have an anti-US bias.
Wikileaks contains facts, and is therefore by the transitive property operating with an anti-US bias.
thats math, you cant argue with that.

Re:uhm...

[f_raze13 (982309)]

This is different. The article specifically states that the soldier is their "mass communications specialist", and that he was being paid to edit the articles to support Guantanamo.

I could see your point if the article read "military IPs used to edit wikipedia", but this is being financed by the government. Lt. Col. Ed Bush came right out and said that their "mass communications specialist" was just doing his job.

Re:misspelling?

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

From the article in question:

This is the American government speaking to the American people and to the world through Wikipedia, not identifying itself and often speaking about itself in the third person, Assange said in a telephone interview from Paris.

Army Lt. Col. Ed Bush, a prison camps spokesman, said there is no official attempt to alter information posted elsewhere but said the military seeks to correct what it believes is incorrect or outdated information about the prison.

Bush declined to answer questions about the Castro posting.

Assange said that in January 2006, someone at Guantánamo wrote in a Wikipedia profile of the Cuban president: Fidel Castro is an admitted transexual, the unknown writer said, misspelling the word transsexual.

The U.S. has no formal relations with Cuba and has maintained its base in the southeast of the island over the objections of the Castro government.

So, that's a lie. Also, from the link you posted:

Revision as of 20:55, 16 January 2006 (edit) ...my comrades: when he made his report he was fair enough to acknowledge as an incontestable fact that we maintained a high spirit of chivalry throughout the struggle.'' [http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm]

Revision as of 22:22, 16 January 2006 (edit) ...my comrades: when he made his report he was fair enough to acknowledge as an incontestable fact that we maintained a high spirit of chivalry throughout the struggle.'' [http://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm] + Fidel Castro is an admitted transexual.

So, you're not just a liar, but also an idiot.

Re:misspelling?

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

The user in question is simply a common wikipedia vandal. The only pro-US change he made was calling Fidel Castro a transsexual, yet he goes on to call the president "George Wanker Bush" and a "fag". Those two edits were the only politic-related pages he altered. Furthermore, his IP resolves to Romania, which is nowhere near Guantanamo or any place I would choose to conveniently locate a pro-US wikipedia propaganda artist.

More lies and propaganda. The link you posted was to the person who edited BEFORE it was altered. The link to the actual user who did this is here [wikipedia.org]

Reverse DNS lookup reveals that IP belongs to:

130.22.190.5 resolves to
"public.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil"
Top Level Domain: "southcom.mil"

So, how much do you guys get paid for doing this?

Re:Okay, so who isn't doing this?

[hey! (33014)]

If the government claims "lots of other people are doing it" as justification for anything it does, I want the same defense the next time a cop pulls me over for speeding, or when the IRS questions some of my more creative tax deductions. Otherwise, we're setting up a two track system: one for people who work the government levers, and the other for the people who pay for the levers to be there.

Re:Expert on subject modifying Wikipedia! Horror!

[thirty-seven (568076)]

So what happens if people on the inside are the only ones who know the real truth about a certain subject?

Wikipedia is not the place for original research; they have a policy against it. If you're the only one with firsthand knowledge of an event, or if you have made a new discovery, or even if you have some new well-argued analysis, then the thing to do is to publish it elsewhere (newspaper, book, website, press release) and, if they think it's worthwhile, others will add this information to an article on wikipedia and cite you.