- When some asshat went in and redacted all of the FRELIMO history of Ter-ray-za’s Communist father, and the gal that runs Wiki said not a word, that was all I had to see. Wiki is useless for any sort of historical/political source now because the left has trashed anything that looked bad for its side. File and forget. Anyone like jac trying to use Wiki as a source is playing stack the deck. Losers…..

- Bang

You: “Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.”

Me: the article is still valid today. Just to prove it, here’s one from March 29th:

One co-founder of Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” presented the future of free information to an audience at Purdue University Tuesday.

Larry Sanger posed the question of what would the ideal free information resource look like?

Sanger believes there are five necessary components to creating the ideal resource.

“The more an information resource is complete, accurate, available, easy to use and interactive, the better it is,” he said.

Sanger went on to explain how each of these components applies to Wikipedia, and many other current information sources.

The biggest problem with Wikipedia is expert opinion, he said.

“Whether expert opinion is accurate truth is a question that comes up a lot when discussing Wikipedia.”

Jeremy Tirrell, a rhetoric Ph.D. student, uses Wikipedia for his classes.

“I teach English 106 and I actually have my students participate in Wikipedia,” Tirrell said.

Tirrell uses certain features of the encyclopedia, but because an abundance of information is involved, it can be complicated to use.

Sanger said one of Wikipedia’s major problems is its credibility.

“Its reliability, or closeness to the truth, is still dubious,” he said. “But its credibility, or reputation, is low.”

From Wiki’s site (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

Face it: you were wrong, and Pam and I were both right. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, outside of the fact that you went an entire thread trying to act like you didn’t know that Wiki could be edited and when it was all said and done you essentially said “it used to be like that, but not anymore” – and even that assertion on your part is false.

I don’t mind banter, but I like it alot more when the person I’m “bantering” with is a little more upfront and honest with what he or she knows about a particular topic. Let’s not repeat this again.

Now on to business. Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.

Fast forward to today – that’s what they’ve done. You both used the present tense. You’re both wrong.

Pam: “You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.

Sistah: “Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.

Sistah: “The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.” Sage advice. I readily do it when necessary. Try it.

And I saw that article the day it came out. I’m sure you would have guessed that.

I’m out for now. Regardless of what it may seem like, I do enjoy bantering with you (a little less so with most of your readers). I hope you have a good night.

1999 – Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004).

April 22, 1999 – Valerie Wilson lists “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.”—later revealed to be a CIA front company—as her employer when making a donation to the Gore campaign. ( Gore FEC filing).

June 1999 – Niger ’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ’s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).

October 15, 2001 – US intelligence agencies become aware of reports from the Italian intelligence service of a supposed agreement between Iraq and Niger for the sale of uranium yellowcake. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research considers the report “highly suspect” because the French control Niger ’s uranium industry. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Energy consider a uranium deal “possible.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36, July 2004).

October 18, 2001 – The CIA writes a report titled, Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts. It quotes many of the Italian report’s claims, but adds that the report of a completed deal is not corroborated by any other sources. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36-37, July 2004).

February 5, 2002 – The CIA’s Directorate of Operations – the clandestine branch that employed Valerie Wilson – issues a second report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5-6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of uranium yellowcake per year. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 37, July 2004).

February 12, 2002 – The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July 2004).

Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information. They consider having Wilson return to Niger to investigate. In the process, Valerie Wilson writes a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” One of Valerie Wilson’s colleagues later tells Senate investigators she “offered up his name” for the trip. Wilson says that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004).

February 19, 2002 – Joseph Wilson meets with officials from CIA and the State Department. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson. She later testifies that she left the meeting after introducing her husband. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 40, July 2004).

February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger . He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004).

March 5, 2002 – Wilson reports back to two CIA officers at his home. Valerie Wilson is present but does not participate. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43, July 2004).

March 8-9, 2002 – An intelligence report of Wilson ’s trip is sent through routine channels, identifying Wilson only as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004). The CIA grades Wilson ’s information as “good” the middle of five possible grades. Cheney is not directly briefed about the report. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 46, July 2004).

September 24, 2002 – The British government issues a public dossier saying, “[T]here is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” ( British Govt. Report 25, Sept. 2002). The Washington Post reports later that the CIA tried unsuccessfully to get the British to omit these claims. (” Bush, Rice blame CIA ” July 2003).

October 1, 2002 – The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – a summary of intelligence assessments for policymakers – says “a foreign government service” reported that Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” to Iraq , possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement” the NIE says, according to a later declassified version released by the White House. In the NIE, State Department intelligence officials caution that African uranium claims are “highly dubious.” ( Background WMD Briefing by Senior Administration Official ).

January 28, 2003 – Bush’s State of the Union Address includes this 16-word sentence: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ” (Transcript of ” State of the Union” ).

March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” ( Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq… , March 2003).

March 19, 2003 – President Bush announces the start of the Iraq war in a televised address, saying it is “to disarm Iraq , to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (Bush, ” Addresses the Nation” ).

Spring 2003 – Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official, State Department cover, according to a later Vanity Fair article based on interviews with the Wilsons . ( Vanity Fair , January 2004).

May 2003 – Joseph Wilson begins advising the Kerry campaign on foreign policy issues. ( White House expects calls… ” USA Today, October 2003).

May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’ s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (” Missing In Action: Truth, ” New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003).

May 29, 2003 – Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby allegedly requests information from Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman regarding the ambassador’s trip to Niger . The State Department provides Libby with a report on the trip and Libby is told for the first time that the ambassador is Wilson , according to a federal indictment of Libby later released by the Office of the Special Counsel, in October 2005. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 2003 – State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson ’s trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo identifies Valerie Wilson but not her status as a covert agent, and it does not use her maiden name Valerie Plame. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (” State Dept. memo gets scrutiny… ” New York Times, July 16, 2005; ” Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls, ” Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; ” Plame’s Identity Marked as Secret, ” Washington Post, July 21, 2005).

June 9, 2003 – Documents from the CIA allegedly are faxed to the office of the Vice President, and are addressed to Libby. They document Wilson ’s trip to Niger , without mentioning Wilson by name. The documents are marked as classified, and on them Libby and somebody else in his office writes the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 11, 2003 - Libby allegedly speaks with a “senior CIA officer” about Wilson ’s trip and his wife. The officer confirms that Wilson ’s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to have been involved in planning the trip. Grossman also speaks with Libby, allegedly advising him that Wilson ’s wife did work at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that she played a part in organizing Wilson ’s trip to Niger . (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 12, 2003 – A Washington Post article quotes an “envoy” (Wilson ) as saying that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” on the Italian document determined to be forged by the IAEA. (” CIA Did Not Share Doubt…, ” Washington Post, June 2003). Wilson later tells the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have “misspoken” to reporters, thinking he had seen the documents himself, rather than reading about them secondhand. (Senate Intelligence Cmte ., Iraq 44).

June 19, 2003 – The New Republic publishes “The Selling of the Iraq War: the First Casualty”. The article mentions an unnamed ambassador (Wilson) was sent to Niger per the request of the Vice President’s office delivered via the CIA. The article quotes the unnamed ambassador as saying the administration “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also accuses the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence community regarding pre-war intelligence. (Judis, John B. and Spencer Ackerman, ” The Selling of the Iraq War: the First Casualty .” The New Republic. 30 June 2003.)

After the story is published, Libby allegedly speaks with his principal deputy on the phone and says that public disclosure of information rebutting the article’s claim that the Vice President sent Wilson could cause problems at the CIA. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 23, 2003 – Times reporter Miller interviews Libby regarding Wilson ’s “activities”. She says later that during the interview Libby “placed blame for intelligence failures on the CIA.” accusing them of “selective leaking.” Libby also mentions Wilson ’s wife to Miller for the first time. (Miller, Judith. ” My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room ” The New York Times. 16 October 2005.)

July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes ” What I didn’t find in Africa” in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq ’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger ’s former Prime Minister.

Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also doesn’t claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission. (Wilson, ” What I didn’t find, New York Times July 6, 2003).

Link

There is a complete timeline that goes from 1988-1991 to November 16, 2005.

Interesting read, and all are backed by facts and proof provided of each statement.

Check it out, have a good read.

Get your facts straight, jac. You’ve been proven wrong. The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.

Obtuse: “Lacking quickness of perception.” That really about sums up your & Pam’s perception of how Wiki works today.

…on to read the rest of your post.

I ask again and please ANSWER the question I ask yo this time: do you or do you not see the “Edit” tab at the top of the page? A yes or no will suffice.

I have a feeling you know it, and you’re trying to get either me or Pam in trouble for editing it. The fact is, I don’t care whether you believe me or not. The facts are already out there – whether or not you chose to bury your head in the sand is not my problem.

Oh, and about your “not making a statement” you couldn’t back up, you haven’t backed up a single thing you’ve said here.

I’m going to give you the NYT link to the story which will hopefully ease your concerns about whether or not Pam and I are telling the truth. If it doesn’t, I think I’ll still be able to sleep ok tonight. But first, I want to recap how this dispute with Wiki started, and your implications assertions about it later in which you acted as though you didn’t believe me or Pam:

You: “Here are some facts, Sistah.”

Me: “And don’t insult my intelligence by using Wikipedia [...]”

Pam: “I love it You cited wikipedia as a source to dispute Sister T You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will, don’t you?”

You to me: “Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki.”

You to Pam: “Uh, sure Pam, whatever you say. Why don’t you go change that info then and see how easy it is? Tell you what – I’ll give you $50 to change that entire section I just quoted.

Put your money where your mouth is Pam.”

Me to you: Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.

You: “Good, then if she pulls it off, I owe her $50 – let’s see her do it”. [note: you didn't respond to the link I provided which contained a link to the NYTimes piece that proves it.]

Me: “I hope she doesn’t do it, because IP numbers of people who do it are recorded. Do you see the little “Edit” tab at the top of the page you quoted?

Are you attempting to assert that Wiki can’t be edited? Or do you know and are just trying to get Pam in trouble? ”

You: Hey, Pam said anybody could edit it, and you backed her up. I called you on it. Let’s see it.

Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.

Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.

Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.” [Sidenote: still no acknowledgement of the link I provided, nor an answer to my questions about what you were asserting, and if you saw the "edit" tab at the top of the Wiki page.]

————-

The discerning reader will note your inability and/or unwillingness to 1) answer my questions and 2) imply that both Pam and I were lying about the ability for anyone to edit Wikipedia.

Now, the NYTimes link (with emphasis added)

Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar

ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler’s biography, true?

The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he “was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby.”

“Nothing was ever proven,” the biography added.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered that the false information had been on the site for several months and that an unknown number of people had read it, and possibly posted it on or linked it to other sites.

If any assassination was going on, Mr. Seigenthaler (who is 78 and did edit The Tennessean) wrote last week in an op-ed article in USA Today, it was of his character.

The case triggered extensive debate on the Internet over the value and reliability of Wikipedia, and more broadly, over the nature of online information.

Wikipedia is a kind of collective brain, a repository of knowledge, maintained on servers in various countries and built by anyone in the world with a computer and an Internet connection who wants to share knowledge about a subject. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have written Wikipedia entries.

Mistakes are expected to be caught and corrected by later contributors and users.

[...]

In the end, Mr. Seigenthaler decided against going to court, instead alerting the public, through his article, “that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.”

Mr. Wales said in an interview that he was troubled by the Seigenthaler episode, and noted that Wikipedia was essentially in the same boat. “We have constant problems where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites,” he said.

Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mechanism by which readers and experts could rate the value of various articles. The reviews, which he said he expected to start in January, would show the site’s strengths and weaknesses and perhaps reveal patterns to help them address the problems.

In addition, he said, Wikipedia may start blocking unregistered users from creating new pages, though they would still be able to edit them.
The real problem, he said, was the volume of new material coming in; it is so overwhelming that screeners cannot keep up with it.

All of this struck close to home for librarians and researchers. On an electronic mailing list for them, J. Stephen Bolhafner, a news researcher at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote, “The best defense of the Wikipedia, frankly, is to point out how much bad information is available from supposedly reliable sources.”

You were wrong. Pam and I were right. You can either acknowledge that, or you can waste someone else’s time somewhere else. At this point, asking me or Pam to edit it after my taking the time to point out to you the error-prone nature of Wikipedia, I would conclude you’re trying to get one of us in trouble. I have proved conclusively that the Wiki is easily editable (not that I needed a link – because the “edit” tab is at the top of the page for anyone willing to actually LOOK at it).

My bad. I’m able to admit when I’m wrong.

January 10th, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on John Gibson’s show this day. Which is why Gibson has similar recollections to General Vallely. Vallely was on Cavuto which airs right before Gibson’s show.

August 20, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Greta and Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when/if things were taped the could have run into each other.

All but one were hours apart. And based on tapings, etc., was one or the other in D.C. or NYC and the other not? And why does Vallely on 3 separate occasions have nothing to do but hang around for hours until Joe Wilson walks in (provided they were even at the same Fox studios)? Considering that the green rooms and makeup rooms at Fox Studios are reported to be notoriously small, does Fox encourage people to come in and hang out all day?

The only date that they were possibly in the studios at the same time (notice, I’m not saying same studio, just possibly a studio at roughly the same time) was 9.12.02. I can’t find any archive of studio locations.

Add to that – Joe Wilson’s neighbors and friends didn’t even know what his wife did. So, yeah, I’m sure he’s telling someone with a military background national security secrets that can get his ass in a load of trouble.

Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.

Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.

Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.