U.S. intelligence unveils spy version of Wikipedia

[Omaha Steve]

http://reuters.excite.com/article/20061031/2006-10-31T233946Z_01_N01237389_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-INTERNET-INTELLIGENCE-DC.html

U.S. intelligence unveils spy version of Wikipedia
Email this Story

Oct 31, 6:39 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday unveiled its own secretive version of Wikipedia, saying the popular online encyclopedia format known for its openness is key to the future of American espionage.

The office of U.S. intelligence czar John Negroponte announced Intellipedia, which allows intelligence analysts and other officials to collaboratively add and edit content on the government's classified Intelink Web much like its more famous namesake on the World Wide Web.

A "top secret" Intellipedia system, currently available to the 16 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, has grown to more than 28,000 pages and 3,600 registered users since its introduction on April 17. Less restrictive versions exist for "secret" and "sensitive but unclassified" material.

The system is also available to the Transportation Security Administration and national laboratories.

FULL story at link above.

[C_U_L8R]

1. bet it cost 3 billion times more

[PSPS]

2. Much easier for all the spooks to "embellish" your dossier.

[tkmorris]

3. That may be the scariest thing I've ever heard

Just how stupid do you have to be to think Wikipedia makes a good model in an environment where accurate information is crucial?

[htuttle]

4. Depends on how they use it

A collaborative information sharing program could be a good thing in that environment, as long as there's an honest vetting process, tracking of changes, etc... The wiki software is already set up to do all those things, they only have to be used appropriately.

Face it, nothing is going to give good results when you're dealing with a cronyocracy. When decisions are made upon the basis of their effect on the domestic political environment, you're screwed no matter what software you're using. At least this shouldn't have cost a few billion to implement -- although it probably did if 'Accenture' set it up...

[krispos42]

6. Wikipedia's strength is on obscure stuff

You will not find a detailed accounting of mother-of-pearl left-handed corkscrews, for example in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And it is nice because you can get many more column inches than in a print book, so the details can be extensive. Hell, the article on the Commodore 64 is pretty damn extensive!

This new one will be more accurate because the contributors will be known, screened, and held accountable. No vandalism here, and Stephen Colbert can't ask the audience to change things around on a whim.

Honestly, it will probably work pretty well as long as they properly cross-link everything.

[w4rma]

5. Good. (nt)