Intellipedia

This looks like one of the cleverer things our intel services have done in a while. Great idea, really. Use the Wikipedia model to encourage intel sharing -- brilliant! And a lot less expensive than the hundreds of millions of dollars the FBI threw away on a non-functioning computer system ...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

U.S. intelligence unveils spy version of Wikipedia

Tue Oct 31, 2006 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.

Intellipedia is currently being used to assemble a major intelligence report, known as a national intelligence estimate, on Nigeria as well as the State Department's annual country reports on terrorism, officials said.

Some day it may also be the path intelligence officials take to produce the president's daily intelligence briefing.

But the system, which makes data available to thousands of users who would not see it otherwise, has also stirred qualms about potential security lapses following the recent media leak of a national intelligence estimate that caused a political uproar by identifying Iraq as a contributor to the growth of global terrorism.

"We're taking a risk," acknowledged Michael Wertheimer, the intelligence community's chief technical officer. "There's a risk it's going to show up in the media, that it'll be leaked."

Intelligence officials say the format is perfect for sharing information between agencies, a centerpiece of the reform legislation that established Negroponte's office as national intelligence director after the September 11 attacks.

They also said it could lead to more accurate intelligence reports because the system allows a wider range of officials to scrutinize material and keeps a complete, permanent record of individual contributions including dissenting points of view.

That might help avoid errors of the kind that led to the widely criticized 2002 national intelligence estimate that said Saddam Hussein possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence officials are so enthusiastic about Intellipedia that they plan to provide access to Britain, Canada and Australia.

Even China could be granted access to help produce an unclassified intelligence estimate on the worldwide threat posed by infectious diseases.

"We'd hope to get down to the doctor in Shanghai who may have a useful contribution on avian flu," senior intelligence analyst Fred Hassani said.

Quote:

---

The U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday unveiled its own secretive version of Wikipedia,

---

This line made me laugh... Way to keep it secret guys :2thumbsup:

But seriously, that article made me: :inquisitive:

Coolio. :unitedstates:

Yeah, certainly does sound like a good idea. It can only help to have different intelligence gathering agencies to sharing their information more efficiently.

One of the biggest issues I can see is keeping this secure. One slip up and the wrong person might find themselves with access to everything! Just a thought, I obviously don't know if that is possible or not.

I wonder if it will prove to be as staggeringly reliable as Wikipedia? Maybe what our intelligence services really need is several thousand tip-offs to Klingon subversion activities.

:rolleyes:

Imagine how easy it would be for some intelligence agencies to place false information in there to lead others down a garden path, all to hide their illegal activities.

Imagine what Oliver North's crew could have done to obfuscate the research into what they were up to if they planted enough screens in such a 'pedia.

They'll all be professionals though. No less reliable than any other way of sharing information. But more open in fact perhaps as it's easier to cross reference things and see who submitted what.

Nice to see that govs are finally cottoning on to the immense amount of cheap and efficient software floating around, rather than wasting millions making their own less-efficient versions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I wonder if it will prove to be as staggeringly reliable as Wikipedia?

---

Hope you are joking about that point, because in reality Wikipedia is an uncredible, garbage source of misinformation run by a cabal of corrupt staff using an "old boy's club" mentality to ensure it always stays that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Hope you are joking about that point, because in reality Wikipedia is an uncredible, garbage source of misinformation run by a cabal of corrupt staff using an "old boy's club" mentality to ensure it always stays that way.

---

Good God, I agree with Nav on something.

:wink3:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I had hoped my Klingon reference would have provided the clue about my opinion of Wikipedia, but clearly it was edited without reference to peer-reviewed sources...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Hope you are joking about that point, because in reality Wikipedia is an uncredible, garbage source of misinformation run by a cabal of corrupt staff using an "old boy's club" mentality to ensure it always stays that way.

---

Might we guess they didn't take too kindly to some carefully placed ABORTION =
MURDER edits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I wonder if it will prove to be as staggeringly reliable as Wikipedia? Maybe what our intelligence services really need is several thousand tip-offs to Klingon subversion activities.

:rolleyes:

---

I hope so, that might actually be an improvement :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

is an uncredible, garbage source of misinformation run by a cabal of corrupt staff using an "old boy's club" mentality to ensure it always stays that way.

---

Just like the intelligence community then.... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika

Might we guess they didn't take too kindly to some carefully placed ABORTION =
MURDER edits?

---

That's not what I was referring to in the previous post although it does serve as one example of that. However, the examples of garbage misinformation, propaganda and all manner of nonsense in Wikipedia run the full spectrum of everything. Even tons of things that pro-abortionists would agree is garbage misinformation.

I can give you another example. Say there is a fraudulent scam company that victimizes consumers, and someone posts factual information about that company's illegal and fraudulent acts of theft on Wikipedia. The corrupt Admin of Wikipedia will edit that information out of the "article" and ban anyone who adds factual information about that scam company from being able to make edits.

The physical sciences tend to be more accurate naturally :laugh4: . pun intended.

It can only be as reliable as it Moderators

I think it is a great idea and an easy way to share basic information. :2thumbsup: I would bet any intel agency worth a spit would also have their own information to cross check and verify with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I think it is a great idea and an easy way to share basic information. :2thumbsup: I would bet any intel agency worth a spit would also have their own information to cross check and verify with.

---

That, in essence, is also the reason why this is just a gimmick. Any effective intelligence agency already has many links to share information and cross-check it. They share useful and valid information, not post wiki rumours.

Or rather they don't. The intelligence failures extant are invariably due to petty rivalries both between agencies of allegedly friendly nations and within the rival national intelligence communities themselves. With the overt politicisation of intel chiefs, the fight is on to be the Most Valuable Player to the politicos, not to get the intel right.

A wiki of this sort is just a PR exercise that may compromise security if anything useful gets put on it (unlikely) or allow fishing expeditions and rumour-mongering for political gain.

Politicians (and therefore their lapdog placemen) just love technological "solutions" and never take the trouble to understand their limitations. The Intellipedia will shortly become infallible, like bank ATMs used to be.

:help:

Quote:

---

from Lemur's linked article: "...They also said it could lead to more accurate intelligence reports because the system allows a wider range of officials to scrutinize material and keeps a complete, permanent record of individual contributions including dissenting points of view..."

---

That bit might prove to be an important improvement in intel analysis. But, I agree, this effort does have a whiff of over-reliance on a tech solution to a human problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That, in essence, is also the reason why this is just a gimmick. Any effective intelligence agency already has many links to share information and cross-check it.

---

I wouldnt be so sure about that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I wouldnt be so sure about that...

---

:laugh4:

That's why I included the qualifier "effective".