SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IP addresses linked to the New York Police Department's computer network have been used to sanitize Wikipedia entries about cases of police brutality.
This wouldn't be the first time we've seen nefarious alterations to Wikipedia entries, and it won't be the last. But the disclosure of NYPD's entries by Capital New York come as the Justice Department announced a national initiative for "building community trust and justice" with the nation's policing agencies.
As many as 85 IP addresses connected to 1 Police Plaza altered entries for some of the most high-profile police abuse cases, including those for victims Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo, Capital New York said. Edits have also been made to other entries covering NYPD scandals, its stop-and-frisk program, and the department leadership.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 16 2015, @08:42PM
Sorry citizen, you are not allowed to know about these matters in the name of national security. Your IP address has been logged and you will be re-educated by NYC public schools.
It seems like the NYPD is doing what many companies and congresscritters already do, trying to make themselves look better on Wikipedia.
---
If the police want trust, why haven't they condemned their use as a revenue force, as in Ferguson?
If the police want trust, why don't they advocate that Criminal Justice majors should take civil rights classes? Or Ethics?
If the police want trust, why is there silence and a circling of the wagons in nearly every case?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Monday March 16 2015, @08:48PM
The only reason anyone knows this is because wiki software logs anonymous IPs. "Your IP will be logged" is a kinda ironic choice for fake threat.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday March 16 2015, @09:50PM
Remember -
Before you trust the police, that the police NEVER trust you!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday March 16 2015, @10:24PM
Who said they want trust? They want respect from fear, more powers and full compliance. This is and has ALWAYS been obvious.
You NEVER look to what people SAY when trying to work out what they stand for. You always look to what they DO. And in this case it is blatantly obvious.
The problem is police forces have become political organisations. And also the "rich old white men" who run almost all of their districts are probably clapping every time they do what they do.
It sucks, but that is the way everything is run now.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @01:03AM
> You NEVER look to what people SAY when trying to work out what they stand for. You always look to what they DO.
The hard part is applying that principle to yourself.
We judge others by their actions, we judge ourselves by our (conscious) intent.
(Score: 1) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:43AM
I happen to be a very introspective person who is always mindful of that fact - although feel free to use Freudian logic to say I am wrong. :) I agree though, self-analysis is fraught with difficulty.
But now that I think about it more I am really am not sure what point you are trying to make?
Observations like the can be made without the person involved being aware. Who cares if this does not work for introspection?? We lie to ourselves anyway so we simply cannot trust our own opinion. (e.g. cognitive dissonance)
If I was to guess from your half-baked comment I would guess it is a wholly inadequate attempt at calling me a hypocrite. Was it?
Because the comment has nothing to do with me personally but a very good way to analyse another person's motivations and intent without letting their flapping lips (or in this case text) get in the way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @06:41PM
I would have expected someone who was actually big in the pants to not be anywhere near as reflexively defensive as that.
(Score: 1) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday March 17 2015, @09:57PM
I was explaining, not defending.
One sometimes assumes that people on the net are not just being horrible little trolls. One is often wrong.
I am not ashamed of who I am.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:14AM
> I was explaining, not defending.
Said everyone ever accused of being defensive.
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday March 17 2015, @11:25AM
Who said they want trust?
The thing is, they do want your trust, they just want it to be a foregone conclusion; they don't want to have to earn it first. I say that as someone who worked in law enforcement for 14 years. And they damn sure don't trust us, and never will. They learn at the academy that the citizen is never to be trusted, that every traffic stop is a potential fight for their lives, and every time they stop and frisk someone they risk getting shot or stabbed to death. And they are right about that: It's a dangerous job, often a thankless job, and even the best, most morally upright cops can get beaten into a state of mind where they no longer have the safety and protection of the citizen at the front of their minds. That's to say nothing of the "just give me a paycheck" cops, and the truly bad cops.
I once heard a police veteran say "Most cops are really good guys, they just want to do a good job, protect their community, and go home to their families each day. But there's that one percent of us who are truly bad seeds, and they are the ones the people see in the news. They are the ones who make people hate us. They are the ones who, when they end up in a position of power, can drag an agency down with them." And he's right; that's exactly the kind of thing we see in the news, and it's that kind of thing the "good" agencies and officers need to work to avoid becoming. Police are here to stay, our nation would be in a state of anarchy without them. But they need to do what they were designed to do, and not be a tool of oppression.
(Score: 1) by Mr Big in the Pants on Tuesday March 17 2015, @10:06PM
I spoke to several career policemen. They told a different story. NB: Not from the US but still a first world country with "low corruption".
They said explicitly that you will be asked to lie under oath all the time. If you don't your "mates" and especially your superiors will bully and harass you until you tow the line or quit. If you cannot handle that, then don't bother joining.
This was frank advice given to someone who said one of the reasons they wanted to join was that they were an honest person.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that this was not your reality and that lying under oath to get a conviction for someone "you know is guilty" is not something you ever did. I doubt this is not commonplace overall though.
It is not police though and I have nothing against them personally. (I spent 8 years training under and with several who are very good friends)
It is power. Any small minded humans with too much power is NEVER a good thing. And giving power to people can make them small minded to boot. And most people are small minded.
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday March 18 2015, @02:12AM
Lying under oath and lying to a citizen/the public are two different things. It sounds like you spoke to some pretty corrupt individuals.
Just for clarity's sake: I was never a peace officer myself, I worked in the administrative side with and around police officers. I did have to testify in court a few times when I worked as an evidence technician, but if I had lied under oath I would not only have been reprimanded and likely fired, I would have faced criminal charges too. The US courts (at least, those in my little corner of it) treat perjury very seriously.
(Score: 1) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday March 18 2015, @03:43AM
Not at all special cases. This is standard practice. Its too hard to catch people the usual way so they just lie to make it easier.
They have been caught out in several recent cases that made it public - some embarrassingly bad lies. Many will not be public.
And since it IS an offence then I doubt people will ever admit to it and it is tied up with all the usual human biases so the truth is not a black and white thing. (pun not intended...)
(Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Wednesday March 18 2015, @12:42PM
Then it sounds like wherever you are, you have it worse off than most of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:50PM
1% bad cops? Maybe from that brainwashed traitor's perspective. I'm sure he sees the enforcement of the drug war and all the rest of the "good" cop's daily treason as just doing their job.
it's pretty obvious you've been around cops for a while, you're regurgitating all their propaganda. What was supposed to be so scary about this anarchist hell we've all been reminded of every time the cops want to justify their unamerican tactics? oh yeah, the wild west, predator and prey... and how is that different from thousands of morons with guns trying to catch slaves for the prison economy?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @11:16PM
This is a non-story. EVERYBODY who has an article about them has an interest in Perhaps the police were removing hyperbolic statements, or statements they felt were untrue. Maybe, maybe not. If the police, or person or company we don't like, edits a Wiki article, it is obviously whitewashing and coverup. However, if some organization or someone recognized to be an Official SoylentNews Hero (being those who we are not allowed to express any comments that are less than stellar), then they are obviously getting the Truth out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:14AM
Please. There's no reason to give the government the benefit of the doubt. They conduct mass surveillance on the population and blatantly lie about it, steal people's property and call it "asset forfeiture", randomly violate people's rights for no reason and call it "stop-and-frisk", molest people at airports, get us into unjust wars (and lie about WMDs, which wouldn't be a valid reason to attack a sovereign country anyway) every two seconds, start wars on people who put certain drugs into their bodies, engage in all sorts of censorship (draconian copyright laws, free speech zones, FCC censorship, etc.), as well as numerous other horrendous things.
If you are smart, you will not give the government the benefit of the doubt; it's dangerous and they do not deserve it. People in power are interested in protecting their own power, and also want to increase it further.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @04:27AM
This guy's got it. If we weren't living in a police state there might be reason to give them the benefit of a doubt, but they've been shitting all over our civil liberties and betraying our trust for at least a decade or 4. They tell us "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" and then take actions like this to hide their own actions and rewrite history. The time of giving them a pass is long over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:24PM
Look for yourself at this "sanitation" that is going on (there are links in a post somewhere below). It is a tabloid-worthy headline. The worst part is that sheeple like you (yes, I did indeed use that derisive term that people like you love to apply to the common person, and it is very fitting because you are just only hearing what you want to hear) will take away from this that the cops are whitewashing information. A month or so from now you'll add this "evidence" to your laundry list rant as further evidence that "the government" is evil, completely independent as to whether the facts support your claim because facts don't matter to you. And I'm supposed to read your list of 99 grievances and take them at face value now that I've seen the level of critical thinking that goes into your "facts"?
Get bent.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday March 17 2015, @05:06PM
" re-educated by NYC public schools."
Ah ahahahahahahaha, snifff ... oh man. Educated and NYC public schools in the same sentence is a real kicker.
Ever been to one? They mainly serve as a publicly funded babysitting service and union pension money sink. The only public schools worth a damn are the ones geared toward vocational, sciences and technology. And many of them have suffered over the years from brain drain as the good teachers retired. Some have also suffered from selfish megalomaniac principals who sabotaged technical programs to make way for their own pet projects that never materialize. A great example is Lee D. McCaskill who my brother's teachers blamed for ruining the electronics major at Brooklyn Tech to the point where it was useless.
The mayors get to hand pick cronies to run the school systems with the promise of improvement but it just turns into a well paid ride for the cronies like Joel Klein, Bloombergs lawyer pal who had barely any teaching experience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @11:05PM
Are they really that stupid to use their corporate network to do these things on the internet?
Don't know they know that everything is tracked and can be traced back to the source?
Don't do they request IPs and the citizens behind those IPs during an investigation?
Sometimes these stories of officials editing stories does not pass the smell test.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:17AM
Sometimes these stories of officials editing stories does not pass the smell test.
Maybe they hire many incompetent people.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday March 17 2015, @11:38AM
Nope. They hire stupid people. Deliberately, as a matter of policy. So, in case it's not clear, the answer is "yes they are that stupid".
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 [go.com]
http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/ [mintpressnews.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday March 17 2015, @01:52AM
The specialist investigators who have some vague clue about what an IP address is are not the same people who are editing Wikipedia. I'm sure NYPD employ PR drones, and they will just as awful as any other PR drone anywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @11:05PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy [wikipedia.org] specifically calls for everyone to edit.
Even the best articles should not be considered complete, as each new editor can offer new insights on how to enhance the content in it anytime.
and
Please boldly add information to Wikipedia
...
Of course, citation needed
per "editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia;" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources [wikipedia.org],
(and other muzzles on people who know, preferring instead people who gossip about people who might have something to do with something, but perhaps know nothing).
In short, I'll pass on the popcorn this time.
(Score: 5, Informative) by compro01 on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:40AM
Counterpoint : Wikipedia:Conflict of interest [wikipedia.org], which this is a really obvious example of.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday March 16 2015, @11:20PM
Incredible that they won't do their homework nor even think of the consequences of their actions before executing them. We are the network and will entangle every mistake you ever make to find out even more about you. The political puppet critters and their drones tried it and got caught red handed. And now the police think they will get away with it? ;)
No the attempt will be news in itself and just add to the mess. And add more information in itself. Seems in line with less than smart bullies trying to cover up their blood traces.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hoeferbe on Monday March 16 2015, @11:54PM
Let me first say that I am worried about the militarization of the police, the emphasis on law enforcement instead of peace keeping, the lack a real concern for civil liberties by those in power, as well as the move to keep secrets from and exercise control over the general populace. (I'm looking at you, Washington D.C..) I want justice for those who have been victimized.
However, looking at the examples of the edits, I have to say they were not as damning as what the headline made me assume they were. The only edit I thought was of significant sanitizing was the "raised both his arms in the air" to "flailed his arms about as he spoke" edit. Some of the others edits seemed to change the article for more accuracy, not white-washing. (I encourage you to read the fine article to get to the links to Wikipedia's revision pages to see & judge for yourself.)
Yes, the members of the NYPD need to be held responsible. This should be investigated to determine how badly their edits violated both Wikipedia policies on neutrality & non-original sources as well as departmental policies. But I don't think sensationalist headlines advance the cause of justice.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:11AM
If nothing else, the good taxpayers in NYC are paying the cops. Is this a good use of tax money?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:57AM
I think there should be disclosure over who is behind any edits if those edits pose a potential conflict of interest. Not doing so is automatically suspect. The conflict of interest article, as linked to by someone else here, is an interesting read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by goody on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:14AM
Wikipedia editors usually reverse any edits to their pet articles minutes after someone makes a change.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:27AM
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Eric_Garner&diff=prev&oldid=636522175 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Eric_Garner&diff=prev&oldid=636522333 [wikipedia.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:54PM
Yes, but then, we should worry that wikipedia, never mind its goodwill, is becoming too much of a monoculture. The 90's internet, the information dumpster, was a b*tch to censor. Bring USENET back.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:53AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @04:14PM
... after brutalizing our victims first, of course.