NYPD caught 'editing history'...

[TechnoWeenie]

Wikipedia edits relating to abuse of power, corruption, politicians, and high profile incidents involving the NYPD.... trace back to..... NYPD

Wow..

So the NYPD is deleting things it doesn't agree with, and whitewashing the incidents it has been involved in.....


Among the more notable ones....

On Nov. 23, 2013, a user on the 1 Police Plaza network edited the Wikipedia entry for Amadou Diallo, an unarmed who was killed when police mistook his wallet for a gun in 1999.

The person using this IP address made two edits to a sentence about NYPD Officer Kenneth Boss, one of the officers involved in the shooting: “Officer Kenneth Boss had been previously involved in an incident where an unarmed man was shot, but remained working as a police officer” was changed to “Officer Kenneth Boss had been previously involved in an incident where an armed man was shot.”

So, how's that 'freedom of the speech' working out?

You have the right to free speech, but you don't have a right to keep it that way, apparently.

[CQBgopher]

Meh...they're editing Wikipedia, which is a craphole site anyways.

They aren't editing history, they're editing a public blog and a crappy one at that. Doesn't pass the smell test, though I'll agree with that.

[H2obouget]

Are we sure the guy doing the editing wasn't named Winston?

Doublethink, anyone?
They should have hired someone from the Obama admin....they have revisionist history down to a science.

[MadPick]

So what's the truth about the guy that Boss shot? Was he armed or unarmed?

[CurtisLemansky]

Meh...they're editing Wikipedia, which is a craphole site anyways.

They aren't editing history, they're editing a public blog and a crappy one at that. Doesn't pass the smell test, though I'll agree with that.

Does that make it ok?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

[Mediumrarechicken]

Where is the proof? We need snopes!!!! The only website that has the truth...

[WaJim]

Where is the proof? We need snopes!!!! The only website that has the truth...

MRC...

You a funny Muthafukr

[CQBgopher]

Meh...they're editing Wikipedia, which is a craphole site anyways.

They aren't editing history, they're editing a public blog and a crappy one at that. Doesn't pass the smell test, though I'll agree with that.

Does that make it ok?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Again. It's Wikipedia. Who cares.

[CurtisLemansky]

Meh...they're editing Wikipedia, which is a craphole site anyways.

They aren't editing history, they're editing a public blog and a crappy one at that. Doesn't pass the smell test, though I'll agree with that.

Does that make it ok?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Again. It's Wikipedia. Who cares.

Wikipedia is not a blog, by the way.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

[MadPick]

So what's the truth about the guy that Boss shot? Was he armed or unarmed?

Well, since some folks seem really quick to criticize the NYPD for changing "unarmed" to "armed," but without knowing which is true . . . I did a little more surfing on this.

This is the best page that I found:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0003a/co ... allo4.html

On Halloween night 1997, 22-year-old Patrick Bailey, an aspiring stockbroker and son of Jamaican immigrants living in Brooklyn, was shot by none other than Street Crime Unit Officer Kenneth Boss, one of the four recently acquitted in the Diallo trial. Police officers alleged that Bailey had been menacing people outside of his home with a sawed-off shotgun that night, and when the SCU arrived on the scene, they claimed, Bailey aimed the gun at them before running into a building. SCU officers followed him inside, and Boss fired two shots that hit Bailey in the thigh and hip, severing a major artery. Bailey waited 40 minutes for an ambulance to arrive on the scene and bled to death at the hospital.

Bailey's parents insist that their son was not armed and even say they can produce eyewitnesses to attest to it; prosecutors allegedly refused to interview them. An unloaded, inoperable shotgun was found at the scene....

Based on that . . . maybe there is some legitimacy to the NYPD's edit? Maybe.

[waglocker]

Wait, but there's a guy on here who likes to quote Wikipedia religiously......
can't remember his name right now, but it's gotta be a legit site

[kf7mjf]

So what's the truth about the guy that Boss shot? Was he armed or unarmed?

Well, since some folks seem really quick to criticize the NYPD for changing "unarmed" to "armed," but without knowing which is true . . . I did a little more surfing on this.

This is the best page that I found:
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0003a/co ... allo4.html

On Halloween night 1997, 22-year-old Patrick Bailey, an aspiring stockbroker and son of Jamaican immigrants living in Brooklyn, was shot by none other than Street Crime Unit Officer Kenneth Boss, one of the four recently acquitted in the Diallo trial. Police officers alleged that Bailey had been menacing people outside of his home with a sawed-off shotgun that night, and when the SCU arrived on the scene, they claimed, Bailey aimed the gun at them before running into a building. SCU officers followed him inside, and Boss fired two shots that hit Bailey in the thigh and hip, severing a major artery. Bailey waited 40 minutes for an ambulance to arrive on the scene and bled to death at the hospital.

Bailey's parents insist that their son was not armed and even say they can produce eyewitnesses to attest to it; prosecutors allegedly refused to interview them. An unloaded, inoperable shotgun was found at the scene....

Based on that . . . maybe there is some legitimacy to the NYPD's edit? Maybe.

Meh. If a government agency wants to tell their own narrative, they can post their own versions on their own website, supported by factual data. There are even people who write things like that for government departments. Called "historians" and "archivists" and "Public Relations" and silly shit like that. Put it on NYPD servers with a name attached to it and be accountable for the data put out.

[MadPick]

Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

[kf7mjf]

Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

I'm saying if a government entity is going to use people drawing a public paycheck, then they need to be transparent open and honest about it, which in this case would either mean to me working with Wikipedia to ensure the edits fall within their rules, or disclosing the source in the edits, or disclosing such actions on their website or some such. Anyone can edit. Not everybody should.

[TechnoWeenie]

Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

It boils down to this...


Gov't says 'you can publish anything you want'...

You 'publish' something...

The gov't then removes the stuff it disagrees with and republishes it.


See the issue?

It's a blatant infringement.

The gov't has no right to freedom of speech, the people do, and have the right to not have it edited/policed by the gov't.