WaGuns.org

Jagerbomber35 wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Jagerbomber35 wrote:I suppose someone could go make a Wiki page highlighting all the glorious exploits of TechnoWeenie. Of course if you went in and edited you would be changing history and lying right? Gotta love inflationary and misleading bullshit thread titles.

For the 2nd time.....


I'm not a gov't agency...

Its no different that scientologists editing their page.

Except one of the founding principles of this country wasn't 'don't let scientologists censor others' speech'

The gov't has restrictions placed on it for a reason.

You're making many assumptions about how and when and by whom it was edited by.

Is it a logical fallacy to believe that, the most likely scenario, is that multiple edits of multiple pages multiple different times, tied back to a gov't computer, is the result of an organized effort to censor/modify negative things said about the agency that it was tracked back to?

I don't think that's much of a reach at all.

What's your supposition?

Doesn't stop stop you from slandering them though thats for sure.

Slander would indicate that an untrue statement was made.

It is fact that someone tied to NYPD's system, made edits, removing negative information, and adding information perceived to put them in a better light, multiple times, on multiple pages.

Speculation (logical assumption) does not equal slander.

TW....you're falling into a trap. They've hooked you into caring about a miniscule edit on a crappy online "pedia" that is open for any mouth breather with an internet connection to modify, while bigger fish are frying.

Classic case of give the dog a bone he won't notice the steak.


Go all in.....it's not government censorship, it's government mind control. They do it everyday, just watch the sheep's reaction to news stories based on the outlet.

dan360 wrote:TW....you're falling into a trap. They've hooked you into caring about a miniscule edit on a crappy online "pedia" that is open for any mouth breather with an internet connection to modify, while bigger fish are frying.

Classic case of give the dog a bone he won't notice the steak.


Go all in.....it's not government censorship, it's government mind control. They do it everyday, just watch the sheep's reaction to news stories based on the outlet.

It's the cough/sore throat that gets the cold noticed.

TechnoWeenie wrote:

dan360 wrote:TW....you're falling into a trap. They've hooked you into caring about a miniscule edit on a crappy online "pedia" that is open for any mouth breather with an internet connection to modify, while bigger fish are frying.

Classic case of give the dog a bone he won't notice the steak.


Go all in.....it's not government censorship, it's government mind control. They do it everyday, just watch the sheep's reaction to news stories based on the outlet.

It's the cough/sore throat that gets the cold noticed.

Wikipedia sucks. This thread is a great example as to why.

dan360 wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

dan360 wrote:TW....you're falling into a trap. They've hooked you into caring about a miniscule edit on a crappy online "pedia" that is open for any mouth breather with an internet connection to modify, while bigger fish are frying.

Classic case of give the dog a bone he won't notice the steak.


Go all in.....it's not government censorship, it's government mind control. They do it everyday, just watch the sheep's reaction to news stories based on the outlet.

It's the cough/sore throat that gets the cold noticed.

Wikipedia sucks. This thread is a great example as to why.

Again, I don't understand the bias against Wiki. Why does this thread (a bunch of guys arguing about whether or not NYPD is censoring a public resource) invalidate said resource? What, in specific, gets your goat about Wikipedia?

Captain90s wrote:

dan360 wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

dan360 wrote:TW....you're falling into a trap. They've hooked you into caring about a miniscule edit on a crappy online "pedia" that is open for any mouth breather with an internet connection to modify, while bigger fish are frying.

Classic case of give the dog a bone he won't notice the steak.


Go all in.....it's not government censorship, it's government mind control. They do it everyday, just watch the sheep's reaction to news stories based on the outlet.

It's the cough/sore throat that gets the cold noticed.

Wikipedia sucks. This thread is a great example as to why.

Again, I don't understand the bias against Wiki. Why does this thread (a bunch of guys arguing about whether or not NYPD is censoring a public resource) invalidate said resource? What, in specific, gets your goat about Wikipedia?

Any idiot, at any time, can change "history".......you really think that's a valid resource to cite for facts?

dan360 wrote:Any idiot, at any time, can change "history".......you really think that's a valid resource to cite for facts?

You're correct, anyone can make changes to a Wikipedia page. And yet, the majority of pages have listed sources. There are also, as I mentioned, people who's job it is (as well as people who just make it a hobby) to go correct inaccurate information.

An open source encyclopedia is going to attract it's share of dumbasses and nimrods. It also provides a place for the sharing of knowledge. As I said before, Wikipedia is essentially the cumulative knowledge of the First World.

To answer your question, yes. I believe Wikipedia to be (for the most part) a valid resource. I would hesitate to base an argument entirely on a Wikipedia article, just as I would hesitate to base any argument entirely on a single source.

Captain90s wrote:

dan360 wrote:Any idiot, at any time, can change "history".......you really think that's a valid resource to cite for facts?

You're correct, anyone can make changes to a Wikipedia page. And yet, the majority of pages have listed sources. There are also, as I mentioned, people who's job it is (as well as people who just make it a hobby) to go correct inaccurate information.

An open source encyclopedia is going to attract it's share of dumbasses and nimrods. It also provides a place for the sharing of knowledge. As I said before, Wikipedia is essentially the cumulative knowledge of the First World.

To answer your question, yes. I believe Wikipedia to be (for the most part) a valid resource. I would hesitate to base an argument entirely on a Wikipedia article, just as I would hesitate to base any argument entirely on a single source.

We'll agree to disagree. Wikipedia has requests for clarification on the page about Wikipedia.

In other words....the site's own definition of itself is not accurate. Have fun with your toy.

I once edited part of a Wikipedia page. Came back to it a few years later to see the rubish that was left by someone else.

MadPick wrote:No, I don't think it's censorship, only because of the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia invites everyone -- even the government -- to edit the articles.

I agree.

The problem is the lack of transparency by NYPD. It's discouraged to have people rewrite things to benefit themselves. If NYPD wants rewrites they can be transparent about it. Or just put up their own website with their current truth.

kf7mjf wrote:The problem is the lack of transparency by NYPD. It's discouraged to have people rewrite things to benefit themselves. If NYPD wants rewrites they can be transparent about it. Or just put up their own website with their current truth.

This.

When I was in the Army, I was aware of multiple inaccuraces on Wikipedia (still there) but I did not try to edit the page. Even if I know something to be inaccurate, I don't necessarily know what is or is not public knowledge.

As we said in the Army, the truth has a Date/Time group. The truth, or what we perceive as truth, can change based on new information.

There's definitely some more notable edits than included in OP... NYPD caught red-handed sanitizing police brutality Wikipedia entries

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.

[...]

One of the edits changed "Garner raised both his arms in the air" to "Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke." Another line that said "push Garner's face into the sidewalk" changed to "push Garner's head down into the sidewalk." The word "chokehold," Capital New York discovered, was twice replaced to "chokehold or headlock" and to "respiratory distress."

I don't think many of us will be surprised by this headline: NYPD won’t punish cops for sanitizing Wikipedia police brutality entries


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0