Mediaboss Marketing

Google searches for the DUP will have gone through the roof today after speculation that Theresa May will form a coalition government with the party - but some people were probably shocked by what they discovered.

The Tories lost control of the Commons in yesterday's general election when they failed to win the 326 seats needed to form a majority.

It is thought they will now look to enter a coalition with the Democratic Unionist Party ( DUP ) to push them over the threshold and allow them to form a government.

But some people aren't a fan of the DUP, who oppose abortion and support Brexit .

This dislike has resulted in their Wikipedia page being hacked by a prankster - and replaced with information about the Nazi party.

A screengrab of their Wikipedia page shows Adolf Hitler listed as leader and the name changed from Democratic Union Party to 'Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party' - the official name of the Nazis.

It also lists the deputy leader as Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader who campaigned for Brexit.

The headquarters are down as an address in Berlin, 'ethnic cleanse county' and under 'ideologies' somebody added "Nazisism".

Anyone who googled the DUP earlier on would have got a bit of a shock.

But the page seems to have returned to normal now and lists Arlene Foster as leader, along with accurate information.

Video Unavailable

Click to play Tap to play

Play now

On the Wikipedia tab showing the history of the page, there is a long list of edits made today as pranksters try to change the information published for the party.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages.

The Democratic Unionist Party are based in Northern Ireland and are the fifth largest party in Westminster, with 10 seats.

The party, led by Arlene Foster, is famously anti-abortion and pro-Brexit, deny climate change and don't believe in LGBT rights.

Read more about the DUP Manifesto here .

Here is the original post:
DUP Wikipedia page hacked by prankster to show Nazi party information - with Adolf Hitler as leader - Mirror.co.uk

During the James Comey hearing Thursday, someone edited the Wikipedia entry for "obstruction of justice" to list President Donald Trump as one of many "notable examples." Trump has not been convicted of obstruction, and Comey's testimony did not suggest he should be. Worse, the anonymous editor altered the entry from a congressional IP address.

"Obstruction of justice Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives," tweeted congress-edits, a bot account that reports on anonymous Wikipedia edits made from IP addresses in the U.S. Congress. The edits can be viewed at this link.

Democrats and the liberal media argue that Trump, in firing former FBI Director Comey, obstructed justice by attempting to prevent an FBI investigation into Michael Flynn. A reporter forThe New York Times, Adam Liptak, found examples of people being convicted of obstruction of justice for statements of hope.

But when Comey was asked point-blank if Trump asked him to stop the investigation, the former FBI director said, "Not to my understanding, no."

Former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker told CNN, "There is no criminal case to be made on an obstruction of justice."

"We have the star witness that testified, and quite frankly, his story doesn't rise to the level of intent necessary on behalf of the president to even substantiate a criminal case," Whitaker explained.

Indeed, liberals face a difficult situation. If Trump is guilty of obstructing justice for his statements and actions toward Comey, it is arguable that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is also guilty. During his testimony Thursday, Comey explained that Lynch told him only to refer to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton as a "matter." He further revealed that he found this "concerning" and a "conflict of interest."

At the end of the day, only a court or Congress in the case of the president can convict a citizenof obstruction of justice, and no such conviction has been made in the case of President Trump.

The Wikipedia entry has since been re-edited to omit Trump from the "notable examples" of obstruction. But that does not change that someone likely a staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives deliberately altered an Internet record to slander the president, in the absence of a conviction.

This only confirms once again that Trump's enemies and perhaps especially those in government are willing to twist the truth totarnish the president's reputation. At least in this case, the fabrication was short-lived.

Originally posted here:
Wikipedia Entry on Obstruction of Justice Listed Trump - PJ Media - PJ Media

Someone seemingly using an IP address associated with the House of Representatives added Donald Trumps name to a Wikipedia article on obstruction of justice Thursday morningat the same time former FBI Director James Comey took the stand to testify in front of theSenate Intelligence Committee investigating the presidents possible collusion with theKremlin.

@CongressEdits, an automated Twitter bot that announces all edits made to Wikipedia pages with IP addresses from within the U.S. Congress, noted the "Obstruction of Justice"Wikipedia article had been anonymously edited at about 11:00 a.m. EDT, just one hour after Thursdays open hearing on Capitol Hill kicked off. A major focal point of Comeys blockbuster testimony is whether Trump fired the ex-director to intervene and weaken an investigation into his campaigns ties to Russia, as well as whether he obstructed justice by asking Comey to let go of a probe into his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

The edit was removed from Wikipedia within the hour.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

The debate as to whether Trump actually obstructed justice when asking for the director's loyalty or firing him to ease the burden of the Russian investigation will wage on for years on Capitol Hill. But someone in the House has clearly already made up their mind, adding Trump's name to a list of "notable examples" of obstruction of justice being performed by elected officials.

Related: How Trump Could Actually Be Impeached

The list begins with former President Richard Nixon, who the Wikipedia page notes was "being investigated for obstruction of justice for his alleged role in the cover-up of the break-in at the Watergate hotel during his re-election campaign in 1972,"before he ultimately resigned to avoid impeachment.

Wikipedia's edit was quickly noticed by the Twitter bots over 40,000 followers, receiving nearly 1,000 retweets in a matter of minutes.

Whereas each bullet includes a summary of each example, Trump's name was added Thursday to the list without any back links or pointed opinions. As of Thursday, the latest notable example of obstruction of justice listed on Wikipedia simply stated: "Donald Trump."

It remains unclear whether Trump obstructed justice at any point during his nine conversations with Comey during his tenure as FBI director. The former head of the federal agency, who was serving a 10-year contract before Trump fired him in May, said Thursday, "I dont think its for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct."

"I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but thats a conclusion Im sure the special counsel will work towards to find out the intention and whether thats an offense,"Comey added.

See more here:
Someone in the House Is Trolling Trump on Wikipedia's Obstruction of Justice Page - Newsweek

Published on: Jun 8, 2017 | by Lelde Smits

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales reveals the future of news, media and journalism at Sydneys World Business Forum, discusses plans for soon to be launched Wikitribune and shares where he looks for headlines, including BBC and The Guardian. Speaking with The Capital Networks Lelde Smits.

Lelde Smits: Hello Im Lelde Smits for The Capital Network and joining me at The World Business Forum in Sydney is Jimmy Wales, the founder of online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Jimmy, welcome to Sydney.

Jimmy Wales: Thank you for having me.

Lelde Smits: Youve just given a presentation on disruption. Youve also recently announced plans to launch a news site. If we combine the both, what do you believe is the future of news?

Jimmy Wales: With Wikitribune we are trying to bring together paid professional journalists and community, working together in a new way. Because, I think the future of news is going to be a return to very high quality news. I think people are tired of clickbait headlines and the things that have been really polluting our newsfeeds for the last few years. So, Im very hopeful that we will see something new.

Lelde Smits: Do you believe the old model of news therefore is dead?

Jimmy Wales: I think that some of the old model is what we need to bring back. A combination of revenue from leaders, some revenue from advertisers, were [Wikitribune] not having advertising. But, I think we need good strong journalism and we need people to pay for it.

Lelde Smits: When you hear terms such as alternative facts and fake news are you concerned by these terms or do you view it more as an opportunity?

Jimmy Wales: It is an opportunity but it is not a happy opportunity. It is an opportunity in the same way that a tornado might be an opportunity for a builder. No, I am very concerned about it, concerned about people pushing the idea that we dont know what is true or we cant know what is true because I think that is a path to tyranny and I think it is something that we need to resist.

Lelde Smits: When can we expect Wikitribune to launch and what makes you optimistic about its survival let alone success in this rapidly changing land of the internet?

Jimmy Wales: Well be doing the soft launch in the next few weeks with people who have signed up as monthly supporters, we are going to invite them in to test it and to work with us.

Well be launching fully later in the fall. One of the things that leaves me hope that we will be successful is that weve had such an enormous outpouring of support in our crowd funding campaign. And, we see other outlets like the New York Times digital subscriptions has gone from 1 million to 1.8 million. That is exciting news. So, I think the public is ready for it.

Lelde Smits: Final question, this is a question that I always like to ask people who love the news as much as I do. What news are you currently reading and where do you go for your headlines?

Jimmy Wales: I read The Guardian newspaper in the UK and the BBC. I live in London. And, Im a big fan of the media landscape there.

Lelde Smits: Thank you so much for your insights and enjoy the rest of your time in Sydney.

Jimmy Wales: Thank you.

Read the original here:
Wikipedia Founder: The Future of News - Finfeed

Wikipedians want to give users the ability to access the world's most popular encyclopedia in the most secure way possible: On the dark web.

Cristian Consonni, Former Vice President of Wikimedia Italy, proposed Monday that Wikipedians should create a dark web version of the site accessible only via the Tor Browser.

It's possible now to access Wikipedia via the Tor Browserwhich is popular with activists and among people living in countries with censored web traffic because it encrypts web traffic and routes it through a series of different IP addresses called "nodes"but the connection is less secure than it would be if the site was accessible as a "hidden service" on the dark web.

As a hidden service (also called an onion site), Wikipedia would not need to direct its traffic through an exit node, a point where internet traffic "emerges" from the Tor network and connects to sites on the regular web. Exit nodes are known to be a seriously vulnerable portion of Tor's security.

Consonni shared the proposal on Wikimedia-L, a listserv where prominent Wikipedians discuss the future and internal politics of the site.

There, several editors, like David Cuenca Tudela, endorsed the idea, but many disagreed with Consonni on one major point. Consonni believes Tor users should have the ability to edit Wikipedia articles, which is currently not allowed, except under special circumstances.

A number of Wikipedians don't want Tor users to have the ability to edit, "due to high volume of known abuse from that vector," as one user put it.

Abusive editors have been known to use Tor to circumvent being banned. Wikipedia blocks problematic users based on their IP address, but the encrypted browser can be used to quickly obtain a new one.

Creating a dark web version of Wikipedia would make the encyclopedia available securely in the many places where it's censored. Countries like China, Iran, and Russia, have chosen to block their citizens ability to view a significant portion of the site's entries, or sometimes even the entire encyclopedia altogether.

Even seemingly liberal countries like the United Kingdom and France have attempted to censor portions of the site in the past.

It would be far more difficult for governments to censor or monitor Wikipedia's dark web version. But Consonni and like minded editors aren't just concerned with surveillance.

He hopes bringing Wikipedia to the dark web will also help improve Tor's reputation. The browser is often thought of as a tool for drug dealers and other criminals, instead of say, encyclopedia readers trying to avoid government surveillance.

"...providing Wikipedia over Tor would promote awareness of Tor itself as a technology for protecting user privacy," Consonni wrote in his proposal.

Wikipedia wouldn't be the first mainstream website to move towards the dark web. In 2014, Facebook launched a version that runs on Tor. ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism outlet, followed suit last year.

"It can be argued that the privacy gain of having an onion service over visiting Wikipedia with HTTPS over Tor is minimal, but I think it is worth having this option," Consonni told me via Twitter DM.

"I think that all major websites should serve a version over Tor," he went on.

If Wikipedia were to build a Tor version, Consonni hopes the project would be organized through the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia, instead of through a third party that could potentially "be evil and snoop on users."

Building a darknet version of any site isn't terribly difficult. Easy-to-use tools even exist to help streamline the process, if you want to get your own open source encyclopedia on Tor while Wikipedians continue to debate the idea.

The Tor Project had no comment.

Excerpt from:
Wikipedians Want to Put Wikipedia on the Dark Web - Motherboard