Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category

Intellipedia: How to Access the Wikipedia of US Secret Services – Guiding Tech (blog)

Were well aware of Wikipedia and the plethora of information it stores about everything in this world, but are you aware the US government maintains their own secret Wiki Intellipedia which stores information in a similar fashion as Wikipedia, just with a few tweaks containing facts about the issue.

Intellipedia is an encyclopaedia for US government secret services as well as other government organisations with similar clearance and the website has been active for a little more than a decade.

The website has three levels of classification of the contained data one consists sensitive but unclassified documents, the mid-level one contains secret information and another for top secret information.

The top secret wiki contains almost 40% of a total of 269,000 articles on the website.

Since 2014, multiple applications have been filed under the Freedom of Information Act, which has allowed public access to several unclassified documents present in the secret service encyclopaedia.

The pages of Intellipedia are essentially copies of Wikipedia pages for the same topic but with additional sensitive and critical information added by analysts of the intelligence community.

Official access to Intellipedia is restricted to authorised personnel only which presumably are members of the 17 intelligence agencies of the US government and if anyone else is found trying to gain unauthorised entry into the database, theyll face criminal prosecution asthe website mentions.

However, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) grants the right to the citizenry to ask for information even from the intelligence agencies, news media outlets such as MuckRock and other websites such as The Black Vault have been hoarding their websites with findings from applications under FOIA.

You can access multiple files from Intellipedia which includes information about Area 51, Benghazi, JFK assassination, Project MK Ultra, UFOs, Greenbrier files, Freemasonry, Bay of Pigs files and many more interesting reads which have been unclassified.

There are loads of other interesting topics that you might wish to learn about on this secret wiki and John Greenwalds Black Vault is a sure stop if you undertake this journey of finding out what extra information do the secret service guys hold.

See more here:
Intellipedia: How to Access the Wikipedia of US Secret Services - Guiding Tech (blog)

Study: Bot-on-Bot Editing Wars Raging on Wikipedia’s pages | Sci … – Sci-Tech Today

For many it is no more than the first port of call when a niggling question raises its head. Found on its pages are answers to mysteries from the fate of male anglerfish, the joys of dorodango, and the improbable death of Aeschylus.

But beneath the surface of Wikipedia lies a murky world of enduring conflict. A new study from computer scientists has found that the online encyclopedia is a battleground where silent wars have raged for years.

Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply bots, that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks.

In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each others edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action.

The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people, said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.

The findings emerged from a study that looked at bot-on-bot conflict in the first ten years of Wikipedias existence. The researchers at Oxford and the Alan Turing Institute in London examined the editing histories of pages in 13 different language editions and recorded when bots undid other bots changes.

They did not expect to find much. The bots are simple computer programs that are written to make the encyclopedia better. They are not intended to work against each other. We had very low expectations to see anything interesting. When you think about them they are very boring, said Yasseri. The very fact that we saw a lot of conflict among bots was a big surprise to us. They are good bots, they are based on good intentions, and they are based on same open source technology.

While some conflicts mirrored those found in society, such as the best names to use for contested territories, others were more intriguing. Describing their research in a paper entitled Even Good Bots Fight in the journal Plos One, the scientists reveal that among the most contested articles were pages on former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the Arabic language, Niels Bohr and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

One of the most intense battles played out between Xqbot and Darknessbot which fought over 3,629 different articles between 2009 and 2010. Over the period, Xqbot undid more than 2,000 edits made by Darknessbot, with Darknessbot retaliating by undoing more than 1,700 of Xqbots changes. The two clashed over pages on all sorts of topics, from Alexander of Greece and Banqiao district in Taiwan to Aston Villa football club.

Another bot named after Tachikoma, the artificial intelligence in the Japanese science fiction series Ghost in the Shell, had a two year running battle with Russbot. The two undid more than a thousand edits by the other on more than 3,000 articles ranging from Hillary Clinton s 2008 presidential campaign to the demography of the UK.

The study found striking differences in the bot wars that played out on the various language editions of Wikipedia. German editions had the fewest bot fights, with bots undoing others edits on average only 24 times in a decade. But the story was different on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where bots undid the work of other bots on average 185 times in ten years. The English version saw bots meddling with each others changes on average 105 times a decade.

The findings show that even simple algorithms that are let loose on the internet can interact in unpredictable ways. In many cases, the bots came into conflict because they followed slightly different rules to one another.

Yasseri believes the work serves as an early warning to companies developing bots and more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools. An AI that works well in the lab might behave unpredictably in the wild. Take self-driving cars. A very simple thing thats often overlooked is that these will be used in different cultures and environments, said Yasseri. An automated car will behave differently on the German autobahn to how it will on the roads in Italy. The regulations are different, the laws are different, and the driving culture is very different, he said.

As more decisions, options and services come to depend on bots working properly together, harmonious cooperation will become increasingly important. As the authors note in their latest study: We know very little about the life and evolution of our digital minions.

Earlier this month, researchers at Googles DeepMind set AIs against one another to see if they would cooperate or fight. When the AIs were released on an apple-collecting game, the scientists found that the AIs cooperated while apples were plentiful, but as soon as supplies got short, they turned nasty. It is not the first time that AIs have run into trouble. In 2011, scientists in the US recorded a conversation between two chatbots. They bickered from the start and ended up arguing about God.

2017 Guardian Web under contract with NewsEdge/Acquire Media. All rights reserved.

Continued here:
Study: Bot-on-Bot Editing Wars Raging on Wikipedia's pages | Sci ... - Sci-Tech Today

How a Paris Event Is Fighting Wikipedia’s Gender Gap – Newsweek – Newsweek

The French National Archives in Paris will be filled with the sound of typing on Saturday. The Editathon Art+Feminisman event designed to achieve greater gender balance on the free online encyclopedia, Wikipediasimultaneously kicks off in Paris, New York, Berlinand about 150 other cities around the world.

This year will be the fourth edition of theevent set up by various global arts bodies in conjunction with the encyclopedia. This years editathon highlights that only 12 percent of Wikipedias contributors identify as women, and that frequently, Wikipedia pages about women are nonexistent, inaccurate or incomplete. These events are a chance to change that. In the coming two days, people all around the world will try to flip the balance, writing sections for the forgotten pages.

Among all the cities taking part, Paris stands out. The French edition is organized by the Lafayette Foundation, and uses performances alongside editing sessions to encourage people to discuss as well as write about outstanding women on the platform. In addition to the editing sessions open to the public, the event will also showcase artists performances and panel discussions to discuss the central theme of the day. Six hundred people attended Pariss editathon last year and created 36 Wikipedia profiles and pages. Although Paris only joined one year into the project, in 2014, it has become the most popular spot internationally: Its curator, Flora Katz tells Newsweek that she believes this is because of the artists performance that take place throughout the weekend of editing, translating, linking to and improving Wikipedia pages.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

This years event centers on the topic of identity. Or rather, on disidentification, inspired by the works of Jose Esteban Munoz, who coined the term in his 1994 essay: Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Disidentification, according to Munoz, is what happens when members of a minority, ethnic or sexual, reject societal stereotypes.

Transgender artist Vaginal Davis put together "whimsical and ephemeral" shows in the 80's and 90's. She inspired Jose Esteban Munoz, a NYU teacher. Rick Castro

Katz discovered Munozs work two years ago, when she lived in New York, and wanted to reactivate his voice in the public eye and introduce his work to the French public. To do so, she has worked closely with two performers, Vaginal Davis, a performing artist and icon of the 80s contemporary arts scene in the U.S, and Los Angeles-based filmmaker and performer Wu Tsang. Both artists met Munoz during his lifetime, and he was an admirer and occasional patron of the pair. Davis is particularly central in his dialogue about disidentification: Munoz dedicated a whole chapter of his essay to her and her art. She met the professor, whom she describes as punk rock, during his tenure at NYU and captivated his attention until his passing in 2013.

Munoz documented several of Daviss works in the 90s, when the artist was, in her own words, more prone to whimsical and ephemeral performance than in keeping any sort of record. Reissues of Munozs work throughout the years introduced Davis to several generations of undergraduates. You know, I go out of vogue every seven to eight years, she jokes. Perhaps surprisingly for someone involved in the editathon project, tells me that she is no technophile: Im much more analog than digital.

At this years editathon, Davis will present a performative discussion with Wu Tsang that she describes as A thought-provoking, glamorous wrap on Dr Jose Esteban Munoz. It will be her first Parisian performance since 2009, where she took part in an exhibition at the Palais de Tokyo on black artistry and sensuality.

Katz believes that Wikipedia is the most fundamental tool to access knowledge in an ever more connected world, but says that some of the pages dedicated to black, Asian and transgender artists focus too much on the personal aspects of the artists lives, rather than on their actual work. She hopes that the editathon can change that, and reflect more on their achievements.

What does Davis think of her own Wikipedia page? She regrets some factual mix-ups but says its always good to have a bit of mythology around you and your work.

The French edition of the Editathon Art+Feminism takes place on Saturday and Sundayat the French National Archives in Paris.

Read more here:
How a Paris Event Is Fighting Wikipedia's Gender Gap - Newsweek - Newsweek

Kevin Friend ruthlessly trolled on Twitter and even has his Wikipedia page edited after shocking performance during … – The Sun

Referee made a host of high-profile errors, including failing to send off Tyrone Mings and Zlatan Ibrahimovic for horrific acts of violence during the brawl at Old Trafford on Saturday

KEVIN FRIEND has been ruthlessly trolled on Twitter and even had his Wikipedia page edited after his shocking performance during Manchester United vs Bournemouth.

The referee endured a shambolic 90 minutes, making blunder after blunder, with a whole host of notable errors at the end of the first half.

PA:Press Association

With the opening 45 minutes winding down to a close, Friend had to be reminded by Zlatan Ibrahimovic that Andrew Surman had already been booked and therefore would need to be given his marching orders.

Keep up to date with ALL the Bournemouth and Manchester United news, gossip, transfers and goals on our club page plus fixtures, results and live match commentary.

After finally clicking, the Cherries midfielder was shown his first ever red yet Tyrone Mings and the Swede star himself stayed on the pitch.

Mings was seen to by accident or not stamp on Zlatans head, before Ibrahimovic threw a filthy elbow into the face of the Bournemouth defender moments later.

Getty Images

Sky Sports

Then, in the second half, United were given a simply ludicrous penalty - missed by Ibrahimovic - for a clear ball-to-hand moment.

Despite a host of further decisions going in favour of the hosts, United failed to capitalise and were held at 1-1 - to remain sixth in the Premier League.

However, the game will be most remembered for one thing... The atrocious performance of ref Friend.

Here's some of the best reactions from the world of Twitter...

More:
Kevin Friend ruthlessly trolled on Twitter and even has his Wikipedia page edited after shocking performance during ... - The Sun

Study: Bot-on-Bot Editing Wars Raging on Wikipedia’s pages – Sci-Tech Today

For many it is no more than the first port of call when a niggling question raises its head. Found on its pages are answers to mysteries from the fate of male anglerfish, the joys of dorodango, and the improbable death of Aeschylus.

But beneath the surface of Wikipedia lies a murky world of enduring conflict. A new study from computer scientists has found that the online encyclopedia is a battleground where silent wars have raged for years.

Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply bots, that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks.

In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each others edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action.

The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people, said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.

The findings emerged from a study that looked at bot-on-bot conflict in the first ten years of Wikipedias existence. The researchers at Oxford and the Alan Turing Institute in London examined the editing histories of pages in 13 different language editions and recorded when bots undid other bots changes.

They did not expect to find much. The bots are simple computer programs that are written to make the encyclopedia better. They are not intended to work against each other. We had very low expectations to see anything interesting. When you think about them they are very boring, said Yasseri. The very fact that we saw a lot of conflict among bots was a big surprise to us. They are good bots, they are based on good intentions, and they are based on same open source technology.

While some conflicts mirrored those found in society, such as the best names to use for contested territories, others were more intriguing. Describing their research in a paper entitled Even Good Bots Fight in the journal Plos One, the scientists reveal that among the most contested articles were pages on former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the Arabic language, Niels Bohr and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

One of the most intense battles played out between Xqbot and Darknessbot which fought over 3,629 different articles between 2009 and 2010. Over the period, Xqbot undid more than 2,000 edits made by Darknessbot, with Darknessbot retaliating by undoing more than 1,700 of Xqbots changes. The two clashed over pages on all sorts of topics, from Alexander of Greece and Banqiao district in Taiwan to Aston Villa football club.

Another bot named after Tachikoma, the artificial intelligence in the Japanese science fiction series Ghost in the Shell, had a two year running battle with Russbot. The two undid more than a thousand edits by the other on more than 3,000 articles ranging from Hillary Clinton s 2008 presidential campaign to the demography of the UK.

The study found striking differences in the bot wars that played out on the various language editions of Wikipedia. German editions had the fewest bot fights, with bots undoing others edits on average only 24 times in a decade. But the story was different on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where bots undid the work of other bots on average 185 times in ten years. The English version saw bots meddling with each others changes on average 105 times a decade.

The findings show that even simple algorithms that are let loose on the internet can interact in unpredictable ways. In many cases, the bots came into conflict because they followed slightly different rules to one another.

Yasseri believes the work serves as an early warning to companies developing bots and more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools. An AI that works well in the lab might behave unpredictably in the wild. Take self-driving cars. A very simple thing thats often overlooked is that these will be used in different cultures and environments, said Yasseri. An automated car will behave differently on the German autobahn to how it will on the roads in Italy. The regulations are different, the laws are different, and the driving culture is very different, he said.

As more decisions, options and services come to depend on bots working properly together, harmonious cooperation will become increasingly important. As the authors note in their latest study: We know very little about the life and evolution of our digital minions.

Earlier this month, researchers at Googles DeepMind set AIs against one another to see if they would cooperate or fight. When the AIs were released on an apple-collecting game, the scientists found that the AIs cooperated while apples were plentiful, but as soon as supplies got short, they turned nasty. It is not the first time that AIs have run into trouble. In 2011, scientists in the US recorded a conversation between two chatbots. They bickered from the start and ended up arguing about God.

2017 Guardian Web under contract with NewsEdge/Acquire Media. All rights reserved.

Continued here:
Study: Bot-on-Bot Editing Wars Raging on Wikipedia's pages - Sci-Tech Today