CIA Details Its Wikipedia-Like Tools For Analysts 164
hhavensteincw writes "If you think selling Web 2.0 in your organization is hard, some early backers of a Wikipedia-like project at the Central Intelligence Agency were called traitors and told they 'would get someone killed' by their efforts. But Intellipedia — the CIA's version of Wikipedia — now is so heavily used by analysts that the agency is using it in its security briefings, according to two of the CIA employees who work on the project. Intellipedia has been expanded since it was first launched so that now it boasts its own YouTube-like channel for video and Flickr-like photo sharing as well as a wiki where workers can debate different intel information."
I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a lot of sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
The CIA also doesn't have to worry about vandalism- no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis" when every edit is tied to their name... plus, being in the CIA is serious work, so I'd imagine the maturity level is higher anyways.
Re:I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Efficiency in dissemination is just as important as accuracy. Getting accurate information earlier to more people can save everyone a lot of trouble.
Re:WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure it's still on a need-to-know basis. The article states that anyone with access to certain networks can read the wiki, but there is authorization involved with making edits. I'm also sure that their wiki follows their pre-existing rules about who can access what information, they're not going to suddenly dump a lot of top-secret information into a wiki that everyone has access to.
It is vital, in fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Had there been efficient dissemination of the information, it is possible some analyst would have put it all together and then been able to generate a report that would be acted on.
Re:I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
At the expense of sounding slightly ridiculous, imagine how much mileage they're going to get out of the "What links here" function!?
If they use it correctly (and the weakest link here is the prompt input of information) then I can't see this not being anything but good.
Re:Oh Boy.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It is vital, in fact (Score:3, Insightful)
While two hackers in the basement of the Farm put together a wiki for practically nothing.
Those guys ARE traitors, it's not that they might get someone killed - they cut the military-industrial-complex out of the loop, preventing them from making more profits than the oil industry...
Re:I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough, but there are systems in place to mitigate the possibility of inaccurate information. Their wiki is based off of the Wikipedia engine, so they should still have the ability to provide citations (I guess in their case it would be where the intel came from and whether or not the source was reliable.). Edit histories, the ability to revert changes, they should have all of these features. At worst it would be as if the wiki didn't exist, and the intel would still be just as questionable (not that the wiki makes the intel any more credible, it would just be more centralized and up-to-date) as it might've been before.
Re:Obligatory: The CIA wants you to believe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Chill. First off MediaWiki is open-source so if you are so paranoid just look up the source code. If we are on the topic of security whats to say that the CIA hasn't already broken many encryption schemes used today? It is a lot more probable that the CIA has busted encryption algorithms then it is that they are injecting backdoors to open-source projects.
Re:Collaboration is a four letter word? (Score:4, Insightful)
An agent, especially a covert one, needs to have a very clear sense of moral superiority over both enemies and his own sources/helpers (aka collaborators, spies, traitors, freelancers, what have you). If (s)he doesn't, (s)he might turn, be turned, or just abandon the game in disgust.
The guy making that comment has (or affects) zero notion of field work.
Re:Wikipedia has a screenshot (Score:3, Insightful)
Better to let the chinese hackers figure it out and keep it to themselves...
Re:It is vital, in fact (Score:3, Insightful)
The comments of Master Tubesteak did not in any way imply the bettering of any institution. He asserts change, which in and of itself is quite a feat for the behemoth we know as the Federal Government.
The thing about revolution, Master Coward (what an annoying pseudonym you have chosen, and you post so much--do you do anything besides wag your wattle here?) is that the rebels do not know whether their efforts will effect any change at all, much less in which direction the change will take things. Consider just how frustrated the architects of the 9/11 attacks would have been to see their efforts cause world peace, as unlikely as that would have been.