If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Wikipedia actually broke the news of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair - for one hour back in January   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 47
    More: Interesting, CIA Director David Petraeus, Wikipedia, CSCO, Milo Wendt, involvement  
•       •       •

14152 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 7:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 07:00:36 AM
How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?
 
2012-11-15 07:35:33 AM
Mrs. Petraeus?
 
2012-11-15 07:37:52 AM
FTFA: "Yet, as blogger Milo Wendt reported earlier this week, within an hour of the page's creation, an anonymous Wiki editor wrote, 'Petraeus is reportedly one of her many conquests.'"

Wendt later added, "This type of editorial anarchy is pretty much whatever you make of it."
 
2012-11-15 07:38:43 AM
Epic win for the wiki
 
2012-11-15 07:40:57 AM
These two were probably flirting heavily at parties and people within that community were talking about it. I'd bet people knew about them for awhile now.
 
2012-11-15 07:42:19 AM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?


Redacted revisions are still in the database but aren't publicly visible. Likely an editor with privileges got curious about the deleted content when she popped up in the news again and looked into it.
 
2012-11-15 07:42:54 AM
And conspiracy theorists everywhere were emboldened to think their fantasy too could be true and they could soon lord their "I told you so!" over everyone forever and ever.
 
2012-11-15 07:44:03 AM
A firewall prevents me being found? What sorcery is this?
 
2012-11-15 07:45:47 AM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?


Wikipedia tracks changes and lets you compare the article before and after every change.
 
2012-11-15 07:46:53 AM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/284529
 
2012-11-15 08:00:54 AM

finnished: A firewall prevents me being found? What sorcery is this?


more someone was vpn'ed into Cisco HQ possibly from Afghanistan
 
2012-11-15 08:03:15 AM
 
2012-11-15 08:05:03 AM
What's interesting is it only took an hour for someone to notice and "fix". Can you sign up for alerts when a Wikipedia entry changes?

If I were well-known enough to have a wikipedia entry I might want to know if someone started a hoax about my death or just monitor it to see if anything crazy gets said.
 
2012-11-15 08:06:28 AM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?


Look at all the revisions I've saved/can screen shot

Wikis track changes and it's easy to see how the page looked at xyz time
 
2012-11-15 08:09:21 AM

Happy Hours: What's interesting is it only took an hour for someone to notice and "fix". Can you sign up for alerts when a Wikipedia entry changes?

If I were well-known enough to have a wikipedia entry I might want to know if someone started a hoax about my death or just monitor it to see if anything crazy gets said.


there are bots that look for suspicious posts, like in this case post from an unsigned user who only posts once, and flag them. Then the editors can fix or lock pages that are being attacked or misused. I'm pretty sure creators of pages can take ownership and be alerted when their page is updated, so there is that extra mod system
 
2012-11-15 08:11:01 AM

spasemunki: sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?

Redacted revisions are still in the database but aren't publicly visible. Likely an editor with privileges got curious about the deleted content when she popped up in the news again and looked into it.


Well that makes more sense.

themoreyouknow.jpg
 
2012-11-15 08:11:27 AM
Now this gets interesting, they actually deleted the revisions so you cannot even see them
s3.amazonaws.com

I have not seen that before on wiki
 
2012-11-15 08:18:46 AM

Happy Hours: What's interesting is it only took an hour for someone to notice and "fix". Can you sign up for alerts when a Wikipedia entry changes?


Yes. Create an account, and subscribe to an article. Whenever that article is edited, the update is shown in your "my watchlist" section.

You can also subscribe an atom/RSS feed of all the recent changes to wikipedia.
 
2012-11-15 08:20:25 AM

zedster: I'm pretty sure creators of pages can take ownership and be alerted when their page is updated, so there is that extra mod system


That is not true. An article, after it is created, is no different than any pre-existing article to the user who started it. There is no ownership.
 
2012-11-15 08:21:45 AM

Amos Quito: Mrs. Petraeus?


My guess is Jill Kelly either did it, or put somebody up to doing it.
 
2012-11-15 08:24:14 AM
Regarding the "vandalism" bit, anyone can mark any entry as vandalism. Yet, contributions which are serious accusations and lack any basis or reference do tend to get weeded out quickly. This was one such case. Although the accusation was later proved to be true, when it was added to wikipedia it lacked any basis. Hence, wikipedia, by hosting unfound accusations, was vulnerable to a libel suit. So, it is costumary to simply eliminate that content, or at least add a {{citation needed}} to that edit.
 
2012-11-15 08:26:10 AM

Amos Quito: Mrs. Petraeus?


Highly doubtful. If Petraeus was behind that edit, it would most likely be something like "Petraeus tapped that ass".
 
2012-11-15 08:27:37 AM

finnished: A firewall prevents me being found? What sorcery is this?


One that has a sign on it saying "Nose around behind this firewall and you'll go to Guantanamo for an extended vacation" tends to scare away quite a few.
 
2012-11-15 08:27:53 AM

maggoo: zedster: I'm pretty sure creators of pages can take ownership and be alerted when their page is updated, so there is that extra mod system

That is not true. An article, after it is created, is no different than any pre-existing article to the user who started it. There is no ownership.


I'll defer to you, I'll correct a basic error if I see one, but I don't get involved with wiki beyond that
 
2012-11-15 08:32:21 AM

maggoo: Amos Quito: Mrs. Petraeus?

Highly doubtful. If Petraeus was behind that edit, it would most likely be something like "Petraeus tapped that ass".


No, the comment suggests it was MRS. Petraeus. In which case it would have included the word "ho-bag".
 
2012-11-15 08:32:41 AM
John McCain is actually one of the lizard people.

There, I said it. If it turns out to be true, you can all cite Fark as having broken this story.

/obligatory "stopped clock" comment
 
2012-11-15 08:40:36 AM

zedster: Now this gets interesting, they actually deleted the revisions so you cannot even see them
[s3.amazonaws.com image 779x174]

I have not seen that before on wiki


Its not uncommon. They do that with really sensitive libelous stuff. Its called rev deleting. just peruse the admin noticeboards from time to time and you'll see it.
 
2012-11-15 08:41:06 AM
Unless some nude pics of one of these chicks pops up, I'm kind of tiring of the whole thing.
 
2012-11-15 08:43:29 AM
Would that Broadwell biatch PLEASE buy some farking powder or foundation? She has some majorly oily skin, she looks like she's been dipped in goose fat or freshly bukkake'd, and that gigantic forehead just served to amplify the effect.
 
2012-11-15 08:45:02 AM

Ebbelwoi: Unless some nude pics of one of these chicks pops up, I'm kind of tiring of the whole thing.


Now that her career is in the toilet, and her marriage is probably over, I'm sure Broadwell is going to be writing a book, and to get publicity for that book I'm sure there is going to be a Playboy spread. At least one of these chicks is going to be appearing in Playboy soon.
 
2012-11-15 08:45:34 AM
Wikipedia did nothing.

Some whistleblower came in, wrote down the truth, and it got removed as "not notable."

That's pretty much SOP for Wikipedia.
 
2012-11-15 08:49:36 AM

sodomizer: Wikipedia did nothing.

Some whistleblower came in, wrote down the truth, and it got removed as "not notable."

That's pretty much SOP for Wikipedia.


Removing then unfounded claims that could get th em sued for libel? Yeah. How dare they.
 
2012-11-15 08:50:30 AM

sodomizer: Some whistleblower came in, wrote down the truth, and it got removed as "not notable."

That's pretty much SOP for Wikipedia.


You obviously don't have any clue about the amount of "truth" which is shoved into wikipedia on a daily basis. There is a reason why sources are required for every accusation.
 
2012-11-15 08:58:18 AM
You know that if a high level person here in Portugal gets caught playing around the people here cheer for that person ??? they do really , Portuguese people are funny at that, that's why we are in the situation we are in at the moment

/wish I could afford to leave
 
2012-11-15 09:00:11 AM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?


Wikipedia logs every edit. Forever. It's in the page history for everyone to see. If you know when an edit happened you can always go back and see what the page looked like before.
 
2012-11-15 09:07:22 AM

maggoo: There is a reason why sources are required for every accusation.


For the same reason they have all of their rules:

1. To indulge the pretense they're a real encyclopedia.
2. To make their volunteer editors (who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now, and either smoke dope or play video games to the point where they can't relate to humanity) feel important and powerful and stuff.

But they're not like abusive cops. Oh no. That comparison is unwarranted and [citation needed].
 
2012-11-15 09:12:36 AM

sodomizer: Wikipedia did nothing.

Some whistleblower came in, wrote down the truth, and it got removed as "not notable."

That's pretty much SOP for Wikipedia.


No, it got removed as not provable.
 
2012-11-15 09:14:21 AM

sodomizer: maggoo: There is a reason why sources are required for every accusation.

For the same reason they have all of their rules:

1. To indulge the pretense they're a real encyclopedia.
2. To make their volunteer editors (who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now, and either smoke dope or play video games to the point where they can't relate to humanity) feel important and powerful and stuff.

But they're not like abusive cops. Oh no. That comparison is unwarranted and [citation needed].


You're kind of cranky about bare minimum standards of academic integrity.

Let's see...

Volunteers who (reversibly) delete potentially libelous information offered with no source or possibility of verification vs. public servants empowered by the state to protect the rights and property of citizens who abuse that power to harm the weak and politically disempowered...

You're right, that comparison isn't warranted.
 
2012-11-15 09:19:19 AM

Ebbelwoi: Unless some nude pics of one of these chicks pops up, I'm kind of tiring of the whole thing.


Let's just stick this in your head then.

users.content.ytmnd.com
 
2012-11-15 09:21:58 AM
A shame her name was not Broadchest cause it sure would have fit
 
2012-11-15 09:24:52 AM
What I'm more shocked about is reading this thread and discovering the vast majority of people who, presumably, visit Wikipedia all the time, have no idea how to use it or how it works...
 
2012-11-15 09:56:35 AM

Ebbelwoi: Unless some nude pics of one of these chicks pops up, I'm kind of tiring of the whole thing.


Agreed. Broadwell and the twins to see if they're truly identical or if I can spot the differences.
 
2012-11-15 11:38:51 AM

sodomizer:
For the same reason they have all of their rules:

1. To indulge the pretense they're a real encyclopedia.
2. To make their volunteer editors (who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now, and either smoke dope or play video games to the point where they can't relate to humanity) feel important and powerful and stuff.

But they're not like abusive cops. Oh no. That comparison is unwarranted and [citation needed].


uh oh, sounds like somebody's edit on the My Little Pony article got reverted

/but why can't I cite my blog as a source?
 
2012-11-15 01:52:23 PM

sodomizer: For the same reason they have all of their rules:

1. To indulge the pretense they're a real encyclopedia.
2. To make their volunteer editors (who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now, and either smoke dope or play video games to the point where they can't relate to humanity) feel important and powerful and stuff.

But they're not like abusive cops. Oh no. That comparison is unwarranted and [citation needed].


Your post reads like scorn from a butthurt individual. Holding a grudge? It sounds like it. After all, if you are equating random wikipedians with "abusive cops" and wasting your time with childish insults then it says more about you than wikipedia. In fact, it sounds like you are actually one of those guys "who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now and either smoke dope or play video games", but who saw his contributions removed due to problems and, as a precious snowflake that it is, couldn't deal with the rejection.
 
2012-11-15 02:03:54 PM

maggoo: sodomizer: For the same reason they have all of their rules:

1. To indulge the pretense they're a real encyclopedia.
2. To make their volunteer editors (who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now, and either smoke dope or play video games to the point where they can't relate to humanity) feel important and powerful and stuff.

But they're not like abusive cops. Oh no. That comparison is unwarranted and [citation needed].

Your post reads like scorn from a butthurt individual. Holding a grudge? It sounds like it. After all, if you are equating random wikipedians with "abusive cops" and wasting your time with childish insults then it says more about you than wikipedia. In fact, it sounds like you are actually one of those guys "who live in basements, are planning to return to graduate school any day now and either smoke dope or play video games", but who saw his contributions removed due to problems and, as a precious snowflake that it is, couldn't deal with the rejection.



t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-15 09:44:19 PM
FTA:

"Gawker connected the comment to Cisco"

I bet he was just mad he didn't get to see that thong thong thong thong thong, thong thong.
 
2012-11-15 10:28:12 PM

sno man: How much time to you have to have on your hands to be gathering hourly screen caps of (at the time) obscure Wiki pages?


well, when i visit fark, i have no time left to do those screencaps. gotta prioritize how one wastes their time on the internet!

yes, the deleted edits have now been completely removed from wikipedia, despite the fact that the edits have now been widely reported on. so if you look at the talk page for Paula Broadwell - link, you see links to all the news articles, but then they have deleted my comment where I originally found the whole thing. ridiculous.

however, there are other mysterious deleted edits that have not been removed, that are about jill kelley. until last week, she was listed on the Arcadia University wiki page as a notable alumna for being an "ambassador" - clearly a joke being made about her in early 2012.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report