CIA Details Its Wikipedia-Like Tools For Analysts

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

I don't see how this will improve the accuracy of the information. It will just help poor intel get passed more efficiently.

Re:I guess

You can tell which intel is poor because it's got [citation needed] all over the place.

Article: No WMDs in Iraq

Deleted: Doesn't indicate importance/significance

Re:I guess

Efficiency in dissemination is just as important as accuracy. Getting accurate information earlier to more people can save everyone a lot of trouble.

It is vital, in fact

If nobody knows the intelligence information, and nobody can put together a full picture, well then it is useless. For example while hindsight is always 20/20, it still looks as though the government had all the information to put together what was going to happen on 9/11. The problem was, there wasn't a good way of accessing and analyzing it. It wasn't like there was a report saying "Terrorists will hit the towers on this day," it was little fragments all over. Well, all those little fragments ended up doing no good. Nobody was ever able to put it together, and thus there was no warning that would have allowed prevention.

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:It is vital, in fact

it still looks as though the government had all the information to put together what was going to happen on 9/11. The problem was, there wasn't a good way of accessing and analyzing it.

No, I think this was the problem:

"We've seen 23-year-olds [come into the agency] ... and within several months be indoctrinated to the existing culture. They want to fit in. All that creativity they had before they walked in the door is pushed aside.

Decades of pissing contests got ingrained into their organization's culture and the new blood never even had a chance to make any incremental changes.

It took a clusterfuck of epic proportions to change the way the alphabet agencies related to one another.

Re:I guess

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:I guess

Think about it for a second. Intelligence is nothing more than putting lots of disparate little facts together into a semi-coherent view of a given situation. What better than a massive hyperlinked encyclopedia-like information repository for this?

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.

RTFA

Dennehy noted that Intellipedia has several important distinctions from Wikipedia. First, Intellipedia is not limited to being an encyclopedia. Rather, users can create their own pages to be used within workgroups or teams so they can debate and collaborate around issues.

"We are not typically dealing with facts," he noted. "We are dealing with puzzles and mysteries. Everyone in the community is working on something of vital national security importance. We want to get to the point in the intelligence community where everyone is contributing their knowledge to Intellipedia."

In other words, they're using the wiki as a collaboration tool, not as a information aggregator. That's actually what Ward Cunningham had in mind when he invented the Wiki, and it's still the one thing Wikis really excell at. Sure, wikis are used for a lot of other stuff (like building reference books, a task at which they positively suck), but only because using them saves a lot of money.

It makes a lot of sense...

Having a collaborative tool that makes it easier to keep profiles up to date is better.

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:It makes a lot of sense...

Most of this collaboration is done over the SIPRNET and therefore not subject to vandalism.

WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is"

no one is going to blank a page and replace it to the word "penis"

I suppose double agents are more mature than that. For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.

If I were doing something like that, I would make sure to at least have every submission vetted by someone above the submitter in the hierarchy.

Re:WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is"

For me, the whole wiki concept clashes with the need to know concept. It makes no sense for an organization like the CIA to make every information they have available to anyone inside the organization.

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.

Re:WIKI is an acronym for "What I Know Is"

My company uses Confluence [atlassian.com] as an internal wiki for project and technical documentation. It's a piece of cake to create groups and assign fine-tuned privileges with regards to viewing, editing, commenting and destroying. I agree that an organisation with actual classified data is going to make damn sure the system they use can accommodate multiple clearance levels and 'need-to-know' groups.

Here come the edit wars....

• (cur) (last) 11:57, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,528 bytes) (reverting per BLP. Please see [[WP:CIVIL]] and stop making personal attacks, jerk!)
• (cur) (last) 11:46, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert; please stop censoring well-sourced material just because it is critical of your terrorist hero, douchebag!) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:38, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert per BLP--this text suggests sources say things they do not to cast a living person in a negative light. it is a textbook poorly sourced negative entry, which is a textbook BLP violation.) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:35, 16 May 2008 Spook4Hire (Talk | contribs) (48,131 bytes) (change to "considered by many to be a terrorist" in order to address intelguy's BLP concerns) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:33, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (48,117 bytes) (rv no BLP violation has been substantiated in talk; this is notable criticism from notable organizations that IntelGuy is disruptively censoring. IntelGuy please see WP:DE!) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:31, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,589 bytes) (revert BLP violation) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:19, 16 May 2008 CocaineImportAgent (Talk | contribs) (48,117 bytes) (restore legitimate and well-sourced section on notable criticism) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 11:01, 16 May 2008 IntelGuy (Talk | contribs) (46,528 bytes) (reverting per BLP. another 6 FBI references do not address my concerns. It still says "bin Ladin is considered a terrorist." There is still no consensus for this negative info in a Biography of Living Persons) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 10:46, 16 May 2008 Spook4Hire (Talk | contribs) (47,990 bytes) (-->Allegations of Terrorism) (undo)

BANHAMMER TIME

Block him. He broke the Three-revert rule [wikipedia.org].

Wikipedia has a screenshot

and a lot more detail [wikipedia.org]. The screenshot is the only place where the URL is listed (https://www.intelink.gov/wiki), and you'll need a username and password to get in. I'll leave that part up to you =)

Re:Wikipedia has a screenshot

That's what bugmenot is for.

Re:Wikipedia has a screenshot

Well, this is interesting. Their login page doesn't escape anything when displaying your entered username back to you if it's invalid, so any HTML/Javascript could be injected. Try for yourself, enter this as the username:

"><script>alert(document.cookie);</script><input type="hidden" "

The requests are blocked if they don't have a valid request ID, so you don't seem to be able send people to the page and have it load a script that will steal their cookies or whatever, but it's still a little disturbing to see that even this much is possible.

Re:Wikipedia has a screenshot

I decided not to investigate further when I realized what I was doing. :V

So... Wikipedia and Intellipedia...

One's run by a shadowy cabal not obviously accountable to any authority... ... do I have to spell this one out?

All that needs said

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X [amazon.com]

Legacy of Ashes, listening to this in the car right now. Holy shit, the way the CIA operates, it reminds me of my time at a dot.com. Seriously. You have these unwarranted and outsized egos combined with dick-all knowledge of espionage and intelligence-gathering. The same pitiful fuck story that we've read about with Iraq is pretty much the way the CIA operated throughout its entire existence.

Just reading about the idiots in charge is enough to make my teeth hurt. I worked for exactly the same sort of people at dot.coms but hey, ignorance and hubris don't get people killed in the dot.com world. In the spy world, having Soviet agents throughout your organization feeding secrets back home will get people killed. We sent in thousands of agents to infiltrate Soviet-occupied Europe, Korea, China, all of them killed because our organization was compromised. We parachute people in, the secret police are waiting for them on the ground. We get top-level moles in the USSR? Fucking American turncoats sell them out and they get the firing squad. And the CIA directors continue to lie to the President, not that presidents throughout the Cold War were going to disagree when they were told exactly what they asked to hear instead of what they needed to hear, etc etc.

Our government is so fucking incompetent, it's almost like the Russians deserved to win. Our only saving grace was that the Soviet system was more hatefully backward and ignorant than the one we were running. Since the fall of the USSR, our government seems to be desperately seeking to close the stupidity gap.

Some Current Posts

Iran has in the past contacted people who have also been monitored to have visited a nuclear facility in Pakistan. Recommend making diplomatic contact to get some more intel. (fieldofficerfred 8/23/99, imported from file)

Anyone? Need some direction on this. (fieldofficerfred 9/8/00, imported from file)

Hello? (fieldofficerfred 2/23/01, imported from file)

We're listening. How can we make this suit our needs? (pwolfawitz, rrumsfeld, dcheney 9/10/01, imported from file)

Saddam's a softer target. Hang on. (dcheney 10/25/02, imported from file)

Saddam? Iran is refining uranium! With all due repsect, what the fuck are you guys thinking? (fieldofficerfred 11/26/02, imported from file)

Don't question my authority to not know what I may or may not know that I know. You're fired. (rrumsfeld 1/8/03, imported from file)

Hey, did you guys know Iran was refining uranium? (rrumsfeld (deprecated) 11/16/07)

Iran has offered to accept the delivery of peaceful fissile material and a shutdown of their own refineries in exchange for guarantees from Europe that they won't allow the US to attack them. (gathered from the AP 5/2/08)

Disregard that. We will not allow Europe to negotiate with extremists on the other side. Iran is the greatest threat to America and the known universe, second only to waxy buildup and auto erotic asphyxiation. (dcheney 5/4/08)

Iran continues to refine uranium as they see it as their only diplomatic leverage and hope to prevent the United States from invading. (gathered from the AP 5/29/08)

IRAN HAS NUKES. [citation needed] JESUS TOLD ME TO ATTACK AT DAWN!!!!!!!!1111 [citation needed] (gwbush 8/5/08)

Mer mer mer attack at dawn, mer mer mer. (dcheney 8/5/08)

Intellipedia stubs

Locations of WMD in Iraq

This article is a stub. You can help Intellipedia by expanding it.

Re:Oh Boy....

Actually, Intellipedia also is connected to SIPRnet for military use. You don't actually think that the DoD wouldn't be connected to all available intel links do you?

It's actually a very good collaboration tool, as normally cross-department/cross-agency work is almost non-existant, and when the information does get passed along, it's too old to be useful. Also, things like streaming UAS feeds are often on there as well, as sometimes other agencies are better at imageint than the ones taking the pictures.

  - sF (...somewhere in Iraq.)