Some one or some people at DHS messing around on Wikipedia

[Mad Mike]

Adult language. NSFW.

Digg thread - Title not safe for extremeskins (http://www.digg.com/security/DHS_f_cking_up_Wikipedia)

Clearly random edits by one ore more people with too much time on their hands. My favorite...

To the 9/11 conspiracy theory page: ALL OF THESE THEORIES ARE RETARDED!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=75765540&oldid=75749883

:laugh:

[The_cavalierman]

Does anyone consider wiki a credible source?

[mjah]

If a wikipedia article has a link you can follow to a trustworthy source and verify the information, then why not?

Ultimately, I think wikipedia's role will be as a portal to reputable sources of information rather than a place where information is "born." It relies on decision markets to determine what's "true," but that will never work for controversial or quickly changing topics. Its blessing is also its curse.

With that said, it's idiotic to dismiss something just because it came from wikipedia. Some folks have an agenda about that.

[Sticksboi05]

If a wikipedia article has a link you can follow to a trustworthy source and verify the information, then why not?

Ultimately, I think wikipedia's role will be as a portal to reputable sources of information rather than a place where information is "born." It relies on decision markets to determine what's "true," but that will never work for controversial or quickly changing topics. Its blessing is also its curse.

With that said, it's idiotic to dismiss something just because it came from wikipedia. Some folks have an agenda about that.

Exactly. Look at the sources.