My friend and neighbor is a college professor and a linguist. At the start of each semester, she delvers a speech that goes something like this:
“Class, you may think that I hate Wikipedia, but I don’t. If you want to use it when I assign a paper, go ahead. But beware! Wikipedia is filled with inaccuracies and incomplete information. If your paper perpetuates those inaccuracies I will flunk you. Oh yes, good luck.”
I was thinking about by neighbor when I read the following article by Brian Ries for Mashable.com on December 10, 2014: “Senate staffer tries to scrub ‘torture’ reference from Wikipedia’s CIA torture article.”
According to Ries:
“An anonymous Wikipedia user from an IP address that is registered to United States Senate has tried, and failed, to remove a phrase with the word ‘torture’ from the website’s article on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s blockbuster CIA torture report.”
We are told that at least twice in the month of December (2014) that the individual tried and failed to erase the word. We don’t know the person’s political affiliation, gender or role.
“In both instances the anonymous editor explained that he or she was ‘removing bias’ from the article. And each time the revision was overruled.”
Torture by any other name
Torture is a tough word for a democracy, and especially tough for a country that has built its image on documents such as the Bill of Rights. Torture is also an embarrassing word; it is a word that might become associated with an administration or even a political party. Nevertheless, when a report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay was released to Congress at the insistence of one of our political parties, there could be little doubt that torture was most certainly used when getting information from many unsavory characters.
Here is where cyberspace plays out against those who would try to subvert history. I don’t pretend to understand all of this technology but the article explains:
“A Twitter bot tweets anonymous edits that are made from IP addresses in the US Congress. That account, @congressedits, has been around since July 2014 and has alerted followers nearly 430 times of covert Wikipedia changes attempted by anonymous Senate staffers, officials or volunteers on the government network.”
When the report on the CIA came out, it created a firestorm around the word “Torture.” Politicians rarely like words that reflect black or white; they live in the world of gray. Many in Congress prefer terms such as “aggressive interrogation techniques” over Torture, but there it is.
Not surprising, and again, according to the article:
“The United Nations, joined by a number of human rights groups, have called for the prosecution of U.S. officials who were responsible for the CIA torture program.”
Whoa, prosecution?
The Obama administration would not like to be remembered in such a way. Then again, neither would the Bush administration. Given the tremendously powerful emotions attached to a word such as torture, it is a hot potato no politician or political party wants to hold.
If words “CIA + torture” appear anywhere on the cyber battleground, it is in the best interest of many in Congress to let it get “washed.” The problem is, it is virtually impossible to wash the internet. Speaking of the internet, the number one, most likely place people go for information; the place where many of us begin our search is Wikipedia. To intentionally try to change Wikipedia to change or revise history is unethical at best.
What all of this means for us
This is a good lesson in vigilance and for always paying close attention to what we read and the sources of our information. It has been often said that “History is written by the victors.” In these cyber times, history may stand a better chance of being told truthfully because the world is more open to a freer exchange of information.
If we move the discussion completely away from politics, the CIA and Wikipedia, and into our corporate or organizational workplaces we begin to understand the value of truth and of good ethics.
For example, if you get called into a court of law, please tell the truth; especially don’t try to cover for people above you. Sooner or later, the truth will emerge; it will appear “quietly.” A lost email that reappears perhaps; a suppressed memo; the draft of a PowerPoint presentation or perhaps an erased spreadsheet. You will get hurt. Truth is easier.
Understand, as well, the “winning team” is a transient concept. Some staffer, somewhere in a Washington, D.C. cubicle, working on behalf of a political party of special interest group, may believe he or she is doing the right thing, but winning is a nebulous concept.
Being ethical is often more important than winning. We may laugh at such a notion, but I have never seen it fail. Right now, the truth is laughing at an anonymous staffer in a Washington, D.C. cubicle.
