| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| 'Intellipedia' developed for spy research |
| 2006-11-01 |
| Based on free software from Wikipedia, officials from the 16 U.S. spy agencies - and even some beyond that - are increasingly using a new internal Web site called "Intellipedia" to research and share ideas on some of the most difficult subjects facing U.S. intelligence. The Web site looks just like the publicly available Wikipedia, with articles on subjects from North Korea to Osama bin Laden. But this one allows users with the right security clearances to jump in and write their own articles or edit those written by others. They can set up bookmarks and get updates when pages are changed. "All of these tools ... are in their Model T stage," conceded Sean Dennehy of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, who helped develop the Intellipedia. Yet he and other intelligence officials briefing reporters on the government's attempt to bring cutting-edge technology into its ever-more-youthful work force describe it as a success. When New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle crashed his plane into a Manhattan apartment building this month, officials from the Transportation Security Administration and eight other agencies updated information on the accident 80 times in two hours. The crash wasn't a terror threat, but authorities didn't know that at first. Don Burke, a CIA officer from the Directorate of Science and Technology, said more than 3,600 users have created log-ons to use the site, providing at least 1,000 edits on various articles on any given day. That includes weekends and the wee hours of the morning. Contributing to the Intellipedia is generally voluntary, although senior analysts working for National Intelligence Director John Negroponte are using it to write one of the most high-level intelligence assessments on Nigeria. The contributions will eventually be merged into one document, called a National Intelligence Estimate, for use by the White House and Congress. Unlike Wikipedia, all the changes on Intellipedia are attributed to the individuals who made them. That leaves drafts and fingerprints, which can be of help in deconstructing faulty assessments such as the prewar intelligence on Iraq. Security, too, is a concern. The most secret sources and methods aren't included on the site, and there are different versions of Intellipedia available to people with different levels of security clearance. Nevertheless, tens of thousands of users can potentially access information that - in another era - would have been more closely held. Still, Michael Wertheimer, Negroponte's assistant deputy director for analysis, sees it as worth the risk because the system appeals to the new generation of intelligence analysts, about half of whom have less than five years' experience. "This is how they like to work," he said. Getting some traditionalists to contribute takes encouragement. Intellipedia's architects have resorted to sending small, black garden shovels to contributors. "I dig Intellipedia!" says the handle. "It's wiki, wiki, Baby." Want to see what it looks like? That you'll have to Google. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #14 They don't want a Cray, Old Patriot. They want a massively paralleled something-or-other, like this |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-01 16:51 |
| #13 They don't need a public wiki. That's one of the things data mining is excellent for. ;-) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 15:17 |
| #12 I hope they expand the concept to create a (heavily moderated) public wiki complementary to their private wiki. AMEN! I'm sure Cyber-Sarge, Old Spook, and Fred would also agree to contribute. Thugburg would be a great place to start. Another good idea would be to collect ALL open-source information about hot-spots around the world into a single source. Can you imagine having EVERYTHING that was said or written about Darfur, Somalia, Yemen, any of the muzzie terror groups, etc., online for everyone to see? Might want to make some areas read-only, to keep the "enemy" from erasing historical context. It would take a HUGE server, but I'm sure a CRAY-3 could handle it... Either that or a Sun SparkStation. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-11-01 15:13 |
| #11 If they or NSA had a brain, they'd have somebody posting here and at ITM and a bunch of other places. Dropping juicy tidbits now and then, monitoring the traffic and goings on from time to time. I actually suspect/hope they have been. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 14:19 |
| #10 Sea, methinks if they'd just puruse either the RB Times-Picayune daily or Thugburg, they'd find out a LOT more! Another reason I love RB...TONS of info (that in hindsight, actually matters, no matter how far scattered), easily accessed and plenty of online "experts" (both in spying and snarking) to boot! |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-01 13:44 |
| #9 Fred can license them the yellow hiliter technology. Also, he gets royalties on every link to the Crossfire Gazette. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-11-01 13:23 |
| #8 I hope they expand the concept to create a (heavily moderated) public wiki complementary to their private wiki. The concept is simple: to open the floodgates to those who want to "talk" to them. Granted 98% would be utter crapola, but in that 2% they might get some pearls of true genius. I am reminded of one of the first serious efforts to compile a dictionary. The compiler received an extraordinary flow of contributions from one gentleman, who eventually he discovered was a voluntary inmate in an insane asylum. In the case of an online intelligence wiki, they would receive all sorts of tidbits, many from other intelligence agencies, either as a discreet heads up or trying to deceive (not knowing that any information is useful information to a spy agency.) But they would also get information from old, retired spies and historians, world travelers and experts in arcana, and some shocks by those odd people who can read a thousand pieces of information and draw a quantum leap, but correct conclusion. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-11-01 13:10 |
| #7 Yup, exactly. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 13:03 |
| #6 Remember back when we were snarking about the FBI's latest failure to computerize and somewho suggested a wiki would make a fine first-pass attempt at a system? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-11-01 12:53 |
| #5 we know |
| Posted by: FBI guy 2006-11-01 10:41 |
| #4 About Intellipedia or Rantburg? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-01 10:40 |
| #3 Has anyone told the FBI, yet? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 10:19 |
| #2 Getting some traditionalists to contribute takes encouragement. Intellipedia's architects have resorted to sending small, black garden shovels to contributors. "I dig Intellipedia!" says the handle. "It's wiki, wiki, Baby." Why are they going that if their intent is to encourage contributions? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-11-01 10:19 |
| #1 Would set Rantburg against the Intellipedia any day. Better minds, better humor and no conspiring against the administration. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-11-01 10:13 |