Talk:Intellipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clearance

I was told about Intellipedia at a non-classified meeting with CIA analysts. I checked with one of the Intellipedia administrators who was there to make sure it would be ok to post about it in Wikipedia. dweinberger

Some more detail is now in the article, but there is still quite a bit to say on this topic.Fhassani 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I added 4 in-bound links from the JWICS, SIPRNET, Intelligence Community, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence pages. I do not know if that is enough to remove the "linkless" script or not. I will let another wikipedian make the call. ACADAC 24 October 2006

Yup, that should be enough. And if I can offer any other assistance, let me know.  :) --Elonka 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only on JWICS

Intellipedia is available on NIPRNet, SIPRNet, and JWICS. Kevinstory 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So what of the "sister project" on SIPRNET? Replaced, still in use, or merged? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.18.220 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

They are three different wikis, holding different information depending on classification levels. NIPRNet holds all Unclassified information, SIPRNet hold up to SECRET and JWICS holds up to Top Secret. 70.126.82.58 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Del.icio.us for DoD

I think the approach that del.icio.us/ takes is much more suited for collaboration among organizations. Our federal agencies and DoD could really benefit from this approach. Any corporation implementing a knowledge management strategy should create their system using Del.icio.us as a model. Kind regards, David

• David: I did an interview with the New York Times about tag|connect (the IC version of del.icio.us) and mentioned it in Wired Magazine. The NY Times piece should be out in the magazine in the Sunday edition on Dec 3rd. Also, beta versions are running right now. If you have access to JWICS go to the tag|connect Intellipedia page and sign up for beta testing.Ckras 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ckras, I wish I had the time to help out. A colleague of mine and I have been discussing the need for using the del.icio.us model for our company. Our organization is well-suited for this approach. I don't think all organizations will benefit from the del.icio.us approach. Does intellipedia use the same approach as del.icio.us? Kind regards, David

• David, from your phrasing I thought you were in the IC. Keep you guy posted! Ckras 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with Wikipedia

Regarding 81.178.208.69 (talk · contribs)'s removal of the section that compared Intellipedia with Wikipedia, I initially went for the revert button out of habbit: Given that there's a reference to NYT in there, a minor POV issue is better handled through iterative improvement rather than mass-deletion. On closer inspection though, I couldn't find any mention of "point-of-view", "POV" or "bias" in the NYT article (although I haven't read all the way through).

I now tentatively agree with the removal of that section. Certainly most of it falls well within the camp of original research from a Wikipedia POV. I believe that if any of the information is to go back in, it should be done with terms similar to that of the references we use.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Chovain 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove it, unless somebody else has made these comparisons in a notable place. We have to be careful as Wikipedians not to give more focus to Wikipedia than the instance merits. — Matt Crypto 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was very little in this section that even implicitly referenced the Wikipedia. As such, I simply renamed it to Policies and Practices. Explicitly comparing it with another single wiki doesn't seem in line with maintaining an encyclopedic tone. Standing on its own, as a more direct analysis of the Intellipedia, it is a valuable and interesting peek at the inner-workings of the Intellipedia's community of editors. MrZaius^talk 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks better still when merged with the Community section, as the little barnstar-like shovel comment seems a trivial and out of place without the new context given by the sectino merge. MrZaius^talk 19:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is my citation legitimate for this article?

I wrote a piece about Intellipedia last December for the Washington Examiner. Is this a legitimate source for either the References or External Links sections?

www.examiner.com/a-430145~Paul_Diperna__Intellipedia_is_intelligent_move_for_spy_agencies_to_embrace.html

www.examiner.com/articlePDF.cfm?articleID=430145

I am learning the community rules here. I had added it to External Links before understanding more clearly the WP: COI rules. I understand that I should have proposed this here on the Talk Page before taking such action. I am sorry for any confusion regarding my motivations. Pdiperna 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, the source you referenced above seems legitimate to use for either the reference or external link sections. Be bold and add it at will. If you have any other questions, please ask. MLWilson 05:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is a legitimate citation for the article. das 02:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just saw your messages now. Thanks both of you for your feedback. It's greatly appreciated..Pdiperna 04:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Russell

The link for this guy needs disambiguating. I'm not sure he is any of the richard russells listed Numskll 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unlinked him. The only hits Google gets (for his name and division) are the article, and the single ref we have. He's unlikely to get himself an article. Chovain 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He's never had anything to do with Intellipedia, and his organization (ISCO) has been disbanded. Also, he's kind of an idiot.

--Darkwing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.40.35 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lanyards

Intellipedia Be Bold lanyards have been a big success. mcpaige (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Open Source

Look for a Feature Article about Intellipedia on the public CIA website coming soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryppie2673 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Year/date of creation

The article doesn't state it clearly. I'd guess it is 2006, but do we have a source for that? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Computerworld has an article that lists the creation date in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.138.129 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of Intellipedia was born in 2004, and the products and services which made up Intellipedia were created and tested for a time before their launch, but Intellipedia was launched to the Intelligence Community in April 2006. See Intellipedia's second birthday announcement. das (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a waste of time

They wont let me say it at work, so I thought I would say it here. People need to focus on there jobs, and the only people who take the time to do 90% of the posting in the DoD will be the losers who dont have enough real work to be doing. I'm sorry. I see it. This is a waste of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.210.99.85 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that such elite intelligence organizations employ people who don't know how to use apostrophes, spell "their," or sign their comments. But this whole thing is confusing. Why do they even make this public? And how the hell did someone take a screenshot of that wiki's frontpage without getting their memory erased and equipment confiscated by men in black? Shovels are awarded to Intellipedia users? What.. Jesus, I just thought it would be a little tool for all the intelligence agencies and not a "community", and on the shovel they can't spell "baby" properly. Whatever.. --nlitement ^[talk] 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Intellipedia-U, while not accessible to the general public, is unclassified. There are secret and top secret variants of Intellipedia, but all use MediaWiki. If you actually click the screenshot, you will see that is an unclassified — and unclassified MEANS unclassified — screenshot of a page on Intellipedia-U, used in a public presentation by Chris Rasmussen, a knowledge manager at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The little trinkets like shovels and whatnot were all paid for by individuals within the IC out of their own pockets, as a fun, community-building incentive to participate in new Web 2.0 and social software initiatives. And last I checked, "baby" is spelled "baby" (and if you're referring to the fact that "Baby" is capitalized, I'm not certain questionable capitalization can be characterized as a misspelling). Intellipedia — and many other Web 2.0 tools — are in fact tools available for use by the entire Intelligence Community, military, and the US Government at large. They're tools, and there is also community — one of the hallmarks of success of social software. das (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up. :) --nlitement ^[talk] 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article. Discussing views about the article's topic is best kept for other forums. Chovain^(t|c) 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"We will achieve innovation one retirement at a time." you are both lost

I haven't had a chance to look at Intellipedia for over a year, but I do know a lot more about Wikipedia now than I did then, and I suspect that a lot of the inefficiencies and stupidity that sometimes goes on here on Wikipedia does not occur on Intellipedia, for the simple fact that Intellipedia really is part of your job and you are held accountable for your contributions. Keeps everything businesslike. Would be nice to know how wikis are working out for the private sector tho. But one of the links on the article has a point... Intellipedia is still only a tool, one that's mostly good for collecting information. A wiki isn't necessarily the best forum for actually analyzing the information that's been collected on a given subject, maybe it's still more efficient to do that elsewhere. "Intelligence is something best done with as few people as possible of the highest quality possible" or w/e. 74.61.41.118 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link in Citations

The link in the Citation for "Wikipedia for Intel Officers Proves Useful" from National Defense Magazine appears to be broken. Searching the National Defense Magazine's archives for the article turned up no leads. There is another article from the November 2006 issue titled "Feds lagging in most disaster scenarios, McHale says" ( http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2006/November/Pages/SecurityBeat2819.aspx ) that appears to be the article cited, but I'm still not sure. Can anyone verify that this was the article that was to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.156.96 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Update: After consulting with the author of the article, I fixed the link. Due to website transfer issues, the original article is now embedded in the article "Feds lagging in most disaster scenarios, McHale says" The article "Wikipedia for Intel Officers Proves Useful" can be found beginning with the words "Members of the intelligence community have been using the popular Wikipedia software..." rajkalex

The link that goes with Reference 27 (Radio interview that highlights Intelligence Community social software training programs, Federal News Radio, November 5, 2007) appears to lead to a blank page. It looks like the Federal News Radio site doesn't archive recordings much past a few months. Forever Amber (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Towards living intelligence

A video was posted on YouTube called "Towards Living Intelligence." I posted the link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbgQ1V2BLEs but a bot reverted it, apparently video links are discouraged. I thought it was notable, and is a pretty good video, so if anyone elses wants to take a look and see if there is anything to be pulled out, cool. 216.81.80.134 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the bot's user page, it says: "XLinkBot is primarily intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused). The bot allows established users to add links, while reverting links added by others." So you should be able to add the link just find if you register, and aren't "new" (whatever that means). If you want I can go ahead and add it for you. das (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Independent confirmation that it uses MediaWiki?

The page currently states that Intellipedia runs on MediaWiki. This is backed up with a reference from National Defence Magazine that says, "...Members of the intelligence community have been using the popular Wikipedia software to create their own secure information sharing forums..." This, if true, does indeed mean MediaWiki. However this is just vague enough that I would like to know if it is independently verified that Intellipedia IS INDEED based on MediaWiki. Most people only know of Wiki editing through the prism of Wikipedia and therefore assume that that Wikimedia has a monopoly on the idea. Witty lama 01:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it would be easy to say "Intellipedia uses the Wikipedia software" instead of "Intellpedia uses the same concept as Wikipedia", they seem to be more explicit than this:

"Richard Russell, deputy assistant director of national intelligence for information sharing and customer outreach at the office of the director of national intelligence, said it is the “exact same software.”" [1]

I know it is still likely Mr Russell is mistaken, but I suggest we take the quote at face value until we find a reference stating otherwise. Chovain 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As a DoD contractor, I would be very surprised if they used something other than MediaWiki. The intelligence community is very short-staffed and underfunded right now, especially since taking the blame for Iraq. There's a lot of motivation to just go with the flow and use what is most popular or has the most name recognition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.18.220 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of free Wikis though. Furthermore, anything we say must be independantly verifiable. It's not enough for a DoD contractor to claim it here - that would count as original research (By the way, don't forget to sign your posts with "~~~~") Chovain 04:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

At the CIA workshop I attended last September, the folks behind Intellipedia said they were running MediaWiki. Watch your newsfeeds; there will be other articles on Intellipedia published in the mainstream news later this month, and I'm sure at least one of these articles will provide published confirmation from a source more reputable than me. ;-) --Eekim 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Intellipedia runs on MediaWiki 1.7.1. 70.126.82.58 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll vouch that it does run on MediaWiki, as for the version, I'm not sure. Fantom.Planet 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, what we need is independent confirmation. A user who knows that it runs Wikimedia unfortunately can't be used as a reference, as that would constitute original research. Do you happen to have a reference for it? Chovain 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Send a message to the creator of wikipedia/mediawiki. He is aware of what software it uses. It is basically MediaWiki but with a slight amount of tweaking, to accomplish security standards. (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/networking/?p=170)

See Slide 12 here. It clearly shows that Intellipedia uses MediaWiki. This is from a presentation by DNI/CIO. das (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)