Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Wikipedia manipulated & censored by Law Society of Scotland in propaganda war against critics & reformers

It's taken the media long enough to report something I covered 18 months ago back in February 2006 where the Law Society of Scotland were censoring out information on it's Wikipedia entry, critical of it's operation as self regulator of the legal profession.

Today, Scotland on Sunday and a few other newspapers finally report on the story, giving the Law Society's editing out the critical information as part of the legal profession's media campaign against criticism of it's ways, which we all know to be less than honest ....

Here are some screenshots of the changing face of the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry.

This is how the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia entry looked with some more truthful details before the censorship started ...

Wikipedia Law Society page before edit

Next up follows the edited version by the Law Society, and the current version, which can be seen to omit any criticism at all of how the Law Society functinos or deals with complaints against it's members ...

Wikipedia Law Society page after  ediit law society of Scotland wikipedia 26 August 2007

Of course, manipulating the media is a common thing for the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to news reports critical of it's performance as a self regulator of complaints against it's own member solicitors ... and sometimes officials have even resorted to threatening journalists careers if they report too many (or any) stories of client complaints against legal firms in Scotland.

I've covered some of those media manipulation stories by the legal profession in previous articles here :

Law Society of Scotland actively censors the Scottish Press to kill articles on crooked lawyers

Scottish Legal Profession censors the Press to kill off bad publicity - Part II

Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos

Scottish media opinion being manipulated by legal profession against Parliamentary reforms of LPLA Bill ?

... with some more upsetting articles on Law Society manipulation of the popular media here ;

Scots Law Chiefs turn hostile on consumer organisation in propaganda war against deregulation of legal services markets.

Lawyers complaints system thought to have caused intimidation of clients for years

Lawyers protests over low legal aid fees revealed to be fake as Law Society's own research points to increase

Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland branded a liar after FSA denies claims of intervention to block complaints body

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

Scottish legal profession campaigns against open debate in Scottish Parliament on independent regulation of complaints against lawyers

Fairly obvious then, after reading through those previous articles, the legal profession in Scotland hates criticism of itself and prizes control over the media and free speech as being one of it's main weapons against reforming the complaints system against lawyers and keeping the public silent on the culture of injustice within the legal profession itself.

For my own part, I am reminded of the Law Society of Scotland's special briefings against myself and other critics of the legal profession on the same night & day after their Chief Accountant was attacked, apparently in a 'hit' arranged by crooked lawyer(s) ...surprisingly .. yet to be caught some 19 months after the 'hit' took place ...

Scotland on Sunday reported that story here : Cash laundering link to law chief stabbing and dutifully mentioned my blog - which was only 3 weeks old but apparently causing consternation in the Law Society HQ and other parts of the Scottish legal profession...

Cash Link to Law Chief Stabbing Scotland on Sunday 29 January 2006

Senior officials at the Law Society called a few journalists and asked them in for 'special briefings' to be given files on myself & others, with orders to run stories alleging it was critics of the legal profession who were responsible for the attack on Mr Cumming, and that they should be immediately silenced, websites taken offline - and one identified official - very senior in rank at the Law Society, allegedly said to a journalist that [named] campaigners against crooked lawyers "should be locked up in Guantanamo Bay for a bit of torture" ... something the press sadly decided to leave out ... it would have made a good headline though as the journalist knows himself - something like Law Boss calls for critics to be tortured ? ...

Here's today's Scotland on Sunday article on the Law Society of Scotland up to it's usual tricks of media manipulation ...

Wikipedia warzone

MURDO MACLEOD

THEY are the Wikipedia timewasters, anonymous cyber-vandals who use one of the internet's greatest resources to abuse rivals, spread gossip and cause widespread confusion.

But Scotland on Sunday can today reveal that many of the culprits are staff at major companies, councils, government departments and other organisations who spend their time sabotaging the free online encyclopaedia rather than working.

From the Prince of Wales's official residence to British Airways, the Ministry of Defence and Aberdeenshire Council, this newspaper has established precise numbers, times and details of how employees used work computers to anonymously edit Wikipedia articles, often to spread abuse, bigotry and outright nonsense.

Among the biggest Wikipedia timewasters in the UK appear to be MoD employees, who were responsible for more than 4,600 anonymous edits in the past four years.

They included 100 entries about Formula One, contributions about the 1970s cartoon series Captain Caveman and several disparaging references to Scots Pop Idol winner Michelle McManus.

MoD computers have been used to edit the entry on the Faslane Peace Camp, claiming the submarine base was vital to the local economy and that if the nuclear base left, the campaigners would find something else to complain about.

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and currently has two million English articles, all of them written and edited by computer users around the world. The site has always been vulnerable to abuse and last week it emerged the CIA had edited articles including those relating to casualty levels in Iraq.

Many malicious editors of Wikipedia try to mask their identities, but using sophisticated scanning software, Scotland on Sunday has traced thousands of edits back to hundreds of organisations, several of which last night launched investigations to track down those responsible.

Computers operated by Scotland's local authorities were used in 16,190 Wikipedia edits in the past four years.

Top of the league is Aberdeenshire with 2,004 changes. They were used to make no fewer than 12 entries about Jaffa Cakes, along with a comment that all "neds" are "gay".

In second place was South Lanarkshire Council, which recorded 1,505 Wiki edits, including obscene and bigoted remarks about Celtic FC and Rangers owner David Murray.

Perhaps one of the most surprising sources for anonymous Wiki editing is Clarence House, the home of the Prince of Wales. An enthusiastic linguist at the royal residence added a paragraph on the usage of the Australian greeting "G'Day", while another remarked on the sexuality of a Surrey businessman.

In addition, a computer on the network of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was used to make comments about Rangers, calling them "the world's most bigoted football club". And a Scottish Parliament computer was used to change Tory MSP Phil Gallie's date of birth to 1839.

British Airways computers have been used to make anonymous edits about the 2005 Helios air crash north of Athens, which killed all 121 on board. Meanwhile, a BBC computer was used to remove criticism of its iPlayer software.

Computers at the Law Society of Scotland have been used to make anonymous edits which removed a paragraph which was critical of them.

Wikipedia is also being used as a weapon in disputes within organisations. Lesley Hinds, chairwoman of NHS Health Scotland, was criticised in an anonymous, ungrammatical and misspelt Wikipedia posting which came from an NHS Health Scotland computer.

It said: "Health Scotland is under the relocation review which will most likely see it being moved from Edinburgh to Glasgow. Lesley Hinds appears to support this which is surprising since she is meant to represent the interests of Edinburgh in her Lord Provost role. When this policy was released it was expected she would of resigned is [sic] protest but instead has continued working in both jobs."

Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: "Most employers would expect anyone wanting to edit Wikipedia to do it at home and in their own time. Employers are not Attila the Huns who will ban everything and they accept a little bit of give and take, but it is hard to see how vandalising Wikipedia pages is acceptable. A ringleader for this kind of activity could even find themselves being dismissed."

Andre Coner, a consultant with computer security firm Commissum, said: "It's a myth that everyone is anonymous online. They're not. In order for you to send and receive information, the various servers need to know where your computer is."

Spokeswomen for both the MoD and the Scottish Parliament said they were aware of the issue and were looking into the origin of the offending edits. A BA spokesman said it was also looking into the issue.

And South Lanarkshire Council pledged "appropriate action".

However, a spokeswoman for Aberdeenshire Council suggested that most of the edits would have come from youngsters using school computers and members of the public using library machines.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society of Scotland said it had removed inaccurate and outdated criticism and that since the number beside the edit could be identified as belonging to the Law Society it could not be construed as anonymous.

Cut and run

January 31, 2006, 6.58pm

A user going by the name of Sjharte, who identifies himself as being an Edinburgh-based lawyer, added the following paragraph to the Wikipedia page on the Law Society of Scotland.

"There has been criticism of the Law Society of Scotland from some sections of the Scottish public citing the level of complaints by members of the public against Scottish solicitors. The Scottish Executive has instituted studies into regulation of the Scottish legal profession."

February 8, 7.11pm

An anonymous writer deletes the paragraph. The edit can be traced to a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

7.46pm

Another Wikipedia editor, under the name of ALoan, restores the critical paragraph.

February 17, 1.22pm

Again an anonymous writer deletes the paragraph of criticism. Again from a computer on the Law Society of Scotland network.

February 19, 10.17pm

"Sjharte" edits the page to bring back the paragraph.

February 23, 5.27pm

Again an edit is made from a Law Society computer.

8.27pm

"Sjharte" puts the critical paragraph back in.

March 24, 3.18pm

Anonymous but traceable. The Law Society computer is used to wipe out the paragraph again.

9.29pm

Sjharte has another go, adding the critical paragraph and branding the anonymous edits as "vandalism".

April 13 ,2006, 10.56am

Resistance is useless. Again the criticism is blanked out. Again the edit is anonymous. Again it can be traced to a Law Society of Scotland computer.

WHAT IS WIKISCANNER?

Wikiscanner allows users to hunt for anonymous edits which came from computers at the networks of various organisations.

This is the basic Wikiscanner link, enjoy: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on Ministry of Defence networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip2=82.110.109.192-255&nolimit=1

This is the link which takes the user to all the anonymous edits originating with computers on British Airways networks:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=163.166.150.0-255&ip2=163.166.137.0-255&ip3=163.166.0.0-136.255

This is for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=82.70.48.72-79

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Wikipedia Law Society article gets hit ! because of this blog

I have heard over the past few days that this blog has become daily reading at the Law Society of Scotland and some law firms in Scotland ... I have even had a couple of postings from people, who at least, claim to be lawyers, but I have also had a couple of emails from people I KNOW to be lawyers (supporting me, it seems) ...
In any case, as you know, my last article on the 8th February was on the Law Society of Scotland's Wikipedia page, where a lawyer had edited some information relating to critisism of the Law Society of Scotland - although at least, he had left the fact in the page that there actually HAD been critisism (while omitting a slew of other details).
Someone obviously noticed this, a someone from Edinburgh, with the IP number of 217.30.115.210 ..... who will, I can assure, you, be traced.

As you can see from the attached pages, all the information relating to the critisism of the Law Society of Scotland was removed .... probably, I would say, by someone who was intent on portraying the Law Society of Scotland in a favourable light ...

Now, "small beer" .. I hear you say ?? well, not quite ... because many people use the Wikipedia .. and if details are going to be posted, then they may as well be correct details, don't you think ? and as I said in my earlier article on this subject, it had been found that members of the US Congress had edited pages on their members, to portray themselves in a more favourable light to the readership (and electorate) ... and you can see this news item reported from BBC News at ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4695376.stm (copied at the end of this article for your convenience) ....

So, we have established, that 'stuffing the Wiki' seems to be a regular occurrence these days, where those organisations who feel that they are portrayed anything less than how they view themselves ... need to edit out any damaging information to keep their image intact .....

I'd say .. what has happened here, is just the same as the example of what members of Congress did .....

The article, however, was changed back to it's more original state ... but of course, I will be keeping an eye on this matter, and will be contacting the Wikipedia lot to see what is going on over there ... because even though half of them seem to be lawyers of one form or another - they do indeed, have a duty to the TRUTH - whether it portrays their profession in a good light, or bad ....

Here's the BBC article on the Congress editing matter - and decide for yourselves, what you think .... legal profession caught stuffing the Wiki ??? maybe ....
Congress 'made Wikipedia changes'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

Wikipedia has more than 1.8m articles in 200 languages
Online reference site Wikipedia blames US Congress staff for partisan changes to a number of political biographies.

Computers traced to Capitol Hill removed unpalatable facts from articles on senators, while other entries were "vandalised", the site said.

An inquiry was launched after staff for Democratic representative Marty Meehan admitted polishing his biography.

Wikipedia is produced by readers who add entries and edit any page, and has become a widely-used reference tool.

'Liberal' to 'activist'
Using the public history of edits on Wikipedia, researchers collected the internet protocol numbers of computers linked to the US Senate and tracked the changes made to online pages.

The site lists half a dozen prominent biographies that had been changed by Senate computers, including those of Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Senator Coleman's office has confirmed that staff there had made a number of changes to his online record.

Where he was described as a "liberal" back in college, this was changed to "activist".
Among other changes, staff also deleted a reference to Mr Coleman voting with President Bush 98% of the time in 2003, despite running as a moderate the year before.

Wikipedia said staffers of Senator Tom Harkin had removed a paragraph relating to Mr Harkin's having falsely claimed to have flown combat missions over North Vietnam, and his subsequent recantation.

A handful of miscellaneous vandalism edits had been made to some senators' articles, it said.

One example was the entry for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, who it was falsely alleged had been voted "most annoying senator".
Bush editing block

Senator Coleman's chief of staff, Erich Mische, said editing was done to correct inaccuracies and delete information that was not reflective of the politician.

The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further "editing"

"They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.

"I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't allow you to edit."
Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions.

The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further "editing".

But it also says its investigation showed the vast majority of edits from Senate IPs were "beneficial and helpful".

Massachusetts newspapers disclosed last month that staffers for Representative Marty Meehan had polished the boss's Wikipedia biography.

Deleted were references to a long-abandoned promise to serve only four terms, and to his campaign war chest.

Accuracy study
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage.

Anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.
A December 2005 study by the British journal Nature found it was about as accurate on science as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler - which incorrectly linked him to the Kennedy assassinations.


Image hosting by Photobucket Image hosting by Photobucket Image hosting by Photobucket Image hosting by Photobucket Image hosting by Photobucket

Lawyers have a lot of allies online ......

Good morning from Edinburgh .... and thanks for the comments everyone. I had a particularly interesting email with some file attachments the other day showing another fiddled client complaint at the Law Society of Scotland - with senior Law Society officials interfering in the case and preventing the client going to court ... more to come on this at a later date.

Anyway, today I was awoken by a phone call from a friend telling me about an edit to a web encyclopedia, so while I prepare another lawyer bashing article (complete with media article), for this week on how the Law Society of Scotland screwed me over, along with many others, I thought I would share with you the details of this little story today ....

Wikipedia .. something I've no real use for because from what I saw, there's a lot of crap on it, has an article on the Law Society of Scotland ... they even seem to have had one on me at one time (wonder if a crooked lawyer had a go at me in it, cause it's not there now) ...

Anyway, as it's interesting to my case a bit, here's the reprint from Injustice Scotland, and folks, seriously, if you want to publicise your case or wrongdoings by organisations, don't rely on sites like Wikipedia.

More often than not, there are people on these kinds of sites with vested interests who promote the views of their own profession, companies, products or themselves - hence all the fiddled edits which seem to be taking place over there, and unless common sense has taken a back seat today, I'd agree with what has been written about the comparison between the Congressional staff on Capitol Hill editing Wikipedia articles, to the lawyers who are editing (for the good) articles on their own corporate bodies ..... smacks of conflict of interest to me ....

No doubt, from reading some of the user profiles of the wiki lot, they sit themselves on pedestals apart from the rest of us .... [insert thought here] ... so I don't think these guys would know a conflict of interest if it fell on them. I especially thought funny one of the apparently 'senior' user profiles who thinks of himself as a major character in a shakespeare play. Someone not living in the real world it seems .... and to think that people are taking this stuff as being 'read' ? what a joke ! The fundraiser drive is even funnier - my god ... if people want to give to charity, I'd say go feed some poor children in the third world instead of wasting it on online promotions of the professions and big business... trust me, it would do more good to save a life & let some young people advance, than feather those who don't need it.

Anyway, if I speak on my case, I will do it with my own voice, or on my own website, thanks, and through my own media contacts in Scotland, not through some site which can fiddle about with what I write .... and remember, dear crooked lawyers, wanna sue me for what happened to me at the hands of your colleagues, or on what I am printing on this site ? I qualify for legal aid - so go jump off a cliff.

Here's the story from http://groups.msn.com/injusticescotland ....

After the recent scandals affecting the online encyclopedia, "Wikipedia", an example of one where officials of Congress were found to have been editing articles on their members in a more favourable light ... we find today, through a member's posting this evening, that Wikipedia is allowing members of the Law Society of Scotland to adjust edits of their site in a favourable light to the profession's point of view, against the consumer ...

That's about the same as members of Congress staff editing articles in a more favourable light, right ? ... well, it should be ... members of the legal profession editing articles to give the legal profession's point of view ... sounds the same ? yes ? ...

Should we be surprised about this ? .. well, not really, as an investigation of Wikipedia posters seems to reveal that plenty of them are lawyers !, and as we all know, there are plenty lawyers who want to make their colleagues sound as good as possible - no matter what ... want an example of this - go and read about the infamous Julian Danskin ... who most of his colleagues describe as a 'poor unfortunate' victimised by intense media scrutiny (he was found guilty of abusing young boys & filming his exploits) .. and we have many more examples of that, where colleagues in the profession describe colleagues who have been exposed in the media as "saints, compared with clients", and in another example - the head of "Law Care" the agency set up to assist demoralised and crooked Scottish lawyers actually went after a complaining client himself and fiddled a complaint to make sure a crooked colleague got off the hook ...... so, we shouldn't expect too much from those in the profession who write about them, should we ...

In any case, if you go to the links provided at the end of this article, you will see different versions provided by different users ... judge then for yourself, which may be more relevant after you have read the items on this site, and on many many more sites & independent Scottish newspapers & media outlets....

One comment though ... from reading the Wikipedia current page on the Law Society of Scotland, it seems quite out of date - even the Law Society of Scotland has now agreed to independent regulation of the legal profession, which the Scottish Executive is now writing in a bill to be heard soon in the Parliament ... and whoever wrote the part about charges being heard before the SSDT (Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal) forgot to say that the members of the SSDT are appointed after being recommended by the Law Society of Scotland and/or the Lord President of the Court of Session (it's on the SSDT website and all solicitors are supposed to know this) but this is kind of like saying the Nazi party was independent of Adolf Hitler ... so there's not much independence there.

For your further reference, go read about how the SSDT prosecuted Gordon Coutts Thomson, a Scottish solicitor who started to attract so many legal aid clients, he upset the 'powers at be' within the Law Society of Scotland, who then fitted him up on false charges, prosecuted him before the SSDT, had him found guilty, then threw him out of the profession ... Mr Thomson then fought the case against the vindictive, evil prosecution of himself & his practice, and won, with the Law Society having to settle and pay all it's own costs.... An investigation by a newspaper revealed that one of the 'complainants' who were, in reality, asked to complain by the Law Society itself against Gordon Thomson's legal practice, were the former legal firm of Alex Morison & Co, Edinburgh. After Mr Thomson's practice was closed, guess who got to administer it ........ and take all the business ...... one of the former Alex Morison & Co lawyers even told a client all about it ..... naughty naughty ...

Another case springs to mind, which is currently in the courts, of Michael G Robson v the Law Society of Scotland & SSDT - another case where a solicitor seems to have been fitted up on charges because he turned against the profession and it's point of view against the client, and the SSDT seems bent on prosecuting Mr Robson, with tales of witness statements being withheld from the investigation and fiddled to reflect the Law Society's point of view .... plenty to read about that one on the internet too ...

There are plenty more examples of case fiddling before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - who do everything to ensure that guilty solicitors get off from serious charges, or only get a slap on the wrist so they can go on robbing clients at will ..... what a nice cosy set-up the SSDT is ....

Wikipedia .. get your facts right, or don't get them at all.

Links for you to read the various articles .... and remember, anyone can sign in to Wikipedia, create member accounts, and edit pages to reflect the reality of what is happening in Scotland ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_Society_of_Scotland&oldid=26984792

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Society_of_Scotland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjharte