March Feature
by Cynthia_Hetherington at Aon.com
If information anxiety is something you have self diagnosed yourself with, and “overload” is an understatement. Then avoid anything “wiki” on the web.
In technology “Open Source” means something very different from “Open Source” in intelligence. For intelligence analysts open source is the information you can readily retrieve such as public records, news print and media, ramblings on blogs.
Whereas open source in technology is the sharing of computer code, for the betterment of that code. The thought is that the more programmers and challengers who work on the code will improve it overall, and be able to tailor it to their needs. Linux is open source, Microsoft Windows is not. Napster is open source, and iTunes is not.
Now information is open source like code was. Community driven definitions, as you would see in Wikipedia.com is a perfect example.
An example:
During a lunch conundrum when trying to decide the difference between a Stromboli and a calzone we checked Wikipedia for a definition. Turns out that Stromboli is an island off the coast of Italy that currently has an active volcano threatening the population of 500.
We didn’t see anything about a stuffed pizza. My ultimate question being “is there sauce inside or is it all cheese like a calzone.”
Wikipedia failed us on this mission. But brought to light that the idea Stromboli was influenced by several other web surfer contributors. In other words contribution from un-vetted sources could result in popular opinion results. Whether the editors of Oxford English Dictionary or your neighbor Bob Oxford, the information is going to appear on the web.
As a librarian, I cringe that individuals, especially unbiased children will retrieve information from such an inauthentic source. However easy it is to pick on children, adults are equally sublime in their verification of information. Hence, garbage in garbage out.
Leave that argument aside for publishers who are losing book sales on such web services, and librarians who are left lonely at the reference desk.
Our point is to let you know that as investigators, you will see information that appears authoritative. The websites are intelligently laid out, the information appears encyclopedic, and what you are reading may seem reasonable. However you must check the root of the source you are reading online. Are they quoting a text book? Does your information go back to Wikimedia or GNU project?
Wikimedia Foundation by its own definition, “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.”
I’ve met a lot of people on the subways of New York, in first class suites at airports, and through various professional lives I’ve traversed. There is NO WAY I want to wallow in the sum of all knowledge with just anyone. Call me an information snob, or call me an investigator, but I need to vet out each detail before culling a report together and charging a client for my findings.
Yet Wikimedia Foundation not only gathers these pearls of wisdom and writes them up in Wikipedia, they are retooling, in open source style, and regenerating the same details in other services. Hence, a lie, or mistruth, or error, not only shows up in Wikipedia, it appears in other sources like answers.com.
In closing, it’s the same old song, verify your facts!
