I learned of another markup language that I just need to be aware of although not much seems to be going on with it as of yet: Architecture Description Markup Language (AMDL) or Architecture Description Language (ADL). This language -- if/when developed -- will provide a common interchange format for exchanging data among architecture design tools and/or a foundation for the development of new architectural design and analysis tools.
Background: ADML, the Architecture Description Markup Language, is a standard XML-based mark-up language for describing software and system architectures. ADML provides a means of representing an architecture that can be used to support the interchange of architectural descriptions between a variety of architectural design tools. The standard makes possible the broad sharing of ADML models so that many present and future applications can manipulate, search, present, and store the models. Given the ongoing adoption of XML by industry, XML-based ADML models will be in a format that will not become orphaned. A standard, open representation will de-couple an enterprise's architectural models from vendors and enable the models to remain useful despite the rapid change in software tools. ADML leverages the work of academia and other essential organizations such as W3C and OMG. It provides a firm basis for a future where tools can share information more seamlessly, and where computer architecture can move towards the rigor we see already in the building industry. ADML is based on Acme, a software architecture description language developed at Carnegie Mellon University and the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California.
ADML is part of a broader program of work being undertaken by The Open Group's Architecture Program. The goals of this program are to:
-- Define an industry standard Architecture Description Language for IT architecture tools, providing portability and interoperability of architecture definitions across different tools from different vendors, creating a viable market for open tools for IT architecture definition
-- Use this same language as the basis of a "Building Blocks Description Language", capable of defining open, re-usable architecture building blocks:
re-usable across customer IT architectures; fit for use in procurement (allowing real products to be conformance tested and procured to fulfil the defined functions), and catering for "fuzzy" definitions as well as tightly defined specification
-- Create an open repository in which to store such building block definitions (the "Building Blocks Information Base")
-- Develop testing and branding programs to verify conformance of vendor IT solutions to Building Block definitions
Status: Although we should be aware of the effort of The Open Group (TOGAF) and others in trying to develop a language so that artifacts can be shared amongst enterprise architecture tools, no one has of yet gotten very far. If you google ADML, a lot of the links date to the year 2000. We'll see what happens.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
SOA for SOA's sake
Too many times, we’re engaging in SOA for SOA’s sake. There are many situations were SOA may simply not be necessary. A mainframe system that rapidly processes transactions may be well enough left alone. You’re not going to increase the speed of systems by putting a layer on top of it. SOA success means applying SOA where needed. But if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Last month I was at a DoD seminar and one of the speakers said that you don't want to wrap a nuclear bomb system in a layer of SOA. That's good. I am glad the speaker (and hopefully others within DoD) realize this.
What would an economic downturn mean for SOA?
On January 7th, Joe McKendrick posted an interesting question on his blog on zdnet. He asked what an economic downturn might mean for SOA. His post is at: ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/service-oriented/?p=1036 ). He says that with the recent hysteria of doom and gloom over the state of the economy, and while he believes that the economy is resilient, it’s only natural to see ups and downs in business cycles. However, he says that the current incarnation of SOA has only been around during a period of upward economic growth and he contemplates might be the impact of an economic downturn. You can read his post but the gist is that he feels that while some adjustments may need to be made, he and members of his SOA consortium believe that SOA efforts will continue to press on, especially if SOA is closely tied to business value. One industry practice leader said that: In a “downturn, people will have to be more creative, and will turn towards SOA.”
So, in summary, McKendrick suggests that the outlook for SOA for 2008 is quite bullish, no matter how rocky the economy gets. He does suggest, however, that the way SOA is sold to organizations -- as well as implemented -- may shift.
So, in summary, McKendrick suggests that the outlook for SOA for 2008 is quite bullish, no matter how rocky the economy gets. He does suggest, however, that the way SOA is sold to organizations -- as well as implemented -- may shift.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
how to pick an ESB...
There is a great deal of debate and confusion around SOA and ESB products, so evaluating them for purchase is a challenging proposition. Many vendors, for example, argue that ESB is a product and others an architecture. Some vendors also argue that ESB is not product at all but is a marketing term. ESB is certainly a marketing term, but it does imply a set of functionality to expect, so the term does provide value in categorizing products.
Network Computing magazine recently completed an evaluation of ESB products that provides an interesting perspective. Their evaluation was largely based on development tool capabilities. They did not, for example, do any performance tests. Network Computing ranked BEA Systems Aqualogic Service Bus 2.1 first followed closely by Oracle SOA Suite. The other contenders included TIBCO Software, Fiorano, Cape Clear, IBM, Software AG and Sonic Software. Sonic Software placed last even though they were an early proponent of the ESB concept and marketing strategy.
Network Computing included integration in their evaluation and I agree with this approach. Integration is still a key criterion for evaluation since there are so many legacy systems to wrap as part of SOA. Not surprisingly, the vendors coming from the EAI space did well in this category.
Some of the products did very poorly, which is an indicator of the immaturity in the space. For example, some products had poor administration and debugging tools. Some did poorly in mapping XML to XML, which is surprising since this is such a fundamental feature.
As expected, the large platform vendors continues to place pressure on the pure-play vendors. BEA and Oracle has strong showings with their products. IBM was somewhat limited in the test by the test criteria. For example, they scored poorly in orchestration, but this feature is in a product that was not considered (WBI Process Server). Also, completeness of the product stack (a Gartner magic quadrant measure) was not considered. This measure could have helped IBM and TIBCO. Product performance is also a strong suit for IBM's Message Broker, which was not considered. The evaluation also did not play to Sonics strengths -- either performance or out-of-the-box fault tolerance. Also, the evaluation tested the 6.1 version of Sonic ESB, not the latest version which has had significant improvement. The Network Computing evaluation lacked some critical aspects of evaluation that should be considered, namely:
* The architectural fit with existing platforms and technology
* Completeness of stack - e.g. Business Process Management, Business Activity Monitoring, Portal (these are not ESB products but should be considered for enterprise SOA)
* Product performance
* Fault tolerance
So far, however, in multiple reports, by a variety of organizations, it seems that the strongest ESB product is BEA's. No wonder Oracle has decided to purchase BEA -- for its strong SOA foothold.
I am attending that ESB online conference in 2 days. Then I get to roll that knowledge into my ESB report and get back to real work. :-D
Sun's SeeBeyond product doesn't seem to be anywhere near the same level as all of these other ESB products. If Sun had an competitive ESB product it should be included in the study -- but it looks like they don't.
Cape Clear also seems mostly targeted towards smaller organizations.
Network Computing magazine recently completed an evaluation of ESB products that provides an interesting perspective. Their evaluation was largely based on development tool capabilities. They did not, for example, do any performance tests. Network Computing ranked BEA Systems Aqualogic Service Bus 2.1 first followed closely by Oracle SOA Suite. The other contenders included TIBCO Software, Fiorano, Cape Clear, IBM, Software AG and Sonic Software. Sonic Software placed last even though they were an early proponent of the ESB concept and marketing strategy.
Network Computing included integration in their evaluation and I agree with this approach. Integration is still a key criterion for evaluation since there are so many legacy systems to wrap as part of SOA. Not surprisingly, the vendors coming from the EAI space did well in this category.
Some of the products did very poorly, which is an indicator of the immaturity in the space. For example, some products had poor administration and debugging tools. Some did poorly in mapping XML to XML, which is surprising since this is such a fundamental feature.
As expected, the large platform vendors continues to place pressure on the pure-play vendors. BEA and Oracle has strong showings with their products. IBM was somewhat limited in the test by the test criteria. For example, they scored poorly in orchestration, but this feature is in a product that was not considered (WBI Process Server). Also, completeness of the product stack (a Gartner magic quadrant measure) was not considered. This measure could have helped IBM and TIBCO. Product performance is also a strong suit for IBM's Message Broker, which was not considered. The evaluation also did not play to Sonics strengths -- either performance or out-of-the-box fault tolerance. Also, the evaluation tested the 6.1 version of Sonic ESB, not the latest version which has had significant improvement. The Network Computing evaluation lacked some critical aspects of evaluation that should be considered, namely:
* The architectural fit with existing platforms and technology
* Completeness of stack - e.g. Business Process Management, Business Activity Monitoring, Portal (these are not ESB products but should be considered for enterprise SOA)
* Product performance
* Fault tolerance
So far, however, in multiple reports, by a variety of organizations, it seems that the strongest ESB product is BEA's. No wonder Oracle has decided to purchase BEA -- for its strong SOA foothold.
I am attending that ESB online conference in 2 days. Then I get to roll that knowledge into my ESB report and get back to real work. :-D
Sun's SeeBeyond product doesn't seem to be anywhere near the same level as all of these other ESB products. If Sun had an competitive ESB product it should be included in the study -- but it looks like they don't.
Cape Clear also seems mostly targeted towards smaller organizations.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Practical Guide for Federal Service Oriented Architecture (PGFSOA)
The American Council for Technology (ACT) / Industry Advisory Council (IAC) Enterprise Architecture (EA) Special Interest Group (SIG) (referred to as ACT/IAC EA SIG) just completed an internal review of the "Practical Guide for Federal Service Oriented Architecture (PGFSOA)", part of an IAC initiative. This document will be a product of the Federal CIO Council’s Architecture and Infrastructure Committee and the ACT/IAC's EA SIG and will provide guidance for federal agencies in implementing service oriented architecture. The draft was recently released for general comments and now approximately 300 comments are being resolved. The next version for broad comment is expected to be out in mid January. I was not able to gain access to the document itself so I volunteered my name for broad comment in January. About 35 persons have been actively supporting the writing. The objectives for the guide is to follow in the footsteps of "A Practical Guide to Federal EA" and build upon the Service-Component Based Architecture white papers that have been published. The collective group had wanted to rapidly create a document not too unlike the "Practical Guide to FEA", which provided practical guidance in support of agencies’ efforts to adopt SOA into their business, IT and EA practices.
Renee
Renee
Monday, November 5, 2007
some short notes from PegaWorld 2007
I am going to be brief on my notes from the conference as I will share all of the presentations with the team once they are available. Some assorted notes I captured are listed below.
Processes are the muscles; business rules are the nerves (quote by Ron Ross, Co-Founder and Principal of Business Rule Solutions, LLC, recognized internationally as being the "father of business rules”).
Applications are getting smaller. Different applications can share same rules and processes, bringing increased ability to rapidly respond to change.
Of the 20+ widely recognized workflow patterns (see http://www.workflowpatterns.com/vendors/documentation/BPMN-pat.pdf ), the patterns used 80% of the time are Sequential, Parallel Split and Join, and Decision Split (remember 80/20 rule?).
PowerPoint most widely used BPM tool, followed by Visio.
Business Activity Monitoring (BPM) is based on current (active) data; Business Intelligence (BI) is based on historical (and aggregated) data; Business Process Analytical (BPA) data is based on historical data for the intent of determining the future via statistical tools and predictive models. Examples of BI include Business Objects and Cognos. Examples of BPA include Hyperion, SAS and SPSS. BI is largely based on data warehousing.
PMML = Predictive Modeling Markup Language; PMML is a mark up language for statistical and data mining models. It can be used/generated by Pega.
SmartBPM = BPM + BI + SOA
Quote: “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli
Our brain (medulla oblongata) is genetically programmed to avoid/resist change (theorem of neurochemistry)
We resist change. Just for fun, the next time you shower, notice where you start lathering. The next day try somewhere new.
Strive for Business and IT fusion – not alignment. Alignment suggests trying to line up 2 or more things that are in motion? Ever try to deck a boat on a moving dock?
It is easy to buy technology pieces; it is hard to implement methodology.
What is the difference between a rule and a policy? The Ten Commandments are a policy; Thou Shalt Not Kill is a rule.
BPM is not just BPR – focus is on real time (or nearer real time)
Processes are the muscles; business rules are the nerves (quote by Ron Ross, Co-Founder and Principal of Business Rule Solutions, LLC, recognized internationally as being the "father of business rules”).
Applications are getting smaller. Different applications can share same rules and processes, bringing increased ability to rapidly respond to change.
Of the 20+ widely recognized workflow patterns (see http://www.workflowpatterns.com/vendors/documentation/BPMN-pat.pdf ), the patterns used 80% of the time are Sequential, Parallel Split and Join, and Decision Split (remember 80/20 rule?).
PowerPoint most widely used BPM tool, followed by Visio.
Business Activity Monitoring (BPM) is based on current (active) data; Business Intelligence (BI) is based on historical (and aggregated) data; Business Process Analytical (BPA) data is based on historical data for the intent of determining the future via statistical tools and predictive models. Examples of BI include Business Objects and Cognos. Examples of BPA include Hyperion, SAS and SPSS. BI is largely based on data warehousing.
PMML = Predictive Modeling Markup Language; PMML is a mark up language for statistical and data mining models. It can be used/generated by Pega.
SmartBPM = BPM + BI + SOA
Quote: “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli
Our brain (medulla oblongata) is genetically programmed to avoid/resist change (theorem of neurochemistry)
We resist change. Just for fun, the next time you shower, notice where you start lathering. The next day try somewhere new.
Strive for Business and IT fusion – not alignment. Alignment suggests trying to line up 2 or more things that are in motion? Ever try to deck a boat on a moving dock?
It is easy to buy technology pieces; it is hard to implement methodology.
What is the difference between a rule and a policy? The Ten Commandments are a policy; Thou Shalt Not Kill is a rule.
BPM is not just BPR – focus is on real time (or nearer real time)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
top four enterprise architecture frameworks
Yesterday I was reminded of an article I had passed on to my team members months ago and subsequently forgot. Its on msdn and is titled “A Comparison of the Top Four Enterprise Architecture Methodologies” and was written by Roger Sessions. Sessions is the CTO of ObjectWatch Inc. and author of six books and dozens of articles and white papers. He serves on the Board of Directors of the International Association of Software Architects (www.iasahome.org).
Sessions takes the reader through the history of Enterprise Architecture and compares The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF), The Federal Enterprise Architecture and The Gartner Methodology. The article is easy to read through and uses a understandable and simple case to examplify the points. Sessions main conclusion being that none of the presented Enterprise Architecture methodologies is really complete. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. And most important - as Sessions also points out - the organization cannot succeed using any of them without commitment from the highest level of the organization. That is very much in line with my experience! Sessions offers a comparison of the methodologies and recommend using the best parts from each of them in the areas, where the organization has the most urgent needs. Here are some of Sessions points:
“Zachman tells you how to categorize your artifacts. TOGAF gives you a process for creating them.”
“TOGAF merely describes how to generate an enterprise architecture, not necessarily how to generate a good enterprise architecture.”
“FEA is the most complete of all the methodologies discussed so far. It has both a comprehensive taxonomy, like Zachman, and an architectural process, like TOGAF. FEA can be viewed as either a methodology for creating an enterprise architecture or the result of applying that process to a particular enterprise—namely, the U.S. Government.”
“The best summation of the Gartner practice that I have heard is the following: Architecture is a verb, not a noun.”
Sessions takes the reader through the history of Enterprise Architecture and compares The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architectures, The Open Group Architectural Framework (TOGAF), The Federal Enterprise Architecture and The Gartner Methodology. The article is easy to read through and uses a understandable and simple case to examplify the points. Sessions main conclusion being that none of the presented Enterprise Architecture methodologies is really complete. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. And most important - as Sessions also points out - the organization cannot succeed using any of them without commitment from the highest level of the organization. That is very much in line with my experience! Sessions offers a comparison of the methodologies and recommend using the best parts from each of them in the areas, where the organization has the most urgent needs. Here are some of Sessions points:
“Zachman tells you how to categorize your artifacts. TOGAF gives you a process for creating them.”
“TOGAF merely describes how to generate an enterprise architecture, not necessarily how to generate a good enterprise architecture.”
“FEA is the most complete of all the methodologies discussed so far. It has both a comprehensive taxonomy, like Zachman, and an architectural process, like TOGAF. FEA can be viewed as either a methodology for creating an enterprise architecture or the result of applying that process to a particular enterprise—namely, the U.S. Government.”
“The best summation of the Gartner practice that I have heard is the following: Architecture is a verb, not a noun.”
Thursday, October 4, 2007
so much to do
I have been quiet because my head has been buried in a proposal. The Federal Government decided to give us only two weeks to respond to its RFP which we have been chasing for two years. We did a lot of work in advance but unfortunately its contents did not match the RFP and pretty much everything had to be thrown out. Then I made a short trip to see my mom in beautiful Hilton Head Island, South Carolina.
I have so many conferences and training coming up.
Next week I will be attending a free 2-day training session on the Methodology for Business Transformation (MBT) approach employed by the Department of Interior (DOI) Enterprise Architecture (EA) program. Northrop Grumman has been the lead contractor on this program, which created the MBT, based on the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Accounting Office (GAO) have consistently ranked this program as having the highest of all ratings among all Federal Enterprise Architecture programs.
At the end of this month (October) I fly to Orlando for 4 days for PegaWorld 2007. Then next month I go to San Francisco for Oracle Open World 2007 where I will get to listen to people such as Michael Dell and Larry Ellison speak. I am not a groupie but it should be interesting what these guys have to say. I have never heard either of them speak live although I did listen to an audio version of Michael Dell's book seven years ago.
I get back on November 16, just in time to fly on the 17th to Europe for 2 weeks. ;-D
And between now and the first of March I have to attend three courses I have already paid for at the Learning Tree. I bought a training passport, not really realizing how difficult it was going to be to find time to attend four different training classes. I have had to schedule and reschedule and reschedule and reschedule again. In March it expires so I no longer have room to negotiate.
I cannot wait to get to Europe. ;-D
I have so many conferences and training coming up.
Next week I will be attending a free 2-day training session on the Methodology for Business Transformation (MBT) approach employed by the Department of Interior (DOI) Enterprise Architecture (EA) program. Northrop Grumman has been the lead contractor on this program, which created the MBT, based on the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Accounting Office (GAO) have consistently ranked this program as having the highest of all ratings among all Federal Enterprise Architecture programs.
At the end of this month (October) I fly to Orlando for 4 days for PegaWorld 2007. Then next month I go to San Francisco for Oracle Open World 2007 where I will get to listen to people such as Michael Dell and Larry Ellison speak. I am not a groupie but it should be interesting what these guys have to say. I have never heard either of them speak live although I did listen to an audio version of Michael Dell's book seven years ago.
I get back on November 16, just in time to fly on the 17th to Europe for 2 weeks. ;-D
And between now and the first of March I have to attend three courses I have already paid for at the Learning Tree. I bought a training passport, not really realizing how difficult it was going to be to find time to attend four different training classes. I have had to schedule and reschedule and reschedule and reschedule again. In March it expires so I no longer have room to negotiate.
I cannot wait to get to Europe. ;-D
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
on perseverance
I am feeling tired... This past weekend was Labor Day -- a 3 or 4 day holiday for most folks... I was supposed to go visit my mother. But we are sitting waiting for the federal govt to release an RFP and we expect to be given only about a week since the govt has to award the contract THIS MONTH due to their fiscal budget. So I worked all 3 days... And today is Wednesday and still no RFP. :-( Anyway, we have been having lively discussions about Enterprise Architecture and Service Oriented Architecture and their boundaries -- talking about such things as it is wise to plan a large SOA project without considering EA? (no of course its not wise but how much do you need to elaborate?) And is it practical to adopt a SOA methodology that requires you to consider (or lay the groundwork for) EA (no its not...there are many projects out there which are candidates for SOA but the organization doesn't want to hear anything about EA) and how much groundwork is enough and how much is too much? Anyway, one of the folks involved in this discussion sent out the following quote (he was angry because he felt unfairly criticized -- he was and he also took it too seriously--sometimes its best to just let things roll off your shoulder).
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
interesting article on wikipedia
I have been busy doing some major off-line writing but wanted to share an article that I thought was kind of interesting..
CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
Randall Mikkelsen
August 17, 2007 (Reuters) People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.
The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.
The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.
The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.
WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.
Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.
Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed.
CIA spokesman George Little said he could not confirm whether CIA computers were used in the changes, adding that "the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly."
The FBI did not have an immediate response.
Computers at numerous other organizations and companies were found to have been involved in editing articles related to them.
Griffith said he developed WikiScanner "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to."
It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, Griffith said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization's network.
It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization.
However, she said, "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.
CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
Randall Mikkelsen
August 17, 2007 (Reuters) People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.
The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.
The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.
The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.
WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.
Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.
Aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were removed using a computer traced to the FBI, WikiScanner showed.
CIA spokesman George Little said he could not confirm whether CIA computers were used in the changes, adding that "the agency always expects its computer systems to be used responsibly."
The FBI did not have an immediate response.
Computers at numerous other organizations and companies were found to have been involved in editing articles related to them.
Griffith said he developed WikiScanner "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to."
It was not known whether changes were made by an official representative of an agency or company, Griffith said, but it was certain the change was made by someone with access to the organization's network.
It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization.
However, she said, "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
