<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1334203</id>
	<title>CIA Officers Are Warming To Intellipedia</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245075180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iu6iOvDlOcujzvTPLiTWvBiOia4w">CIA is adopting Web 2.0 tools like collaborative wikis but not without a struggle</a> in an agency with an ingrained culture of secrecy. 'We're still kind of in this early adoptive stage,' says Sean Dennehy, a CIA analyst and self-described 'evangelist' for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellipedia">Intellipedia, the US intelligence community's version of the popular user-curated online encyclopedia Wikipedia</a> adding that 'trying to implement these tools in the intelligence community is basically like telling people that their parents raised them wrong. It is a huge cultural change.' Dennehy says Intellipedia, which runs on secure government intranets and is used by 16 US intelligence agencies, was started as a pilot project in 2005 and now has approximately 100,000 user accounts and gets about 4,000 edits a day. 'Some people have (supported it) but there's still a lot of other folks kind of sitting on the fence.' Dennehy says wikis are 'a challenge to our culture because we grew up in this kind of "need to know" culture and now we need a balance between "need to know" and "need to share."' A desire to compartamentalize information is another problem. 'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?"' The <a href="http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/02/18/Intellipedia.aspx">growth of Intellipedia has so far largely been fueled by early adopters and enthusiasts</a> says Chris Rasmussen, a social-software knowledge manager and trainer at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. 'We are struggling to take it to the next level.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The CIA is adopting Web 2.0 tools like collaborative wikis but not without a struggle in an agency with an ingrained culture of secrecy .
'We 're still kind of in this early adoptive stage, ' says Sean Dennehy , a CIA analyst and self-described 'evangelist ' for Intellipedia , the US intelligence community 's version of the popular user-curated online encyclopedia Wikipedia adding that 'trying to implement these tools in the intelligence community is basically like telling people that their parents raised them wrong .
It is a huge cultural change .
' Dennehy says Intellipedia , which runs on secure government intranets and is used by 16 US intelligence agencies , was started as a pilot project in 2005 and now has approximately 100,000 user accounts and gets about 4,000 edits a day .
'Some people have ( supported it ) but there 's still a lot of other folks kind of sitting on the fence .
' Dennehy says wikis are 'a challenge to our culture because we grew up in this kind of " need to know " culture and now we need a balance between " need to know " and " need to share .
" ' A desire to compartamentalize information is another problem .
'Inevitably , every person , the first question we were asked is " How do I lock down a page ?
" or " How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that ?
" ' The growth of Intellipedia has so far largely been fueled by early adopters and enthusiasts says Chris Rasmussen , a social-software knowledge manager and trainer at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency .
'We are struggling to take it to the next level .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The CIA is adopting Web 2.0 tools like collaborative wikis but not without a struggle in an agency with an ingrained culture of secrecy.
'We're still kind of in this early adoptive stage,' says Sean Dennehy, a CIA analyst and self-described 'evangelist' for Intellipedia, the US intelligence community's version of the popular user-curated online encyclopedia Wikipedia adding that 'trying to implement these tools in the intelligence community is basically like telling people that their parents raised them wrong.
It is a huge cultural change.
' Dennehy says Intellipedia, which runs on secure government intranets and is used by 16 US intelligence agencies, was started as a pilot project in 2005 and now has approximately 100,000 user accounts and gets about 4,000 edits a day.
'Some people have (supported it) but there's still a lot of other folks kind of sitting on the fence.
' Dennehy says wikis are 'a challenge to our culture because we grew up in this kind of "need to know" culture and now we need a balance between "need to know" and "need to share.
"' A desire to compartamentalize information is another problem.
'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?
" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?
"' The growth of Intellipedia has so far largely been fueled by early adopters and enthusiasts says Chris Rasmussen, a social-software knowledge manager and trainer at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
'We are struggling to take it to the next level.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337241</id>
	<title>Intellipedia</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?"'</p></div><p>Intellipedia: 3 million pages, all blacked out.</p><p>BTW, have they been sued by Intel for trademark infringement yet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Inevitably , every person , the first question we were asked is " How do I lock down a page ?
" or " How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that ?
" 'Intellipedia : 3 million pages , all blacked out.BTW , have they been sued by Intel for trademark infringement yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Inevitably, every person, the first question we were asked is "How do I lock down a page?
" or "How do I lock down a page so that just my five colleagues can access that?
"'Intellipedia: 3 million pages, all blacked out.BTW, have they been sued by Intel for trademark infringement yet?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334761</id>
	<title>Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting to undo accidental mod</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to undo accidental mod</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to undo accidental mod</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335193</id>
	<title>Re:What happens when it's hacked?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1245080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm kind of hoping this is some billion dollar counter-intelligence initiative.  All the "sensitive" information on this site will have just enough truth to be dangerously false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of hoping this is some billion dollar counter-intelligence initiative .
All the " sensitive " information on this site will have just enough truth to be dangerously false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of hoping this is some billion dollar counter-intelligence initiative.
All the "sensitive" information on this site will have just enough truth to be dangerously false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335697</id>
	<title>Re:Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intellipedia has no SCI information (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive\_Compartmented\_Information" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive\_Compartmented\_Information</a> [wikipedia.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intellipedia has no SCI information ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive \ _Compartmented \ _Information [ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intellipedia has no SCI information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive\_Compartmented\_Information [wikipedia.org])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335183</id>
	<title>I'm still somewhat skeptical</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1245080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While things like this may work, small scale wikis for businesses and government entities won't be as successful as some of their proponents hope.  The essential advantage of projects like Wikipedia is that most of the people spending time on them are using time they'd otherwise spend procrastinating (playing Solitaire, Minesweeper, WoW etc.) Thus, the resources going in would be otherwise wasted. In that regard, Wikipedia is sort of like a distributed computing system for the human brain. However, Intellipedia and similar projects don't share that advantage. They are explicitly work related so people won't use them to procrastinate. In the case of Intellipedia, the situation is even worse, since security restrictions prevent anyone from editing anywhere other than work. Thus, the only time spent on it will be time otherwise spent doing other work. There are still major advantages to Wikis but these issues take away one of the largest. Intellipedia will thus likely grow and become a useful tool for the intelligence community. But I doubt it will ever become as commonly used in the intelligence community as Wikipedia is used in the normal world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While things like this may work , small scale wikis for businesses and government entities wo n't be as successful as some of their proponents hope .
The essential advantage of projects like Wikipedia is that most of the people spending time on them are using time they 'd otherwise spend procrastinating ( playing Solitaire , Minesweeper , WoW etc .
) Thus , the resources going in would be otherwise wasted .
In that regard , Wikipedia is sort of like a distributed computing system for the human brain .
However , Intellipedia and similar projects do n't share that advantage .
They are explicitly work related so people wo n't use them to procrastinate .
In the case of Intellipedia , the situation is even worse , since security restrictions prevent anyone from editing anywhere other than work .
Thus , the only time spent on it will be time otherwise spent doing other work .
There are still major advantages to Wikis but these issues take away one of the largest .
Intellipedia will thus likely grow and become a useful tool for the intelligence community .
But I doubt it will ever become as commonly used in the intelligence community as Wikipedia is used in the normal world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While things like this may work, small scale wikis for businesses and government entities won't be as successful as some of their proponents hope.
The essential advantage of projects like Wikipedia is that most of the people spending time on them are using time they'd otherwise spend procrastinating (playing Solitaire, Minesweeper, WoW etc.
) Thus, the resources going in would be otherwise wasted.
In that regard, Wikipedia is sort of like a distributed computing system for the human brain.
However, Intellipedia and similar projects don't share that advantage.
They are explicitly work related so people won't use them to procrastinate.
In the case of Intellipedia, the situation is even worse, since security restrictions prevent anyone from editing anywhere other than work.
Thus, the only time spent on it will be time otherwise spent doing other work.
There are still major advantages to Wikis but these issues take away one of the largest.
Intellipedia will thus likely grow and become a useful tool for the intelligence community.
But I doubt it will ever become as commonly used in the intelligence community as Wikipedia is used in the normal world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337801</id>
	<title>Paranoia justified in the spy business.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.</i></p><p>This is the spy business we're talking about... imagine, if you will, if any of the following had access to the total USA "spy-o-pedia":</p><p>Harold Nicholson<br>Robert Philip Hanssen<br>Aldrich Ames<br>David Boone<br>Christopher Boyce<br>Thomas Cavanaugh<br>Lona Cohen<br>George Trofimoff<br>John Walker<br>Jerry Whitworth</p><p>I mean, there's plenty more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And IMHO , paranoia about employees " stealing " information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.This is the spy business we 're talking about... imagine , if you will , if any of the following had access to the total USA " spy-o-pedia " : Harold NicholsonRobert Philip HanssenAldrich AmesDavid BooneChristopher BoyceThomas CavanaughLona CohenGeorge TrofimoffJohn WalkerJerry WhitworthI mean , there 's plenty more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.This is the spy business we're talking about... imagine, if you will, if any of the following had access to the total USA "spy-o-pedia":Harold NicholsonRobert Philip HanssenAldrich AmesDavid BooneChristopher BoyceThomas CavanaughLona CohenGeorge TrofimoffJohn WalkerJerry WhitworthI mean, there's plenty more...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281</id>
	<title>How is anyone still on the fence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get off the fence and start sharing.</p><p>A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.</p><p>Sure, old habits are hard to break.  But when you watch thousands of people die because of your agency's failure, that should probably do the trick.</p><p>And if it didn't, you need to GTFO and find another line of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off the fence and start sharing.A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.Sure , old habits are hard to break .
But when you watch thousands of people die because of your agency 's failure , that should probably do the trick.And if it did n't , you need to GTFO and find another line of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off the fence and start sharing.A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.Sure, old habits are hard to break.
But when you watch thousands of people die because of your agency's failure, that should probably do the trick.And if it didn't, you need to GTFO and find another line of work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335025</id>
	<title>I love it</title>
	<author>Stormcrow309</author>
	<datestamp>1245080040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well cited, very informative. I love it. Hey, what is with the helicopter over the hou0u8409ulksfd['OQ#([No Carrier]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well cited , very informative .
I love it .
Hey , what is with the helicopter over the hou0u8409ulksfd [ 'OQ # ( [ No Carrier ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well cited, very informative.
I love it.
Hey, what is with the helicopter over the hou0u8409ulksfd['OQ#([No Carrier]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335271</id>
	<title>Re:What happens when it's hacked?</title>
	<author>yerktoader</author>
	<datestamp>1245081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>For starters, <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/11/21/201240/Worm-Attack-Prompts-DoD-To-Ban-Use-of-External-Media?art\_pos=1&amp;art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org">USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networks,</a> [slashdot.org] due to a worm appearing on unclassified military networks(separate from the classified networks).<br> <br>
Second, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellipedia" title="wikipedia.org">Intellipedia is separated by classification of the given network</a> [wikipedia.org], and is not on a single network.  So the data may be important, but does not necessarily constitute <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified\_information" title="wikipedia.org">"exceptionally grave damage"</a> [wikipedia.org] if leaked.<br> <br>
Third, it's a lot of data so unless a spy or mole was only taking certain entries it would be difficult to take all of it not only in one drive but at once.<br> <br>
Fourth, since the intelligence community is warming to it(yes, <i>sometimes</i> some of them are bumbling idiots), analysts have muddled the concept of Intellepidia, written reports and debated the subject with leadership.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellipedia#Potential\_problems" title="wikipedia.org">If it was such a terrible idea it would have gotten the axe by now.</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard.  Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.<br> <br>
Also, Intellipedia covers a multitude of subjects, not just people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networks , [ slashdot.org ] due to a worm appearing on unclassified military networks ( separate from the classified networks ) .
Second , Intellipedia is separated by classification of the given network [ wikipedia.org ] , and is not on a single network .
So the data may be important , but does not necessarily constitute " exceptionally grave damage " [ wikipedia.org ] if leaked .
Third , it 's a lot of data so unless a spy or mole was only taking certain entries it would be difficult to take all of it not only in one drive but at once .
Fourth , since the intelligence community is warming to it ( yes , sometimes some of them are bumbling idiots ) , analysts have muddled the concept of Intellepidia , written reports and debated the subject with leadership .
If it was such a terrible idea it would have gotten the axe by now .
[ wikipedia.org ] Fifth , stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard .
Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy , so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it 's getting out .
Also , Intellipedia covers a multitude of subjects , not just people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networks, [slashdot.org] due to a worm appearing on unclassified military networks(separate from the classified networks).
Second, Intellipedia is separated by classification of the given network [wikipedia.org], and is not on a single network.
So the data may be important, but does not necessarily constitute "exceptionally grave damage" [wikipedia.org] if leaked.
Third, it's a lot of data so unless a spy or mole was only taking certain entries it would be difficult to take all of it not only in one drive but at once.
Fourth, since the intelligence community is warming to it(yes, sometimes some of them are bumbling idiots), analysts have muddled the concept of Intellepidia, written reports and debated the subject with leadership.
If it was such a terrible idea it would have gotten the axe by now.
[wikipedia.org]  
Fifth, stealing data from outside a classified DOD network is terribly hard.
Having a clearance means that the DOD thinks a given person is trustworthy, so unless a person decides to become a spy there is no way it's getting out.
Also, Intellipedia covers a multitude of subjects, not just people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335217</id>
	<title>Re:Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop...</title>
	<author>Icarus1919</author>
	<datestamp>1245080940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Btw, I hate to be a nazi, but it's fell swoop and not well swoop. Fell as in deadly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Btw , I hate to be a nazi , but it 's fell swoop and not well swoop .
Fell as in deadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Btw, I hate to be a nazi, but it's fell swoop and not well swoop.
Fell as in deadly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334975</id>
	<title>Implement ACL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually kinda simple, you just modify wiki software in such a way that the page creator can specify default behavior of the page and add user accounts to the ACL of that page. It requires 1 custom column on the page data table for default behavior and 1 table to store the ACL info. The ACL table should have a composite key of page id, user name, access level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually kinda simple , you just modify wiki software in such a way that the page creator can specify default behavior of the page and add user accounts to the ACL of that page .
It requires 1 custom column on the page data table for default behavior and 1 table to store the ACL info .
The ACL table should have a composite key of page id , user name , access level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually kinda simple, you just modify wiki software in such a way that the page creator can specify default behavior of the page and add user accounts to the ACL of that page.
It requires 1 custom column on the page data table for default behavior and 1 table to store the ACL info.
The ACL table should have a composite key of page id, user name, access level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28348653</id>
	<title>Re:IAAIU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245172140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities.</p></div><p>Yeah, it's rad.  This will be the case everywhere soon.</p><p>Anonymity is valuable, but so is credence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities.Yeah , it 's rad .
This will be the case everywhere soon.Anonymity is valuable , but so is credence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities.Yeah, it's rad.
This will be the case everywhere soon.Anonymity is valuable, but so is credence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927</id>
	<title>Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245079680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason you compartmentalize information is so that it can't all be lost in one well swoop.  Now, with intellipedia, someone makes a copy of it, loses it, and boom, all the work product of the CIA would wind up on the internet.  I would predict that this is inevitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason you compartmentalize information is so that it ca n't all be lost in one well swoop .
Now , with intellipedia , someone makes a copy of it , loses it , and boom , all the work product of the CIA would wind up on the internet .
I would predict that this is inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason you compartmentalize information is so that it can't all be lost in one well swoop.
Now, with intellipedia, someone makes a copy of it, loses it, and boom, all the work product of the CIA would wind up on the internet.
I would predict that this is inevitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335659</id>
	<title>What About Those Chinese Wiggers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anybody post the Intellipedia page for those Chinese Wiggers our Exalted Leader just released into the Bermudian wilderness?</p><p>Enquiring minds want to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anybody post the Intellipedia page for those Chinese Wiggers our Exalted Leader just released into the Bermudian wilderness ? Enquiring minds want to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anybody post the Intellipedia page for those Chinese Wiggers our Exalted Leader just released into the Bermudian wilderness?Enquiring minds want to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335695</id>
	<title>Re:How is anyone still on the fence?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1245083160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Get off the fence and start sharing.</p><p>A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.</p></div><p>Which lead to ther budget DOUBLING.</p><p>Watching thousands of people die was very good for their expense accounts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off the fence and start sharing.A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.Which lead to ther budget DOUBLING.Watching thousands of people die was very good for their expense accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off the fence and start sharing.A lack of sharing is pretty clearly responsible for the success of the attacks on 9/11.Which lead to ther budget DOUBLING.Watching thousands of people die was very good for their expense accounts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338043</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of Surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245093360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the leadership that has been slowly retiring over the last few years actually really did "get it" on collaboration.  Particularly those in ODNI and with NSC responsibilities.  I would hypothesize that the GS 15's &amp; 14's are the real problem (mid-late career beaurocrats who can't think outside the box).  They are typically the ones who get lost in turf battles between organizations while exhibiting stove-pipe-blindedness.  The executive leadership are far more concerned with getting usable data that they need to make informed decisions, regardless of the TLA of the source be it ODNI or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mil.</p><p>The comments here are are hilarious for their know-it-all ignorance of the IC, security, etc. I may not be nominated for DDNI anytime soon, but I'm familiar enough to laugh at the people in the tinfoil hats.  Also at the cheerleaders for their particular organizations losing sight of the big picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the leadership that has been slowly retiring over the last few years actually really did " get it " on collaboration .
Particularly those in ODNI and with NSC responsibilities .
I would hypothesize that the GS 15 's &amp; 14 's are the real problem ( mid-late career beaurocrats who ca n't think outside the box ) .
They are typically the ones who get lost in turf battles between organizations while exhibiting stove-pipe-blindedness .
The executive leadership are far more concerned with getting usable data that they need to make informed decisions , regardless of the TLA of the source be it ODNI or .mil.The comments here are are hilarious for their know-it-all ignorance of the IC , security , etc .
I may not be nominated for DDNI anytime soon , but I 'm familiar enough to laugh at the people in the tinfoil hats .
Also at the cheerleaders for their particular organizations losing sight of the big picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the leadership that has been slowly retiring over the last few years actually really did "get it" on collaboration.
Particularly those in ODNI and with NSC responsibilities.
I would hypothesize that the GS 15's &amp; 14's are the real problem (mid-late career beaurocrats who can't think outside the box).
They are typically the ones who get lost in turf battles between organizations while exhibiting stove-pipe-blindedness.
The executive leadership are far more concerned with getting usable data that they need to make informed decisions, regardless of the TLA of the source be it ODNI or .mil.The comments here are are hilarious for their know-it-all ignorance of the IC, security, etc.
I may not be nominated for DDNI anytime soon, but I'm familiar enough to laugh at the people in the tinfoil hats.
Also at the cheerleaders for their particular organizations losing sight of the big picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335037</id>
	<title>Re:Posting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Posting to undo accidental mod<br>Let's think about that.  You're the first post.  Who did you mod?</p><p>This is mysterious.  I'm guessing there's some steganographic message here about a sting axe and the Talmud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Posting to undo accidental modLet 's think about that .
You 're the first post .
Who did you mod ? This is mysterious .
I 'm guessing there 's some steganographic message here about a sting axe and the Talmud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Posting to undo accidental modLet's think about that.
You're the first post.
Who did you mod?This is mysterious.
I'm guessing there's some steganographic message here about a sting axe and the Talmud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335073</id>
	<title>Re:What happens when it's hacked?</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1245080280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way that much of the info is protected is that networked computers containing classified info are encripted which makes hacking them usless, also USB ports are disabled along with all other writing devices.  I'm by no means saying that it would be 100\% secure but you will always give up security once you start adding users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way that much of the info is protected is that networked computers containing classified info are encripted which makes hacking them usless , also USB ports are disabled along with all other writing devices .
I 'm by no means saying that it would be 100 \ % secure but you will always give up security once you start adding users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way that much of the info is protected is that networked computers containing classified info are encripted which makes hacking them usless, also USB ports are disabled along with all other writing devices.
I'm by no means saying that it would be 100\% secure but you will always give up security once you start adding users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335167</id>
	<title>Re:Intellipedia surfaces on a laptop...</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1245080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you (and many others on these boards) for distributing the FUD.</p><p>As I hope we all have learned by now, information that is "compartmentalized" is far less valuable.  Little bits of data from disparate sources can reveal patterns that those gathering the intelligence would miss.</p><p>And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you ( and many others on these boards ) for distributing the FUD.As I hope we all have learned by now , information that is " compartmentalized " is far less valuable .
Little bits of data from disparate sources can reveal patterns that those gathering the intelligence would miss.And IMHO , paranoia about employees " stealing " information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you (and many others on these boards) for distributing the FUD.As I hope we all have learned by now, information that is "compartmentalized" is far less valuable.
Little bits of data from disparate sources can reveal patterns that those gathering the intelligence would miss.And IMHO, paranoia about employees "stealing" information should not stand in the way of increasing the efficiency of intelligence gathering and analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337019</id>
	<title>Re:What happens when it's hacked?</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1245088740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For starters, USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networks</p></div><p>So they were hit by the Windows "Autorun from USB" idiocy too? Serves them right...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For starters , USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networksSo they were hit by the Windows " Autorun from USB " idiocy too ?
Serves them right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For starters, USB devices are no longer allowed on any DOD networksSo they were hit by the Windows "Autorun from USB" idiocy too?
Serves them right...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257</id>
	<title>IAAIU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAIU - I Am An Intellipedia User.</p><p>It's not connected to the Internet, and it handles compartmentalized information quite well, thanks. It's actually been quite incredible watching it "grow up" over the past few years. It's also not plagued by the problems that most people associate with Wikis - astroturfing, self-made experts, anonymous contributions - and sure, you will have people with special "pet" pages, it is because they are, in fact, the acknowledged expert and have a vested interest in making sure that the information on the page is as correct as possible.</p><p>Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities. Yeah. It's rad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAIU - I Am An Intellipedia User.It 's not connected to the Internet , and it handles compartmentalized information quite well , thanks .
It 's actually been quite incredible watching it " grow up " over the past few years .
It 's also not plagued by the problems that most people associate with Wikis - astroturfing , self-made experts , anonymous contributions - and sure , you will have people with special " pet " pages , it is because they are , in fact , the acknowledged expert and have a vested interest in making sure that the information on the page is as correct as possible.Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities .
Yeah. It 's rad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAIU - I Am An Intellipedia User.It's not connected to the Internet, and it handles compartmentalized information quite well, thanks.
It's actually been quite incredible watching it "grow up" over the past few years.
It's also not plagued by the problems that most people associate with Wikis - astroturfing, self-made experts, anonymous contributions - and sure, you will have people with special "pet" pages, it is because they are, in fact, the acknowledged expert and have a vested interest in making sure that the information on the page is as correct as possible.Imagine Wikipedia made entirely of subject matter experts who have verified credentials and identities.
Yeah. It's rad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915</id>
	<title>What happens when it's hacked?</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1245079620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, lets put all our information on 10's of thousands of people, in a single database for easy access, nothing can go wrong... No one has USB's or anything, and everyone of our many employees is trustworthy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , lets put all our information on 10 's of thousands of people , in a single database for easy access , nothing can go wrong... No one has USB 's or anything , and everyone of our many employees is trustworthy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, lets put all our information on 10's of thousands of people, in a single database for easy access, nothing can go wrong... No one has USB's or anything, and everyone of our many employees is trustworthy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336519</id>
	<title>Re:IAAIU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got moles? Sleeping double agents?<br>It doens't seem safe to put such blind trust in the platform, given that the intelligence industry is ^famous^ for agencies trying to infiltrate and trick each other.</p><p>Chance of incorrect information: Very low. Damage from blindly acting on incorrect information: National Security Risk and up, without bounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got moles ?
Sleeping double agents ? It doens't seem safe to put such blind trust in the platform , given that the intelligence industry is ^ famous ^ for agencies trying to infiltrate and trick each other.Chance of incorrect information : Very low .
Damage from blindly acting on incorrect information : National Security Risk and up , without bounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got moles?
Sleeping double agents?It doens't seem safe to put such blind trust in the platform, given that the intelligence industry is ^famous^ for agencies trying to infiltrate and trick each other.Chance of incorrect information: Very low.
Damage from blindly acting on incorrect information: National Security Risk and up, without bounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28343937</id>
	<title>After reading the comments, it is obvious...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1245083100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...to me that the marriage counseling hasn't worked.

Oh, well...one thing is still true:  If you need someone to vent to, you can be sure that the NSA still listens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...to me that the marriage counseling has n't worked .
Oh , well...one thing is still true : If you need someone to vent to , you can be sure that the NSA still listens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to me that the marriage counseling hasn't worked.
Oh, well...one thing is still true:  If you need someone to vent to, you can be sure that the NSA still listens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28345607</id>
	<title>Re:How is anyone still on the fence?</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1245147840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but it made a handy excuse for setting up a global network of CIA torture camps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but it made a handy excuse for setting up a global network of CIA torture camps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but it made a handy excuse for setting up a global network of CIA torture camps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337413</id>
	<title>Re:Login information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your article was about to get CSD A7'd, but now there's a citation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your article was about to get CSD A7 'd , but now there 's a citation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your article was about to get CSD A7'd, but now there's a citation!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336103</id>
	<title>Re:How is anyone still on the fence?</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1245084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How quaint - someone who believes the CIA exists or has *ever* existed to protect American lives.</p><p>Don't ever lose that innocence, it's just all so warm and fuzzy to see someone so naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How quaint - someone who believes the CIA exists or has * ever * existed to protect American lives.Do n't ever lose that innocence , it 's just all so warm and fuzzy to see someone so naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How quaint - someone who believes the CIA exists or has *ever* existed to protect American lives.Don't ever lose that innocence, it's just all so warm and fuzzy to see someone so naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335639</id>
	<title>Re:Login information</title>
	<author>jambox</author>
	<datestamp>1245083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>User = jack.bauer
password = isgoingtokillyou</htmltext>
<tokenext>User = jack.bauer password = isgoingtokillyou</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User = jack.bauer
password = isgoingtokillyou</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969</id>
	<title>Kind of Surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>CIA is about the last agency I'd suspect of trying this.  I use Intellipedia at work, and have been trying to advocate its use more, but like TFS said, most people in the IC talk about "need to know", not "need to share."  There's a lot of products that really should just be pages on Intellipedia, like biographies on important people, but instead are powerpoint slides on someone's hard drive.  Meanwhile, multiple commands are tracking the same people but aren't sharing info on those bios.  I think we'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CIA is about the last agency I 'd suspect of trying this .
I use Intellipedia at work , and have been trying to advocate its use more , but like TFS said , most people in the IC talk about " need to know " , not " need to share .
" There 's a lot of products that really should just be pages on Intellipedia , like biographies on important people , but instead are powerpoint slides on someone 's hard drive .
Meanwhile , multiple commands are tracking the same people but are n't sharing info on those bios .
I think we 'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CIA is about the last agency I'd suspect of trying this.
I use Intellipedia at work, and have been trying to advocate its use more, but like TFS said, most people in the IC talk about "need to know", not "need to share.
"  There's a lot of products that really should just be pages on Intellipedia, like biographies on important people, but instead are powerpoint slides on someone's hard drive.
Meanwhile, multiple commands are tracking the same people but aren't sharing info on those bios.
I think we'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337885</id>
	<title>Re:How is anyone still on the fence?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1245092640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me guess, the CIA planned 9/11 right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess , the CIA planned 9/11 right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess, the CIA planned 9/11 right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335187</id>
	<title>America is ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>now closely approaching a Soviet state, where anyone can 'contribute' intelligence information.

Seriously though, how to verify and authenticate such 'information'. What is to prohibit someone just putting your name in the database for 'suspicious activities' ? Soon you will be put on a no-fly list.

Better put your neighbor in the wiki before he does...

Posting anonymously so that I don't get added to this wiki.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>now closely approaching a Soviet state , where anyone can 'contribute ' intelligence information .
Seriously though , how to verify and authenticate such 'information' .
What is to prohibit someone just putting your name in the database for 'suspicious activities ' ?
Soon you will be put on a no-fly list .
Better put your neighbor in the wiki before he does.. . Posting anonymously so that I do n't get added to this wiki .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now closely approaching a Soviet state, where anyone can 'contribute' intelligence information.
Seriously though, how to verify and authenticate such 'information'.
What is to prohibit someone just putting your name in the database for 'suspicious activities' ?
Soon you will be put on a no-fly list.
Better put your neighbor in the wiki before he does...

Posting anonymously so that I don't get added to this wiki.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335285</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of Surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> CIA is about the last agency I'd suspect of trying this. I use Intellipedia at work</p></div><p>That's interesting. You apparently had no idea that CIA started, funded, and makes far more edits than any other intelligence organization? Maybe you should know a little more about the tools you use before spouting ridiculous comments.</p><p>People like you were one of the prime reasons I left intelligence. It was so damn tribal. You ever try taking a look at what agencies make the most changes to wikipedia--take a look at the specific updates by a couple agencies in specific (defense, satellites mostly). Those two like to complain about cia the most, yet when you look at what content they upload, a very large percentage is just old intranet homepages ported over to a wiki...same stovepipe, same protection of data, etc. Of course the easiest thing to do is not work on IMPROVING analysis and IMPROVING data collection, but to bitch about other government employees.</p><p>Additionally, it's all great for the people who spend all day hanging out in the jabber talk channels to brag about number of edits, etc, but why don't you share what percentage of edits are done to users' homepages? How many hours spent designing new badges and updating their homepage pictures. (A certain people mentioned the in summary above are infamous in the for how much time he spends updating his personal page, and uploading new pictures and articles about himself).</p><p>Need to know is about compartmentalization and saving lives, not about an inter-agency pissing match.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CIA is about the last agency I 'd suspect of trying this .
I use Intellipedia at workThat 's interesting .
You apparently had no idea that CIA started , funded , and makes far more edits than any other intelligence organization ?
Maybe you should know a little more about the tools you use before spouting ridiculous comments.People like you were one of the prime reasons I left intelligence .
It was so damn tribal .
You ever try taking a look at what agencies make the most changes to wikipedia--take a look at the specific updates by a couple agencies in specific ( defense , satellites mostly ) .
Those two like to complain about cia the most , yet when you look at what content they upload , a very large percentage is just old intranet homepages ported over to a wiki...same stovepipe , same protection of data , etc .
Of course the easiest thing to do is not work on IMPROVING analysis and IMPROVING data collection , but to bitch about other government employees.Additionally , it 's all great for the people who spend all day hanging out in the jabber talk channels to brag about number of edits , etc , but why do n't you share what percentage of edits are done to users ' homepages ?
How many hours spent designing new badges and updating their homepage pictures .
( A certain people mentioned the in summary above are infamous in the for how much time he spends updating his personal page , and uploading new pictures and articles about himself ) .Need to know is about compartmentalization and saving lives , not about an inter-agency pissing match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> CIA is about the last agency I'd suspect of trying this.
I use Intellipedia at workThat's interesting.
You apparently had no idea that CIA started, funded, and makes far more edits than any other intelligence organization?
Maybe you should know a little more about the tools you use before spouting ridiculous comments.People like you were one of the prime reasons I left intelligence.
It was so damn tribal.
You ever try taking a look at what agencies make the most changes to wikipedia--take a look at the specific updates by a couple agencies in specific (defense, satellites mostly).
Those two like to complain about cia the most, yet when you look at what content they upload, a very large percentage is just old intranet homepages ported over to a wiki...same stovepipe, same protection of data, etc.
Of course the easiest thing to do is not work on IMPROVING analysis and IMPROVING data collection, but to bitch about other government employees.Additionally, it's all great for the people who spend all day hanging out in the jabber talk channels to brag about number of edits, etc, but why don't you share what percentage of edits are done to users' homepages?
How many hours spent designing new badges and updating their homepage pictures.
(A certain people mentioned the in summary above are infamous in the for how much time he spends updating his personal page, and uploading new pictures and articles about himself).Need to know is about compartmentalization and saving lives, not about an inter-agency pissing match.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335089</id>
	<title>Intellipedia is not domestic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't store information on American citizens in that kind of network. It's not a "database on 10's of thousands" of people. Think of it more as short useless summary articles on topics like Iraq, Afganistan, insurgent groups, etc. No domestic info at all, by design.</p><p>Additionally, Intellipedia is TS (well, there's a TS version that is used primarily, and a SECRET version that is not used nearly as much), but not SCI (meaning, none of the really high level intelligence. TOP SECRET is \_fairly common\_ access). If somebody is able to read Intellipedia as a spy, you've got much bigger problems that any information they would get from Intellipedia. A later post whined about compartmented information--there is NO compartmented information on Intellipedia.</p><p>Also, Chris Rasmussen is the genius who is trying to introduce twitter to the intelligence analysis community. Apparently he wants to reduce the productivity of intel even further!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't store information on American citizens in that kind of network .
It 's not a " database on 10 's of thousands " of people .
Think of it more as short useless summary articles on topics like Iraq , Afganistan , insurgent groups , etc .
No domestic info at all , by design.Additionally , Intellipedia is TS ( well , there 's a TS version that is used primarily , and a SECRET version that is not used nearly as much ) , but not SCI ( meaning , none of the really high level intelligence .
TOP SECRET is \ _fairly common \ _ access ) .
If somebody is able to read Intellipedia as a spy , you 've got much bigger problems that any information they would get from Intellipedia .
A later post whined about compartmented information--there is NO compartmented information on Intellipedia.Also , Chris Rasmussen is the genius who is trying to introduce twitter to the intelligence analysis community .
Apparently he wants to reduce the productivity of intel even further !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't store information on American citizens in that kind of network.
It's not a "database on 10's of thousands" of people.
Think of it more as short useless summary articles on topics like Iraq, Afganistan, insurgent groups, etc.
No domestic info at all, by design.Additionally, Intellipedia is TS (well, there's a TS version that is used primarily, and a SECRET version that is not used nearly as much), but not SCI (meaning, none of the really high level intelligence.
TOP SECRET is \_fairly common\_ access).
If somebody is able to read Intellipedia as a spy, you've got much bigger problems that any information they would get from Intellipedia.
A later post whined about compartmented information--there is NO compartmented information on Intellipedia.Also, Chris Rasmussen is the genius who is trying to introduce twitter to the intelligence analysis community.
Apparently he wants to reduce the productivity of intel even further!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28339103</id>
	<title>Found all the Intel people at Slashdot</title>
	<author>mu51c10rd</author>
	<datestamp>1245097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking at the posts...seems we did "out" a lot of people who work in the intel community on Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the posts...seems we did " out " a lot of people who work in the intel community on Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at the posts...seems we did "out" a lot of people who work in the intel community on Slashdot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336759</id>
	<title>Using social sites to gather intelligence</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1245087540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about how much information an intelligence agency (foreign or domestic) can get about a person by analyzing social sited like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter: friends, activities, affiliations, even political views.


<br> <br> <a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about how much information an intelligence agency ( foreign or domestic ) can get about a person by analyzing social sited like Facebook , MySpace , LinkedIn , Twitter : friends , activities , affiliations , even political views .
OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about how much information an intelligence agency (foreign or domestic) can get about a person by analyzing social sited like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter: friends, activities, affiliations, even political views.
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338231</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of Surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience with Intellipedia is just a way to expose information about specific programs across multiple agencies, without too many program details. This is different than pages always being about specific places or specific people, this is about detailing various goings on in various compartamentalized environments. </p><p>There are always people within the various organizations and agencies that work on almost the exact same thing... but have no idea that they work on the exact same thing. Hell, there are people within the same organization that do not know that they work on the same stuff as the people sitting in the cubicles one floor down. It's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Even if some pages are imported powerpoints to wiki pages, the exposure they get increases exponentially.</p><p>So, (again, my experience) Intellipedia has turned into a few agencies political tool, a way to expose programs and projects across the IC. Get exposure to your project, get other people using the tools you develop by posting the type of tools and the type of data that you work on (which in some cases is what is classified) into a searchable, central location like Intellipedia and you have increased the efficiency and know-how of all sorts of people across various programs. The beginnings of this are projects that are about to get the axe, edit their information about things they currently do not support, capabilities they do not provide and are basically marketing information for officers/decision makers to not curtail that program's budget. This is the bad part of the politics, but with the way things are going people are doing all sorts of things to keep their pet projects going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience with Intellipedia is just a way to expose information about specific programs across multiple agencies , without too many program details .
This is different than pages always being about specific places or specific people , this is about detailing various goings on in various compartamentalized environments .
There are always people within the various organizations and agencies that work on almost the exact same thing... but have no idea that they work on the exact same thing .
Hell , there are people within the same organization that do not know that they work on the same stuff as the people sitting in the cubicles one floor down .
It 's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing .
Even if some pages are imported powerpoints to wiki pages , the exposure they get increases exponentially.So , ( again , my experience ) Intellipedia has turned into a few agencies political tool , a way to expose programs and projects across the IC .
Get exposure to your project , get other people using the tools you develop by posting the type of tools and the type of data that you work on ( which in some cases is what is classified ) into a searchable , central location like Intellipedia and you have increased the efficiency and know-how of all sorts of people across various programs .
The beginnings of this are projects that are about to get the axe , edit their information about things they currently do not support , capabilities they do not provide and are basically marketing information for officers/decision makers to not curtail that program 's budget .
This is the bad part of the politics , but with the way things are going people are doing all sorts of things to keep their pet projects going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience with Intellipedia is just a way to expose information about specific programs across multiple agencies, without too many program details.
This is different than pages always being about specific places or specific people, this is about detailing various goings on in various compartamentalized environments.
There are always people within the various organizations and agencies that work on almost the exact same thing... but have no idea that they work on the exact same thing.
Hell, there are people within the same organization that do not know that they work on the same stuff as the people sitting in the cubicles one floor down.
It's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
Even if some pages are imported powerpoints to wiki pages, the exposure they get increases exponentially.So, (again, my experience) Intellipedia has turned into a few agencies political tool, a way to expose programs and projects across the IC.
Get exposure to your project, get other people using the tools you develop by posting the type of tools and the type of data that you work on (which in some cases is what is classified) into a searchable, central location like Intellipedia and you have increased the efficiency and know-how of all sorts of people across various programs.
The beginnings of this are projects that are about to get the axe, edit their information about things they currently do not support, capabilities they do not provide and are basically marketing information for officers/decision makers to not curtail that program's budget.
This is the bad part of the politics, but with the way things are going people are doing all sorts of things to keep their pet projects going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335117</id>
	<title>Where do I get the gargoyle kit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could make plenty of Kongbucks uploading to the CIC datab-- err, Intellipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could make plenty of Kongbucks uploading to the CIC datab-- err , Intellipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could make plenty of Kongbucks uploading to the CIC datab-- err, Intellipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875</id>
	<title>Login information</title>
	<author>Alystair</author>
	<datestamp>1245079380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh, seems I've lost my Intellipedia credentials, anyone feel like sharing their account?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , seems I 've lost my Intellipedia credentials , anyone feel like sharing their account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, seems I've lost my Intellipedia credentials, anyone feel like sharing their account?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337977</id>
	<title>Re:Kind of Surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think we'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up.</p></div><p>How long has "Web 2.0" been around (if it's possible to actually say)?  How long does it take to move up to positions of authority in the CIA?  How many decades are we looking at then?  Good luck.</p><p>No, really, best of luck.</p><p>Just saying.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up.How long has " Web 2.0 " been around ( if it 's possible to actually say ) ?
How long does it take to move up to positions of authority in the CIA ?
How many decades are we looking at then ?
Good luck.No , really , best of luck.Just saying.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'll see more progress on this as senior leadership move out and people who grew up on Web 2.0 move up.How long has "Web 2.0" been around (if it's possible to actually say)?
How long does it take to move up to positions of authority in the CIA?
How many decades are we looking at then?
Good luck.No, really, best of luck.Just saying.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28340953</id>
	<title>Sticking our necks out?</title>
	<author>awarrenfells</author>
	<datestamp>1245061560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just seems to me, to be a bad idea about network sensitive intelligence information like that.  I mean, yes, it is all contained behind a very [hopefully] secure network, but there have been far too many cases of [mostly] Chinese hackers breaking into military computer networks from halfway around the world.
<br> <br>
I don't suppose it could stand up to a billion boxen botnet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just seems to me , to be a bad idea about network sensitive intelligence information like that .
I mean , yes , it is all contained behind a very [ hopefully ] secure network , but there have been far too many cases of [ mostly ] Chinese hackers breaking into military computer networks from halfway around the world .
I do n't suppose it could stand up to a billion boxen botnet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just seems to me, to be a bad idea about network sensitive intelligence information like that.
I mean, yes, it is all contained behind a very [hopefully] secure network, but there have been far too many cases of [mostly] Chinese hackers breaking into military computer networks from halfway around the world.
I don't suppose it could stand up to a billion boxen botnet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335027</id>
	<title>Web 2.0?  How about Web 0.2?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a minute... They're describing wikis as Web 2.0?  There was a video, an old <a href="http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8734787622017763097&amp;ei=I1o2So\_VGIz-rgLQmOGgBA&amp;hl=en" title="google.ca">black and white clip</a> [google.ca] of a talk some guy was doing regarding some new fangled invention called the network.  In it he described a bunch of people collaborating on creating a document, including linking to other documents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute... They 're describing wikis as Web 2.0 ?
There was a video , an old black and white clip [ google.ca ] of a talk some guy was doing regarding some new fangled invention called the network .
In it he described a bunch of people collaborating on creating a document , including linking to other documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute... They're describing wikis as Web 2.0?
There was a video, an old black and white clip [google.ca] of a talk some guy was doing regarding some new fangled invention called the network.
In it he described a bunch of people collaborating on creating a document, including linking to other documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28345607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28348653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1334203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28338231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28348653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28339103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28334915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1334203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28336103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28337885
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28345607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1334203.28335695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
