Quantcast

FBI Picks a Fight with Wikipedia

FBI: Take Down Our Seal, Wikimedia Foundation: No.

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:


[ Business]

This week, the New York Times and BBC News both reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has sent the Wikimedia Foundatation a letter, ordering the removal of an image of the Bureau’s seal from its Wikipedia entry. The Wikimedia Foundation’s response thus far has basically  been, "no."

Should the seal be removed from Wikipedia? Share your thoughts.

The NYT provides copies of both the FBI’s letter, and the Wikimedia Foundation’s response. Pretty entertaining stuff. The FBI’s letter, signed by Deputy General Counsel David C. Larson, begins:

It has come to our attention that the FBI seal is posted, without authorization, on Wikipedia at the following site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-FBIShadedSeal. svg . As the site itself notes, "Unauthorized use of the FBI seal . . . is subject to criminal prosecution under Federal criminal law, including 18 U.S.C. 701."

The FBI Seal is an official insignia of the Department of Justice. Its primary purpose is to authenticate the official communications and actions of the FBI. Unauthorized reproduction or use of the FB I Seal is prohibited by 18 United States Code, Section 701, which provides:

Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any insignia, of the design prescribed by the [Department head] or any colordble imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulation made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both…

See the whole letter here (pdf).

Wikipedia's FBI page

The Wikimedia Foundation’s letter, signed by General Counsel Mike Godwin, begins:

Dear Deputy Director Larson,

First, thank you for taking my call Thursday, and congratulations on your imminent retirement after so many years of service. It’s unfortunate that on such an otherwise happy occasion I must inform you that the Bureau’s reading of 18 U.S.C. 701 is both idiosyncratic (made especially so by your strategic redaction of important language) and, more importantly, incorrect.

I’m writing you, of course, regarding your recent letter reiterating the Bureau’s invocation of 18 U.S.C. 701 and your demand for removal of the image of the FBI Seal on Wikipedia (images of which are widely available elsewhere, including on the Encyclopedia Britannica website, last I checked). You may recall that in my initial email response to your estimable Assistant General Counsel, Mr. Binney, I pointed to cases construing Section 701 and that, in a subsequent email, I broadly hinted that ejusdem generis, a standard accepted canon of statutory construction, demonstrates that this statute is inapposite to the use of an image of the seal on an encyclopedia.

It’s clear that you and Mr. Binney took the hint, although perhaps not in the way I would have preferred. Entertainingly, in support for your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that subject the statute to ejusdem generis analysis. While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version of Section 701 that you forwarded to us…

See that whole letter here.

Clearly, the Wikimedia Foundation firmly believes that it is not in the wrong here, and is prepared to go to court with the FBI, if it comes to that, as Godwin notes in the letter.

It will be interesting to see if the FBI pursues this, as everyone else wonders why the FBI isn’t focused on more pressing matters. I can’t imagine what harm the FBI’s seal is doing on a non-profit community encyclopedia site aimed at spreading knowledge.

Which side do you agree with? The FBI’s or the Wikimedia Foundation’s? Let us know.

FBI Picks a Fight with Wikipedia


Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://lanta-krabi.blogspot.com/ Lanta

    Wikipedia are right here, but the law is a bit of an ass and anything can happen.

    The are not trying to be the FBI, just using the image in the context of information. That itself is a bonus as how does anybody know what a FBI seal looks like. Stealing the bitmap from another website is the naughty part.

  • http://www.michaelghurston.com Michael G. Hurston

    I love the response from Wikipedia on this and while I laugh, I also find it a bit saddening to see that the suits in our government are so dead in side, robotic machines. How much longer do we need to wait for that generation to die out…

    • Old Fart

      “How much longer do we need to wait for that generation to die out…”

      Once you’re older, you will realize that generations have nothing to do with it. There have always been “dead inside” power addicts and there always will be. Many of your peers will turn out to be exactly that way.

      Peace, Love and Rock ‘n Roll!

  • Adsense Publisher

    Here’s the problem with what Wikipedia is doing…..

    First, what if anybody who mentioned KFC or the Chicago Cubs, or whatever, could rip off the logo of that business or organization and put it on the page without it being considered ripping off other people’s content?

    Second, tho it makes the page look more official, remember, Wikipedia is not the FBI.
    The FBI has no control over what content is written about it, or not written about it.
    I wouldn’t want the FBI logo on anything that was not officially sanctioned by the FBI.
    See, people tend to forget that logo’s of our government are more than just logo’s.
    They are official seals. That’s why it’s a crime to put them on anything without permission.

    So I think Wikipedia should take down the logo. Just like I think Google should not display ads on pages that contain content they have copied from another site. It’s one thing when it’s simply an index, it’s another when by having your content on their pages, without your permission, they profit because of it.

    • Guest

      You’ve got it exactly right. And agree on the Google paragraph too!

    • Guest

      This coming from the person down in mommy’s basement who thinks people of sound mind would wish — by default — the allowing of anyone and everyone perusing google the ability to walk around their private home looking for possible points of entry, while peering inside their windows. In essence, “casing” it from the comfort of their laptop. *cough*

      Judging from your screen name — call me silly — but I’m guessing you “profit” from those ads as well. (or at least wish to) So, it’s okay for you, but not google? Seriously?
      (and I hate google)

      I’m sorry, but you’re so ridiculously clueless, Adsense Publisher, it’s impossible to take anything that you say seriously. It’s a shame that being stupid isn’t funny anymore, you could’ve made a killing in the comedy industry.

    • Guest

      So following that logic, you are saying that TV News stories should not have pictures included of companies that have done wrong because that story is not desire of that company? If I was ripping people off and got caught, I won’t want the TV companies to make it public knowledge, so if they asked I would tell them NO and that they can’t use any images of my company. Now what are they going to do? They are going to excercise their right to use PUBLIC images.

  • KJ

    Yeah… American Express is suing me, too, for using their logo on my blog. I made the following presentation and put up on my blog. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35116416/kj-Final-Interview-with-Amex) They sent me a letter saying their attorney will contact me. What’s wrong with people these days? Don’t they have anything better to do??

  • http://www.newmoonpads.com Renee

    Looks like in this situation the “Integrity” part of the FBI motto was thrown out the window. Deliberately changing (or omitting) wording in a legal statute to benefit their own intent is deceptive, underhanded and…well…basically every antonym to integrity.

  • Guest

    So by using the word “Adsense” in your posting name, and “KFC” and “Chicago Cubs” in your writing, you should also be punished for infringement? Wikipedia’s use of the FBI’s logo has nothing to do with making the page “look more official”, the page is for information purposes only. It is amazing how Gestapo-ish some people are in the USA these days. It is no wonder that our entire country is now so far removed from its “land of the free” nickname, which no longer rings true thanks to people like you. I seriously doubt that Wikipedia profited in the least from using that particular logo on that particular web page. And so what if they did?

    • Adsense Publisher

      The FBI has made a request and they should have complied.
      I don’t see why you can’t understand that.

      It doesn’t matter what the reason is. A reasonable request should have been complied with. By your logic only if a person makes money from the use of another’s content, then and only then it makes it illegal?

      I would rather Wikipedia embarrass the FBI by replacing the logo with a notice that it had been removed at the FBI’s request. If they simply complied they wouldn’t have to worry about legal proceedings. Now they face fines and possibly jail time. Is it worth it really to fight this? I think not!

      • Guest

        It’s not their logo, it is ours. They work for us. We need to stop them from making up and manipulating laws. It is their sworn duty to uphold the constitution, not act like rabbis bullies.

        Yes it is worth the fight! Just ask the signers of our constitution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/str82u Str82u

        Going to jail? Are you kidding? That’s why you’d take it down and that’s exactly how all of us go around trying to bully anyone who uses our stuff when the legal line is hazy; “You could end up in Federal Court if you don’t take down my stuff…” If people/organizations as public as Wikimedia give in right away. it becomes a precident and soon law; it will just be assumed to be legal until they can make it that way.

        If they were doing it properly, like a DMCA Takedown Notice, they wouldn’t omit or manipulate a public document, like a law, into what they want it to say when used in a compliance letter.

        Your sites are your business, but this is important to some of us. Remember, your tax dollars paid for that logo too, I made a copy for myself. If it says US on it, it belongs to us. Yeah, I paid for copyright laws too, but common, that’s fair use.

        Keep it Str8!

      • Guest

        Yes, if everyone simply did whatever the government tells them to do then we’d all be much happier. We can start by turning in all our guns… then we can only use government accepted language in our communications… after that, we can all get barcodes tattooed on our foreheads so we can easily be identified by government officials… finally we can just tear up that old piece of paper that our founding fathers called a constitution… Or perhaps you should just consider moving yourself to a communist country, where you’ll surely be a much more content little sheep having the government dictating your every day life… You Dumb@ss!

      • Guest

        …”The FBI has made a request and they should have complied”…
        absolutely wrong This is a way of thinking leading to totalitarian systems. Cops requested..you comply. NO As the letter proofs .it’s illegal for FBI to demand taking the logo of public web-site. FBI schould have sometning more important to do for salaries they recive from taxpayers. If they have time to screw with Wikipedia, they schould be fired as not needed any more.
        It’s a dangerous believe in this country that when idiot cop on the street orders people around , they schould comply or get electrocuted. Let’s don’t forget who the public SERVANT is and who the public is.

      • Guest

        You stated:
        “Now they face fines and possibly jail time. Is it worth it really to fight this?”

        YES!!! That is EXACTLY what our country was founded on, FIGHTING for our RIGHTS.

      • Guest

        I hereby request that Adsense Publisher send me the sum of $1,000,000,000.00

        There… I made a request, you should comply.

        Why? Because I said so, that’s why.

  • http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com ron

    simple answer to make everybody (well almost..) happy.
    (1) get letter from FBI, scan logo (then you will not be using somebody else’s bitmap)
    (2) photoshop or other to place the word “specimen” (this is done with UK banknote pictures)across front of logo.
    (3) replace the linked logo to you site with new one linked to your your web space
    (4) wait for new letter from FBI …….
    (5)bang head on wall
    (6) repeat process

  • Str82u

    So the FBI is trying to bully someone? I was really pleased to see that Wikimedia has such capable leadership. I damn near had to use a wiki to read the response.

  • Guest

    I like the Feds less than I do wiki.
    So I’m with wiki on this one.

  • MichaelW from the UK

    The people of America fund and own the FBI,it would therefore seem logical that the seal is in fact in public ownership.
    It is additionally published on the FBI homepage.
    It is up to the people to lobby the lawmakers to make the law understandable AND specific.
    In essence a storm in a teacup spending taxpayers money unnecessarily

  • http://www.mymusicstream.com/4985/ greg renner

    thinks maby the FBI should worry more about “REAL Crime” than Wasting the tax payers money on BS Like This!!!!!! any image search will bring up that seal,,, so why now make a big deal out of nothing……………..

  • Guest

    I agree. Doesn’t the FBI have more imprtant things to do than try to strong arm a non-profit website over something so trivial? I love Wikipedias reply, I just hope the FBI director can understand all the big words that were used. If he doesn’t, maybe he can go to Wikipedia and look them up?

  • http://cozumelrentalvillas.com Bob Rodriguez

    The FBI certainly has other matters to worry about. This is a joke and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

  • http://droidedge.com bj

    I think there are more important things on which the FBI should be focusing their attention, like Wall Street and the financial sector. Geez, if they hadn’t been paying attention to piddly little manure like this maybe they’d have caught onto Madoff sooner . . .

    Though I don’t agree with everything Wikipedia does, I think this is going to be fun to watch, and, after reading the applicable section, I think they’re going to win this one. And if it goes that far it will be an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Again.

    And Michael G. Hurston, it’s not limited to “that generation” (which, if I read you right, I’m a member of) but is a personality type that exists across all generations. You’ll find out . . . LOL!

  • Al Geist

    I cannot believe that the FBI is so upset over the use of their seal. It is public property after all. Personally, I think the FBI’s actions are a classic example of a government agency wasting taxpayer money. If encyclopedias can use the seal, and the seal is posted on public accessible websites, how does Wikipedia’s use of the seal in any way infringe on the reputation or professional abilities of the FBI. They were not using it to make fun of or degrade the agency. The only reason I can see for their actions is the “it’s mine and you can’t have it” little child syndrome that seems to inflict too many government agencies.

  • http://www.masterblade.net Brian Blade

    It seems insulting that the FBI would try to sneak that past Wikipedia leaving out important parts of the statute but I can see their concern in having it removed. I’m sure they’re worried about other people trying to imitate it or whatever, but as Wiki stated it’s easily available elsewhere.

    Question is, why is Wikipedia the target and not other sources? My best guess, Wikipedia is the most popular source. I don’t think the FBI will follow through with it but hey at least they tried :)

    I respect Wikipedia for standing up for their rights, it’s a great source of free information and should not be moderated by any government organizations.

  • Steve L

    This is just ridiculous!
    Another classic case of tax dollars hard at work to justify the job of someone who does nothing.
    Maybe spend that money on an ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION task force?
    No, that would actually work towards making our country SAFER and improve our economy!
    Can’t do that!

    • Dave

      come on, easy targets?

      What they woke up one August morning and said “heeeeeeeyyy, let’s ‘target’ Wiki today! ehhh????”

      Come on man…we’re adults here…

  • http://www.tpjaveton.com Tony

    At first I wondered why has this become such an important and heated issue? I saw no harm in having the seal displayed on the Wikipedia site. However, it has occurred to me that since Wikipedia’s website is opened to all visitors, including those who may have intentions of doing harm to us and our neighbors and allies, perhaps we (Wikipedia) should not be assisting our enemies by presenting the FBI seal on a silver platter (or the silver screen of a computer monitor).

    Unless Wikipedia employs a system which prevents the “copy and paste” or transfer of such an image that could result in its duplication which can then be used to impersonate one of our own FBI officials, they really should cooperate with the FBI and remove this seal and any other image that could compromise our safety and security (example, CIA seal, Presidential Seal, Homeland Security seal, etc.). While it’s okay to be the source of authentic content, it is not acceptable to be the provider of tools to our enemies who will attack us using any possible methods. Content could still be authentic in words only, especially when dealing with matters of National Security.

    Tony-

    • Dave

      Good going man…good points of view…

      When it comes to national security well, we have no idea…read Crypto by Steven Levy, it will change everyone’s perspective on the issue of computers and national security

    • Guest

      Because surely those “enemies” would never think to simply go here http://www.fbi.gov/ to copy it, right?

      Jeezus.

    • http://www.newmoonpads.com Renee

      See, the flaw in this logic is that the FBI themselves has the seal on their website for anyone and everyone to see…and anyone who can hit the “print screen” button on their PC (or shift+command+3 on a Mac) can copy it. You don’t even need to employ the right click copy function. So Wikipedia is not putting anything out there that the FBI haven’t already put out themselves.

    • http://www.italkmoney.com sinip

      Tony, just three words for you.

      Get a life!

      This is internet, anyone can get anybody’s logo in about 15 seconds using Google,and then do anything he/she pleases with it.

  • Dave

    Wrong, Wiki is wrong. It’s a law and it’s for a reason. The law makers didn’t sit sipping tea whilst declaring the the above law would be a law just for the hell of it. There are reasons behind the decision to make it a law.

    Webmasters that reply with NO to crucial, important and sometimes dire requests are simply rude.

    I love wiki but I hope he listens. He won’t win this one – or will he?

    Maybe change is in order…but it would go to the highest court that’s for sure.

    • Scott

      I took the opportunity to look up the statute myself, and you are incorrect. The FBI is in the wrong here, and fraudulently pleaded their case by omitting crucial key points from the law. In essence they attempted to twist the law to back themselves up. The Wiki WILL win this one if it goes to court, I guarantee it.

  • Guest

    This article (though I’m not sure why) grabbed my attention. After reading it carefully, I agree with the Wikimedia Foundation here, they show a good point. Everyone knows that the Wikipedia has thousands of articles of anything and everything that display logos, insignias, and other trademarks and copyrighted information.

    But the point was made clear, by no means are the Wikimedia using the seal, like everything else they have on Wikipedia, for nefarious purposes.

  • Guest

    I read the reports. all they are is patrol reports. very boring. Nothing to worry about.

  • Guest

    That was classic. I LOVE the e-mail back to the FBI, basically saying, you’re so wrong you’ve come full circle to almost being right. Attorneys often state their cases strongly, but Wiki’s lead counsel here looks to be actually laughing at Larson and poking fun at him. CLASSIC.

  • B Key

    I side with wikipedia …the FBI has no time for it’s people it is supposed to serve ..i have submitted several questions about matters over the years ( and legit ones too) and never get a response they are wicked as all other law enforcement ..they pick and choose who they want to fight with ..making them cowards…

  • http://www.sin-clan.org LogicalNonsence

    Rolling

  • http://www.squeezepg.com Jason Lee

    We need more groups like wikipedia who have the balls to stand up for the truth and justice because the FBI sure isn’t doinga good job at it!

  • http://www.highvoltagedefense.com/home_protection_home_security_system.html Security Guy

    Does the FBI (Fraudulent Bumbling Idiots) have nothing better to do with our tax dollars? Are there no crimes taking place? If you believe their statistics crime is going down so I guess we are all safe now no need to prevent real crime, just wait for it to happen.

  • Scott

    This is absolutely a clear indication of both our government’s ineptitude and their inherent talent for wasting funds and time. This would be very comical if it were not so unbelievably sad. I took the opportunity to look up the statute that the FBI’s counsel chose to ‘quote’ and yes it is VERY clear that they chose to leave out the section that the Wikipedia’s counsel pointed out – this is obviously our governments attempt once again to rule through fear and intimidation – not to mention falsehoods and manufactured ‘evidence’.

    FBI – get a LIFE! Go take on some serious business that needs tending – STOP wasting our money!

  • Robert Gulyas

    …regulated by law – no question, they should, or be imprisoned. GRA

  • Alain Castonguay

    It seems to me that case is just a lost of well paid time, and I don’t know who has open this case at FBI, but it should be fire as soon as possible, or give a job which he or she cannot do this kind of things again… I’m believing that Wikipedia is right on that case.

  • http://www.modernfeudalserf.org FeudalSerf

    If in fact the FBI is a department of a federal government that is owned by the people who pay for it, call them “taxpayers”, then the taxpayers are the ultimate owners of anything the FBI has or uses and any law should only apply to misuse with intent to do mischief.

    However this is not the case as the FBI is a department of a privately owned corporation named THE GOVERNMENT of THE UNITED STATES which lists its business address in the city state of WASHINGTON DC … which trades on the SEC and a search of the SEC corporate filings will bring this data up. So in the end the FBI is asserting a copyright restriction over privately owned intellectual property.

    Yes I know that to most that sounds ‘tinfoil hat’ … however doing a little research will prove its a ‘Deer Stalker hat’ … not one of tinfoil. With all the bizarre behavior out of Washington DC the last while; what could possibly be “out of the question”?

  • Guest

    This is such typical behavior of “The Man” in our country now. I don’t give a s#it what “agency” they’re with, they distort, omit, bend, tweak and twist the actual laws written to protect us into something that benefits them and not it’s intended inheritants, most especially according to our constitutional rights.

    All the while, wasting OUR money.

    These agencies are supposed to WORK FOR US and are SWORN to “protect and serve”, “uphold the law”, yet they do nothing of the sort. I see the title “bullies” used quite a few times throughout these comments and I have to agree with that. The FBI, IRS, police, sheriff and all of the rest have become nothing more than obsolete, useless bullies.

    Completely useless.

  • http://www.GiftBasketJewels.com Shirley Bass

    Doesn’t the FBI have a top 10 wanted list or something of value to keep them busy? It’s too bad that someone out there is collecting a wage for targeting Wikipedia. I suppose it shows the level of intelligence Wikipedia is dealing with.

  • Guest John Tunstill

    If the FBI spent a bit more time investigating why their building, the third tower in the 9/11 “twin towers” disaster to collapse, actually fell down, the public in general maybe would feel a little more reassured.

    John Tunstill

  • Guest

    Internet is information, information is free, it is not touchable, it is not an object nor anything that you exert your rights on. You can NOT own information!

    Information are thoughts, facts and ideas, nobody can decide what to do with something you can not even see or touch, like information…like internet.

    If wikimedia puts the FBI seal or not, that is not gonna change our life.
    Instead, if everybody start pretending wikimedia and wikipedia to remove images and information that would be the beginning of the censorship era and control over internet.

    I think coca-cola would never ask me to remove their logo from my website where you find this: “coca-cola is my favourite drink” with a coca-cola logo close to it. I do not make any bad use of the company’s seal and I am not violating any copyright laws.

    Wikipedia is the only clean place where we can find good information, so don’t fuck with it because it is part of us, we created it and and anything concerns wikipedia it is concerning all of us…the whole world.

  • Guest

    Frankly, abuse of privilege by the media in its many forms has gone too
    far lately.

    If Permission is required to use the FBI seal on a web page, then quibbling about the semantics of it is merely rude.

    I am all for so-called “freedom of the press” but if anyone’s freedom impinges on the rights of others, it is properly dealt with in a court of law, usually as a tort. e.g. nuisance “you have a right to play loud music, only you DON’T have a right to disturb me with it”

    Surely WIKIPEDIA thinks it has a right to use the seal; if the FBI requests that it be taken down, pending appropriate permissions, TAKE IT DOWN! Get the permission.

    “Freedoms” today are just another politically correct way of ensuring your right to abuse others: we see it in how the media treats private persons…I can spill the details of your sex life “because the public has a RIGHT to know..” Why?

    The tone of the WIKIPEDIA responder is flippant; another example of how we have come to believe so much in “democracy” that to be respectful is just an indication of being ‘socialist’.

    I believe that an apology for using the seal without permission should have been issued, then the FBI should respond properly by giving the permission.

    Please remember, it is this lack of respect for any authority that has led to the exposure of our troops in the infamous WIKILEAKS fiasco. And, while there may be no connection to WIKIPEDIA, the premise is the same: “We have the right to infringe on every other person’s rights, because we can and because ‘the public has a right to know’ ” . On the internet, the public happens to be anyone, anywhere in the world..do THEY have a right to know? Slippery slope to anarchy and treason, my friends.

    • Guest

      While your arguments are well worded I completely disagree for the simple fact that the entire FBI’s case is based upon THEIR COUNSEL’S RE-WORDING AND OMISSION OF KEY POINTS OF LAW! Simply put they are in the wrong! Also as an artist I am FULLY aware of the DMCA & Copyright law, which in this case simply do NOT apply. The symbol is not being displayed on a ‘private’ site but a registered non-profit site, where NO monetary gain is being made on the use of the seal, but simply as an informative article. That is NOT press. That is NOT journalism in the sense of your argument.

  • http://hubpages.com/profile/dame+scribe Gin

    I for one would have to agree with the FBI this time. Only because of the ease and gullibility of some people to literally ‘react’ to a order given by letter with the letterhead. I’m not saying everybody is gullible but some people were raised to cooperate with law enforcement. Tying up the FBI with scheme letters carrying their symbol would be saddening and time consuming. I would suggest that maybe a watermark be provided on this symbol thats on display.

    • Guest

      come on! There must be thousand ways to get such a stupid logo!

  • Stacey

    I love the response from WiKi, and it is spot on. I cannot believe they tried to rephrase the statute in writing and I find it sad that this is tax dollars at work. Do they not have better things to do? Would this use of the image not be considered fair use? Anyhow, great reply, loved it!! and although I find it laughable, I also find it sad that our government has gone so far over the edge in all areas. Good Luck to you Wiki!!

  • Guest

    Of course the FBI is off base. Keep up the good work, Wikipedia.

  • http://glegleme.com Tomislav

    This is hilarious. If I wouldn’t know this story takes part in US, I would say this is a story from my own country (Croatia), which was under communist regime until 1991.
    We were also disallowed to share free knowledge when it came down to certain government institutions. It was the way law was defined, but if we can’t change the laws which are not logical, we can all end up being criminals (which was case at the peak of communist power in my country – you could end up in jail for singing wrong songs in public).
    So, thumbs up for wikipedia in this case!

  • http://www.artmitchell.com Guest

    Give us a break the FBI is DEAD WRONG

  • Maryann

    Wiki is controlled by the same DMOZ click (Old illmannered rich liars) that blocks most new people
    from entering into any real comments. Makes money off stinking Click It
    Ads but says its free?

    Are you not tired of Nigerian spam that uses the FBI seal obtained from the
    WikiSickiYa site? The FBI is right and THIS BLOG is nothing but an advertisement
    for SIckiYa. I am even dumb enough to respond but at least know what is going on.

    It is typical, use the media with BS hype to promote themselves, just like Sara Palin and Hollywood, keep from becoming a dying star, crap.

    Wiki is not real history, since history is written by the winners of wars and about rich people, not the real truth. I started with nothing (but went to Harvard at $80,000 a year tuition) and am rags to riches, the typical American Dream Scam, called History?

    There was a river boat on the Mississippi where over 4,000 people died and you hear nothing because they were all poor. The stinking Titanic kills a few rich people and that is all you hear about right? History Ha, brain washing books of lies……

    Lets talk about force drafting rich peoples kids, on the war front as grunts and IED fodder, they have the most to loose right?

  • Guest

    Wikipedia seems to be our main source of truth these days~~~~leave ‘em alone. Our government is pushing it a bit. I see today, where the videographer who filmed the cop pushing a man off a bicycle has been charged with some kind of ‘wiretapping’ offense. NOT the country I grew up believing was always right.

    • Guest

      AMEN this is a huge embarisment for our country. One day soon we will all be wearing A/V recording devices that stream untampered reality to a cloud server so that the judicial system will have the replay option. We can not continue to build this countries foundation on manure.

  • Rich

    I’m noticing that this ambitions generation doesn’t have much respect for other people property on the other hand the “veteran” generation is a little too closed minded to earn my respect on this matter. Common sense suggests that if you are asked to remove someone elses property from your own cyber real estate then you simply should act accordingly, that is assuming that the owners of the brand are doing the asking.

    Now here’s the down side…. The FBI is and was negligent in being proactive on this topic. Other organizations offer approved banners for 3rd party use and that is the logical approach to take it’s a simple no brainer and our own FBI couldn’t figure it out, instead they want to play the bully & intimidation card. Perhaps the FBI want’s an intern at Wikipedia to create some crappy logo that will represent the FBI in relationship to the traffic and education that Wikipedia provides.

    OK here’s a strategy Wikipedia, just I frame the F’ers…. think about it, it’s a win win for everyone and it can not be construded as theft or endorsement.

  • http://www.floskos.com Guest

    1984, that’s all

  • Troy

    There is no question it should be taken down, Americans seem to believe they do what ever they wish today. That is a seal not a logo. Have some honor wikipedia, the men and woman that serve in the FBI deserve respect and it would not be the FBI if it were not for them. Americans need to stop demonizing federal institutions and understand that these men and woman have families just like us and want what’s best for their families like we do, that fact alone will keep 90% of them, their morals and decisions in check. This trend needs to stop. wikipedia you are nothing more now than a flavor flav, reality show, no-one will respect you now!

    • Travis Chambers

      Thank you, Troy.

      I wonder if the people who excoriate the FBI – and every Government
      Bureau in this country will be happy only when every function of the
      Government comes to a screeching halt, so that anarchy could prevail.

      Travis

  • Guest

    I don’t know whether Wikipedia – a sink of inaccuracies in many respects – should remove the insignia. But I’m quite sure that the observation that it should be concentrating on more importasnt matters is as dumb as it is old.

    Does someone Webpronews think that the FBI has only two agents, and the country will be in imminent danger if they aren’t both out on the street chasing “baddies”.

    Do me a favour!

  • http://twitter.com/nwtwebsitescom Kevin Hillman

    I guess they have all other things needing attention covered so the country is safe from all terrorist threats and all the people stealing money from the people in the corporate world are in jail.

    This is silly and a waste of taxpayers money, I don’t see how these people got their jobs. Lots of wolves in the hen house in Washington DC and nobody has any sense of right or wrong and that includes federal law enforcement.

    Things are going to get worse before they get better.

  • Chris Walden

    When I read this I had to check my calendar to make sure we hadn’t gone back to April 1. I cannot imagine what the FBI expects to accomplish with this. To me, the law is clearly defined to keep people from impersonating the FBI. Preventing this sort of journalistic use is just silly. I hope that if this goes to court that the the FBI gets the judicial spanking that they deserve for being so overzealous.

  • http://DownEastPublishing.net Steve

    It is no wonder our entire country is going in the Tank. Do a Google Image search for FBI seal and there are 520,000 hits!!!! These lame brain government money wasters gonna go after all 520,000 of these sites, Including GOOGLE?????? The FBI Director needs to go do what MY TAX DOLLARS are paying him to do…Catch some freaking criminals!!!

  • http://www.thenumberofthebeast.org Guest

    Awesome. Wiki lawyers smoke them goons.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom