As an example that the media can't learn from the mistakes of others, a BBC IP address has been tracked down to a recent Wikipedia edit that changed the name of George Walker Bush to George Wanker Bush.
While that kind of activity in the States might cause you to get a warning email from the executive editor, at the BBC it might just get you promoted.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
wikiscanner results will be interesting
August 15, 2007 - 19:24 ET by uncle_buckThe new wikiscanner is currently overloaded :
wikiscanner.virgil.gr
It will be great fun to find out whose been doing what. The wanker edit is relatively harmless. The Diebold edits are so far the biggest news. And there's been plenty on both sides of the political fence editing for their own gain.
But I put in newsbusters.org and can tell you that Newsbusters came back clean - zero wikipedia edits!
why are Diebold and other corporate edits on wiki big news?
August 15, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Dee BunkEvery corporation should check their entries and edit them to their favor. What is wrong with that? Don't they have more right than someone who doesn't like them who puts up selective bad info?
The NYT and BBC employees hacking in and making political statements is much bigger news. Of course the MSM won't think so.
I think Newsbusters should go in and edit their entry. I just checked it again before posting and at least now there is a statement that the MRC and newsbusters think Wikipedia and the entry on them is biased and they also added that Media Matters who they quote being critical of them can be seen as an adversary with opposite purpose. So at least the bias is more upfront.
I also noticed that they added a criticism section on Media Matters entry but overall the Media Matters entry is still much more favorable.
maybe not best anaolgy
August 16, 2007 - 12:27 ET by uncle_buckThis may not be the best analogy. But check out the wiki entry for Tylenol.
Now imagine that the makers of Tylenol - Johnson and Johnson - went into the wiki and deleted all of the information about the Tylenol scare of 1982. And imagine that people from Bayer aspirin went in and changed the active ingredient from codeine to cocaine.
Anybody with a little knowledge would know immediately that cocaine is not the active ingredient in Tylenol - just like anybody with a little knowledge would know Wanker was not President Bush' middle name.
But if Johnson and Johnson just completely erased a part of their past as if it never happened, that would be the much graver transgression.
You might also consider wikipedia's own statement on commenting on yourself.
http://en.wikipedia....
I'm no big wiki guy, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the BBC calling Bush a wanker - which was nothing more than a harmless prank - is a bigger story than the folks at Diebold attempting to erase the proven fact that there are problems with their voting machines.
Bush the Wanker
August 16, 2007 - 12:29 ET by tymanI think this is hilarious. He's been called many things, but not that. What will the libs come up with next.
Tylenol
August 16, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Cool ArrowJ&J actions taken under the leadership of James Burk are the gold standard textbook case study on dealing with product tampering.
You're right, the analogy doesn't fit. But I understand some edits would be more aggregious than others.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Wikipedia is a joke
August 15, 2007 - 19:33 ET by nkviking75I can't figure out why Wikipedia has any credibility at all, given that anyone can come along and tinker with it. Its founders may have had good intentions, but the site is a haven for childishness.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
yep
August 15, 2007 - 19:46 ET by uncle_buckAnd the wanker reference by the BBC is very childish. But the story you'll hear ad nauseum in the coming weeks is how this wiki change came from this network or that network. The games are already in full force.
Liberals Need Editor Assistance
August 16, 2007 - 00:05 ET by Lame CherryI have noticed in the liberal writing attacks on people they hate that they really need help in being creative. To go through the trouble of the New York Times and just use the word jerk or the BBC using wanker (both once again refer to liberal obsession with sexual expression in not getting sex) is wasting the joy of life in a prank.
I do not mean to help liberals, but for instance they hate Karl Rove and George Bush, an entry like this should be posted:
When George Bush was 17 he got a fake ID as Jorge el Busto, jumped in his dad W's, VW and left a cloud of dust to Mexico. While there Jorge met Karlin Rovepublican. Jorge decided with a name like that, he had to be a great campaign manager and set out to be president of the United States.
One night in a bar fight, a young Iraqi on vacation named Saddam Hussein got into a taco eating contest and Saddam's Saudi buddy Ben Laden put hot sauce on Jorge's tacos so he lost. After that Jorge swore he would as president start a war to pay back Saddam and Ben. This taco fight was the secret basis for Dan Rather's foregate:
At least with that people would at least say liberals were putting some effort into things, but all we get now is one word remarks and the same old hatred.
Maybe though someone should to honestly edit the BBC with the real ISP story that it harbors and condones vulgar attacks on others. That is real and they would not like that one bit.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS