this evening is: Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits’!
Hypocrisy writ large: the BBC pot calls the CIA kettle black
Biased BBC’s story about the BBC’s own editing of Wikipedia has been online for 18 hours – and has been blogged on the BBC’s internal blog system by Nick Reynolds, a senior advisor on editorial policy, and yet this article, by Jonathan Fildes (is that a typo for Fidler?), a BBC science and technology reporter no less, allegedly (maybe he’s the same work experience kid that happened to edit George Bush’s Wikipedia entry!), the third most important story the BBC can find, apparently, makes absolutely no mention of the BBC’s own Wikipedia edits. Unbelievable.
The BBC’s Mr. Fidler writes:
An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.
Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency’s computers made edits to the page of Iran’s president.
It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.
Now for some BBC-style Wikipedia ‘revising’ for the BBC’s Mr. Fidler:
An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the BBC was involved in editing entries.
Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the corporation‘s computers made edits to the page of America‘s president.
It also purportedly shows that the BBC has edited entries about Britain’s former leader Tony Blair.
Now, if one of you Beeboids that hangs around here could just commit my minor edits (in bold above) to Mr. Fidler’s BBC Views Online version of the article (the third most important story in the world!) that would be grand. Thanks very much. (See here for the BBC’s edit of George W. Bush’s Wikipedia entry and here for the BBC’s puerile edits of Tony Blair’s Wikipedia entry).
P.S. If that’s too much to ask, just do the decent thing and update Mr. Fidler’s article to extend the same level of scrutiny the BBC subjects the CIA to to the BBC itself.
Thank you to the many spotters of this development and to Sam Duncan for the Tony Blair Wikipedia link.
Update: You can see the rest of Biased BBC by going to our top page. While you’re here, make sure you see and hear our story from Tuesday about the BBC’s decade long cover up of Neil Kinnock exploding in anger at James Naughtie on Radio 4.
and this from little green footballs
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669_Wikipedia_EditGate-_BBC_Edits&only
And in the entry for D-9 Caterpillars, a BBC employee changed the word “terrorists” to:
freedom fighters
i’m getting the feeling that this is going to be a big one. anyone forwarding this to the Mail or the Sun?
Two can play that game
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/
This stinks of a damage limitation story. The BBC are scared that they are going to be shown up when the BBC edit story hits the MSM, so they get the CIA version in first, and try to spin that as the real story.
A bunch of lying hypocrites.
Perhaps Nick Reynolds or JR can tell us why the story makes no mention of the BBC edits?
It’s hard to believe just how low the BBC have sunk.
dont forget this one folks – where the bbc edited “criticism of the bbc” wiki page to make itself look better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_BBC&diff=prev&oldid=139215058
“editing of wikipedia” is now on the “criticism of the bbc” page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_BBC&diff=151452619&oldid=151452528
BBC and ‘do the decent thing’? Oxymoron methinks!
Amazing how this damage limitation exercise started this afternoon – do you think the papers are running something about the BBC edits and this IS a defensive measure as you suggest?
“editing of wikipedia” section has been expanded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Editing_of_Wikipedia
thanks to whoever has done this.
Perhaps someone should set up a website to document all the instances where the BBC were actually impartial.
I don’t suppose it would have many entries though.
” dave t | Homepage | 15.08.07 – 10:44 pm”
interesting point. it wouldnt surprise me.
John Reiths middle name appears to be Macavity, never there when the BBC is caught red handed.
lgf has this “editgate” story on the front page – bbc & united nations
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2267778.ece
Bloody hell..everyone’s at it now! Certain companies are deleting stuff that is embarrassing to their public image such as the Bhopal disaster.
I always tell my students never to use Wikipedia as there is far too much bias in the thing and now I have even more proof.
You just couldn’t make it up.
And if you actually read the CIA story, you know, the one the BBC thinks is the third most important story in the world, just what are these appealing edits the CIA have made?
Somone using a CIA account put “Wahhhhhh!” in an article about Ahmadinejad. that’s it. That’s the worst the BBC can come up with. As I said before it just defies belief.
You can just see the beeboids today, after Reynolds posted on the internal blog. Oh god we’re in for it, how can we deflect attention? Who can we have a go at……I know, how about the Bush/Hitler CIA/Gestapo, quick dig something up, anything will do. Oh yes, someone put “Wahhhhhh!”, quick get a story up on the front page.
In the same story we also learn that Democrats changed text to “brand Mr Limbaugh as “idiotic,” a “racist”, and a “bigot”. An entry about his audience now reads: “Most of them are legally retarded.”
Is this not more of a story then a “Wahhhhhh!”, should the headline not have reflected this bit of information?
The more I think about the BBC actions here the more angry I become. Come on Nick, come on JR, defend this stinking hypocrisy if you dare.
” jg | 16.08.07 – 12:19 am ”
it gets worse.
somebody at the U.N. did a wiki-edit of Oriana Fallaci calling her a “racist whore”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26670_Wikipedia_EditGate-_United_Nations_Edits_Fallaci-_Racist_Whore&only
and we all know how much the BBC just loves the U.N.
“wicksy” on lgf has posted a big long list of bbc edits here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669#c0316
^ that list, and I mean the actual edits, not the links, needs to be on the front page here IMHO. It beggars belief.
“jg:
^ that list, and I mean the actual edits, not the links, needs to be on the front page here IMHO. It beggars belief.”
I agree. At least until the BBC acknowledges it.
Can “John Reith”, Sarah-Jane, David Gregory or anyone else offer an explanation as to why the BBC Wikipedia edits seem to be skewed in, shall we say, a certain manner?
Vandalism of the George Bush page; why is there no BBC-originating vandalism for John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton etc?
If the BBC was representative of the country at large then surely there’d be some Beebie doing that sort of thing, what with the staff having enough free time to carry out 7,000+ edits?
Where are the counter examples at the other end of the spectrum?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669#c0316
I mean, anyone would think the organisation was biased or something.
Anonymous | 16.08.07 – 5:36 am,
It’s a good point. John Reith often tries to portray BBC employees (I hesitate to call them journalists) as representing a wide spectrum of society and politics. We see little or no evidence of this, but continually see evidence that the BBC is comprised of those with the most narrow of left-wing agendas.
I think you credit my internal BBC blog with too much influence. There has been no mass panic, damage limitation exercise or even much interest inside the BBC about the Wikipedia story that I know of. (Although I haven’t opened my work email yet this morning and its currently just gone 7).
The BBC story is quite funny, as indeed are the Blair edits (although the Blair edits are vandalism in Wikipedia, against its house rules and shouldn’t be happening).
I commented on the bulldozer story on the previous thread. Poor use of language, as neither word can be backed up.
You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story. I wouldn’t describe it as “breathtaking hypocrisy”.
I’ll keep you posted if anything happens.
You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story.
Cobblers.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has been caught out in a way that is of much more relevance to the people of…Britain.
After all, we pay for the whole sorry show.
The long-claimed bias-free and impartial broadcaster is shown to be a lie (again).
Again, that is much more interest to British people who pay for the disgraceful organisation.
Mr. Reynolds, if someone catches you out in gross bias, you shouldn’t then try to divert attention from yourselves by pointing out that someone else has done something vaguely similar. That’s juvenile.
Rather, take an honest look at yourselves. Self-knowledge is a liberating, though often painful experience. You guys at the BBC really should try it sometime. It could even start you on the road to meaningful reform of your organisation.
I’ve been banned by the mods for including a link to a site that criticises the BBC and its TV Licence and someone who is pro BBC always removes it. I pointed out to the mods that these people were BBC and I got banned so have known that wiki has been pro BBC for sometime
nick reynold’s reaction is quite similar to the moonbats on Reddit.com
if Fox News are caught doing it , its “oh my God – its a vast right wing conspiracy!!! how dare they!”
if the bbc are caught its
“ho hum, its only a joke. nothing to worry about”
“the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story”
It really depends, doesn’t it? From the perspective of a British tellytaxpayer, perhaps the CIA is quite marginal.
It seems a cliche to say that this is a telling comment. When the ability to do things that ordinary citizens or institutions can’t is at issue, of course the CIA is privileged and more “important”. In terms of world power politics, the CIA is perhaps more important, but I think actually the gap is narrowing- the political decisions about withdrawing troops from Iraq (for instance) will be made following perceptions of public opinion influenced and reported by MSM media (the British decision, btw, will likely be very influential on the US’ course of action). The BBC is still, mainly by virtue of its national associations, the most respected of the MSM. The forum for debate has shifted from elected officials to the media, insofar as it takes place- therefore the BBC has real political power.
The BBC loves to exercise influence, to be the first to know and to have a say on what goes on, yet when its failings of partiality are revealed it’s always keen to say that it is not very important and its failings are not of public interest.
This shouldn’t be possible, but it is all too possible.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 7:17 am |
“But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story.”
You have this completely ares-about-face, Nick. The CIA edits are not news. One of the official CIA remits is disinformation – intelligence agencies have large departments dedicated to it. It is a central part of a spook’s job and it would be news if the CIA were NOT doing Wiki-edits. It is only newsorthy element is that they seem to have been very unprofessional in leaving a forensic trail.
The BBC wiki-edits are however newsworthy, because the BBC has no corporate remit for disinformation, correcting grammatical errors on other people’s websites or even left-wing vandalism of an eductaional resource. The only legitimate use of BBC staff time (paid for by me) to Wiki-edit is in maintaining factual accuracy (not opinion) on the BBC page.
The fact that you and the rest of the BBC come out with this kneejerk “CIA Bad – BBC Good” response shows the level of institutional media-liberal bias and corporate complacency there is in the corporation.
Has anyone looked at the BBC News entry in Wikipedia? It’s a masterpiece of (slanted)self-puffery, almost certainly written by someone within the corporation – I can spot it because it is exactly the stuff I used to churn out when I was a BBC press officer. The section on bias is particularly interesting and relevant. It goes entirely on the weak but oft-used press office defence that ‘we get criticism from all sides, therefore we can’t be biased’.
It’s probably high time for someone, somewhere, to start amending this self-congratulatory propaganda. Perhaps at the CIA?
anytime i’ve tried to add a link to this blog on that “bbc news” page it gets swiftly removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc_news
I didn’t say the BBC is good and the CIA bad. I said the CIA is more important.
I am not spreading “disinformation” on Wikipedia – and anyone who tries to is breaking Wikipedia’s own rules, and it
is usually removed.
Since all edits in Wikipedia can be viewed it would be rather difficult not to leave a forensic trail.
Not sure I understand what you mean by “the BBC page” – do you mean the one on Wikipedia?
cia edit is the top story on the technology page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm
the CIA added “”Wahhhhhh!” to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wiki page.
no mention of course that somebody at the BBC changed George W. Bush to George Wanker Bush.
no mention of a whole raft of BBC edits listed out here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669#c0316
the hypocrisy is utterly nauseating.
Nick Reynolds is pretty good at maintaining a straight face when spinning the most unbelievable horsecrap.
Nick R
The forensic trail I mean is leaving the corporate IP address on your Wiki-edit. The official CIA disinformation team (the proper name is InfoOps – the younger, prettier sister of PsyOps) will be using sophisticated IP spoofing techniques to cover up their tracks. There is a good Wiki page on Information Warfare if you are interested.
Because of the forensics, I am now inclined to think that the CIA Wiki-edits were done by bored staff with a malicious intent or done on an unofficial basis by individuals to “correct” opinion to better fit their own (CIA) mindset. ie exactly the same things the BBC staff are up to. In fact the CIA and the BBC in general have an awful lot in common.
So the main story seems to be “Juvenile idiots from lots of different organisations are allowed by their managemnt to deface Wiki-pages” and “Organisations with polarised views of the world are trying to influence public opinion”.
Singling out the CIA and not mentioning similar handiwork by BBC staff shows the innate anti-CIA bias and an implicit support of the BBC world-view.
CIA more important? I’ve met a few BBC people who would probably disagree.
Reynolds’ comments amount to little more than ‘F*ck you, there’s nothing you can do about it’.
Well there is something you can do about it.
Go and edit Wikipedia.
^ but where is the story in someone adding “Wahhhhhh!”
Is not the UN edit of Oriana Fallaci calling her a “racist whore” more newsworthy, or the BBC’s ‘wanker’ edit?
Please tell us Nick, why you ran with the CIA one?
Would this nick be AKA Nick Cooper on Wiki the self confessed BBC ‘fan’ who removes anything from the TV Licence subjects that makes them look bad ?
It really seems necessary to repeat the basic acts about which Nick Reynolds is so dismissive:
1. on 15 August a blogger reports that 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia have been made from BBC addresses – and shows that one is a highly insulting reference to the President of the USA.
2. on 16 August the BBC Website headlines a story about a “new Web tool” – the one used in the analysis published in “1” above? – which revealed that the CIA and various US organisations and companies had apparently been moifying Wikipedia articles.
3. There is no mention of the previous day’s blog post, no mentio of BBC involvement in such editing. No mention that an edit from the BBC called George Bush a “w*nk*r”. No dismissive comment on the likely origins of such edits such as BBC voices on this blog have used to excuse the BBC’s own massive involvement in such editing.
I’m sorry, Mr Reynolds but you and the BBC can’t just shrug your shoulders at this. Its an old cliche – but people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – this is even more the case if, as seems more than possible, the idiots who wrote your “CIA” piece only learnt of the “new Web tool” from the blogs!
Simply, if it is worthy of comment – and implicit criticism – that the CIA, the US Democratic Party and individual US companies made, or had made from their web addresses, self serving comments, then it is only fair to admit that the BBC (7,000 edits!) similarly involved in such activities. Indeed given the current levels of distrust in the Corporation I would have though that the BBC should have bent over backwards to avoid the entirely reasonably complaint that your news comment is both biassed AND self serving.
Congratulations to everyone at Biased BBC! I’ve picked up this story on my Daily Telegraph blog:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/
>Well there is something you can do about it.
>
>Go and edit Wikipedia.
But the CIA can shrug their shoulders and dismiss the CIA edits on exactly the same grounds! Yet the BBC still felt that that was a big news story, even though anyone could go and edit the CIA’s Wikipedia entries. Unbelievable.
Complacency, arrogance and a lack of imagination seemed to characterise most of the BBC executives I met. Nick Reynolds typifies the arrogant strain.
The editing of thousands of wiki entries is at least a disturbing side hobby for overpaid BBC staff, who have no official remit to do this, or it is a concerted effort to manipulate wiki for unethical journalistic or ideological purposes.
This does not sit well for the BBC. This story is big and will not go away.
By the way, last time I looked, I am am not forced to fund the CIA. The BBC however, does extort money from me, promising to be impartial and committing to the highest journalistic standards, which it serially fails to do on a whole raft of well-rehearsed issues.
The BBC is Ceaucescu being told he is a great leader. The BBC is Saddam railing at his executioners. The BBC is Pinochet, calling in favours from heads of state.
They know they are under siege and there is something of a scorched earth policy being undertaken here. The telling of barefaced lies and a vein of arrogance matched only by dictators in bunkers, together with risible justifications for their misdemeanors, indicated to me that the writing is on the wall.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/you-cant-trust-anyone-these-days.html
Anon their isn’t any point in editing Wiki because you’ll just have it removed if it criticises the mighty BBC. Plus when this has happened go into that persons profile and check it because I’ve found they always have a glowing report about the BBC and how great it is!
“You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story. I wouldn’t describe it as “breathtaking hypocrisy”.
No I would describe it as post-modernist relativist bollocks that you and the rest of the beeb crew learned at poly in media studies.
I want my f[******] money back
[Sean: can you censor your own language next time please – this is a family blog!]
Ps I’ve contacted a few papers this morning about this because I think more people should be made aware of what the BBC employee’s do while getting paid by the BBC TV Licence
Dear Nick Reynolds
I’m wholly amazed that the BBC is such a small and insignificant organisation that it does not deserve a mention next to the CIA. Last time I looked the BBC provides services in many languages throughout the world and has BBC World a 24 hour news channel.
Many nations’s media use the BBC as source of news and analysis. Not to mention the recent expansion of the BBC into America and the Middle East. Who are you kidding?
I posted on the wiki editing last night and will be doing a follow up today on my very small Hungarian blog that sits in the blogs corner of our national slightly left leaning broadsheet. Bloggers around the world will be doing the same, no doubt.
I will never forgive the BBC for turning into what it is now, robbing newly democratized nations of an ideal and example of public broadcasting.
They’ves edited it again, This is what used to say “In August 2007 the Wikiscanner website revealed that BBC employees had made nearly 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia. These included an edit to the George W. Bush article which replaced his middle name “Walker” with “Wanker”, a popular insult in the UK.[40]
BBC employee edits also included calling James the First a Queen, vandalising Tony Blair’s entry and renaming the word terrorist to freedom fighter.
The BBC’s own article about the Wikiscanner concentrated on CIA edits to Wikipedia and failed to mention the corporation’s own.” and this is what it says now “In August 2007, searches on Wikipedia Scanner revealed that BBC employees had made nearly 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia. These included an edit to the George W. Bush article which replaced his middle name “Walker” with “Wanker”, a popular insult in the UK.[40]” so as I told the wiki admins/mods last year the site has been taken over by the BBC scum
“Damian Thompson | 16.08.07 – 12:49 pm”
well done folks. its hit the MSM.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/
Calling george bush a “wanker” wont go down very well in the America-loving Eastern Europe (not to mention the “we want to be the 51st state” Kurdistan)
http://hettie.nolblog.hu//?post_id=28066