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.
somebody is doing their darn best to remove any reference to this blog as its not a “reliable source”
its nothing more than censorship.
see this talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_BBC#Medialens
note what the wikpedian “pit-yacker” says – and note the paranoia
“also bares the hallmarks of the continued well organised campaign eminating from the right in the US to attempt to use Wikipedia posting any old rubbish”
so there you have it. we’re part of a neo-con global rightwing conspiracy.
i’m having a beer with Dick Cheney this evening. anyone care to join me?
And the Telegraph advises people to come visit this blog – stand by for the British equivalent of an Instalaunch!
Well done mods!
they really are doing their darn best to shut down debate…
“and the notion that George Bush is a Wanker is something that 80% of the UK population would probably personally agree with. On a final note could editors sign there comments using ~~~~ please? Pit-yacker 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)”
well done folks. its hit the MSM.
I’ve arrived here via a link from the BBC’s CIA report at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm
But the CIA is far more important than the BBC
This journalists are ever so humble line is getting a bit tired. As a commenter above states, the media are all powerful in democratic countries.
I complained to Andrew Neil about his harsh treatment of a backbench MP, whilst giving an easy ride to Brownite columnist Routledge of the Mirror. Neil kindly replied, but claimed that the MP was a person with power.
Eh? Sao Paolo says that the infamous “Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits'” article had been changed to mention Bush, Blair and James I… and then reduced to just the Bush bit.
Well the version I’m seeing now hasn’t got any of that at all, it just says: “BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages.” And that’s it.
So, they’ve censored themselves again? Is there a battle going on in the newsroom between admission and denial? Something’s up.
Apologies, I think Sao Paolo was talking about the wiki page, not the BBC page.
he’s referring to the “criticism of the bbc” page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
blog references have been removed.
direct links to bbc wiki edits also removed.
Well I didn’t do it so take it up with the wikieditor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_BBC
I think their policy is not to link directly to blogs.
The original story about the CIA has now been changde and there’s a post on the Editors Blog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/wikipedia_edits.html
Fantastic – I love the internet. Until I followed the link from the bbc news website I had no idea how similar the CIA and BBC were. They both inspire the same sort of paranoid conspiracy theory freakery!
” Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 3:23 pm”
that blogpost deftly skirts around the issue of what was actually in some of the more controversial wiki edits :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=9152976
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1667544
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=6578494
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=23529331
Hmm, on the Beeb editor’s blog, strange that CIA edits are deemed by the BBC to be the work of the organisation itself, whereas BBC edits are merely ‘updates from people at IP addresses traceable back to the BBC’.
Mr Reynolds, you [and your colleagues] would be well advised to just shut up, cos your spin is just earning more contempt .
I’ve reported Nick Reynolds to his employer and I suggest the others do the same because TV Licence money shouldn’t be wasted like this
In the middle of a crisis of trust in the BBC, how is a story that shows the BBC has, basically, institutional political bias (that its employees try to foist on the general public by breaking the house rules of an open source encyclopedia), less important than the CIA editing articles about two foreign politicians, both of whom are dead?
You are grasping at straws.
Sao Paolo: Nick Reynolds is undoubtedly one of the good guys.
The BBC is absolutely right to update Wikipedia on entries that directly relate to the BBC (eg. “BBC Radio Gloucester”, or some presenter) and is right too to allow corrections to other articles. They’re journalists after all, and that’s what a wiki is for.
The overwhelming majority of the BBC edits are of a positive nature – tidy ups, extra info etc. It’s childish to complain that BBCers editing Wikipedia is a waste of our money – for the most part it’s actually quite a good use of our money, better than that food-fight trail they have at the moment which must have cost a packet.
That doesn’t excuse the stuff under discussion, but if you can point to any edit that Nick has ‘fessed up to that is ‘reportable’ then post it here!
A
Sao Paolo
“I’ve reported Nick Reynolds to his employer”
Why have you done that?
Nick Reynolds is one of the BBC people who is prepared to get stuck in and engage with his critics on this site. From time to time, he concedes a point and something gets changed PDQ. We generally don’t agree with him, but he argues courteously and cogently.
It’s not done to try to get a blogger into trouble with their employer, and if you really have done this, then I for one deplore your action.
Because Fran those who are forced to fund the BBC via the BBC TV Licence shouldn’t have their money wasted with BBC employees using public equipment and time paid for by the TVL used in this manner simple as. I think just about everyone with some common sense knows the BBC is currupt and biased so those who can be traced should be sacked
Ali P does the mighty BBC have anything to do with Wiki ? Has BBC Worldwide taken over that now too ?? No they haven’t so stop making excuses for this vile and obsolete dinosaur. Perhaps the BBC fits in with a biased opinion you hold which is why you’re here now standing up for a so called public service which 75% of the country doesn’t even want!
Presumably it will be in the interests of the CIA to report on the BBC Wikipedia edit on George Bush.
BBC America , a very important outlet of the BBC,must be very worried about how this will appear in the American media.
BBC America will no doubt appear in the light of such a report without a forthright APOLOGY from the BBC, with maybe a DISMISSAL of the culprit within the BBC as an untrustworthy news organisation.
I guess this will be the CIA spin?
Oh look the hypocrites have just made it worse now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/wikipedia_edits.html
Kind words Ali P and Fran.
Sao Paulo do you think pro BBC commentators and staff would be better kept away from this blog?
Sao Paulo
You are a prat. If the beeboids stopped coming here, I wouldn’t bother either. The presencve of S-J and co on this blog (probably officially sanctioned) means that there is some small chance that our concerns are being heard inside the evil-empire. Without them we are little more that sane people locked in an asylum and screaming in the dark.
“I’ve reported Nick Reynolds to his employer”
i too wholeheartedly comdemn this.
that really is not a civil thing to be doing. for gods sake – the guy could lose his job, lose his house, lose his marriage – all because YOU reported him to his employer, the BBC. and then the BBC pick him out as a scapegoat.
you do know that they are looking for £2 billion in cuts?
at least Nick is on here reading OUR comments and more than likely reporting them back to BBC management.if that results in them dump Marcus f**king Brigstoke , then i’ll say “job well done”.
we’re just pissing in the wind if beeboids arent on here.
“You seem to be under the impression that the BBC wants to listen to you but they don’t want to listen to anyone but themselves
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 – 9:57 pm”
listen mate – you wont acheive privatisation of the BBC by making enemies. you have to convince them that its a good thing for Britain overall.
that John Redwood referred to the license fee as a “poll tax” is in my view a direct result of the non-stop blogging by Andrew and others on this blog and all of us commenters- for five f***king years. some beeboids are finally getting the message. lets not piss off the few that are sympathetic insiders.
I’ve deleted a lengthy ding-dong between Sao Paulo and Archduke (and one or two associated comments). Please don’t continue that debate here. Sao Paulo, please calm down and ease up on your language. Thank you.
Sao Paul, 99% of us on this blog are on the same side here – against the BBC. You jumped in too quickly, misjudged the situation and now what you really need to do is take a deep breath and then have a look at where you went wrong.
That said, I find the idea of Nick Reynolds getting into trouble from his bosses at the BBC for spinning for the corporation a bit on the funny side. Mr. Reynolds is a senior member of the BBC. I’d go so far as to say that he is the BBC.
Sack him for being “reported” by a right-winger? They’ll probably promote him.
I didn’t see your post before posting mine, Andrew.
Can I just say that for anyone wishing to edit anything on Wikipedia associated with the Beeb, it’s management, it’s journalists, it’s telly programmes etc…
Then get in now while the goings good!
Al Beeb is not likely to return to that particular fire in a hurry.
Blimey. I have been called many things on this blog, but never that I am the BBC.
I’m not. I’m just me.
“It’s not done to try to get a blogger into trouble with their employer, and if you really have done this, then I for one deplore your action.”
Can’t agree more. The comment boards are much improved by the inputs from people that actually work for the BBC even though the more partisan critics here tend to characterise themselves as intellectual giants in comparison.
For those with longish memories the B-BBC comment board has some previous for reporting people to their employers: John Anderson, aka DumbCisco/JohninLondon [JohnA who posts now at your “uncensored” site, Archduke?], who took it upon himself to send a threatening email to John Band’s employers back in 2005.
Ironically, it’s the BBC that tends to get described as the Stasi/fascist etc etc
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 – 10:52 am,
I think what I was trying to get across is your degree of identification with the BBC. To me, that seems to be total. You seem unable to distance yourself from the organisation and take a fair and square look at what it has become.
I found the idea of someone who helps write policy guidelines at the left-wing BBC getting fired from the selfsame BBC through being “reported” by a right-wing contributor to a blog a bit on the ridiculous side.
Has the BBC ever fired a journalist? Besides Kilroy-Silk for his anti-Arab remarks, that is.
I can say Bryan is that the BBC is required by law to be impartial in its output. And that includes output about itself. It is very difficult to be impartial or objective about oneself. But not impossible.
It helps you to be objective if you get feedback. From, for example, a sites like biased bbc.
I don’t “identify totally” with the BBC although I do enjoy working there. There are things that the BBC does that I disagree with and times when I think the BBC has got it wrong.
Nick Reynolds works for the BBC, and to give him credit posts on this site under his own name.
This happens to be a free country where everyone, regardless of their employer, has freedom of speech and as far as Wiki is concerned everyone is entitled to edit within their rules.
As far as I can see the only possible gripe one may have is if Nick is editing wiki in company time (part of which is paid for by me via the license fee). Otherwise he has every right to edit wiki to his hearts content and all of us have every right to correct his edits.
There are two important issues here:
a) Most of the 7000 BBC edits are probably minor technical corrections, but some of them are not and it appears, since there is no evidence to the contrary, that these display a guardianista point of view. If so this supports the view here that the BBC is institutionally leftist.
b) The blatant hypocrisy displayed by the BBC in criticising organisations like the CIA for doing precisely what the BBC did, but conveniently omitted to mention.
It is noticeable that having been discovered the BBC now defends itself by implying that the BBC edits were the actions of individuals (no fault of the organisation) whilts still implying that in other cases Dow, CIA and the Vatican that the edits indicated organisational interference.
Sao Paulo,
We here at Biased BBC do not support your snitching on BBC people to their employers.
And we do not appreciate you coming on here boasting about it like it’s something to do with us. It isn’t.
Any further comments along these lines will be deleted.
There are things that the BBC does that I disagree with and times when I think the BBC has got it wrong.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 – 12:20 pm
Fair enough. There are times when I think the BBC has got it right. Unfortunately, they are probably as infrequent as the times you think the BBC has got it wrong.
The Moderator I respect everyone opinions only when it comes down to them giving them in a neutral sense and your friend Nick isn’t doing that. I think it’s more than clear he’s abusing his position and doing this while getting paid by the TV Licence paying public. You and some of the others here may not like be ‘snitching’ as you call it but we all know the BBC protect their own anyway so it’s not like something’s goin gto happen to him and he knows it which is why he’s still editing wiki and posting here!
He’s allowed to edit Wiki. He’s allowed to post here. Our beef with the BBC is not that some BBC staff may do some internet posting while they’re on a “lunch break”.
The BBC are like what they are today because of the staff for crying out loud. I tell you what if I was Nick I’d be laughing my backside off at you people talk about push overs
I cannot believe my eyes. Not an internet person, my wife’s domain, I found this website simply by chance. Having read through the entire pages of ‘posts’ and ‘links’ upon this subject, I am astonished and shocked. Millions of license payers are totally ignorant of the BBC inputting 7000 factual changes. Many for political reasons? This blatant bias should be put before Parliament upon it’s resumption. I shall be in contact to my M.P. tomorrow. The withdrawal or suspension of it’s operating license should be considered for such outrageous behaviour. The blatant refusal of culpability by the corporations representative on these pages is beyond belief. Shame upon the BBC.
Unbelievable: Seriously, most of the edits really aren’t political or controversial. Obviously I can’t stop you talking to your MP, but please do examine what most of these edits are actually about.
That isn’t to excuse the one of two stupid ones. Just a plea for some perspective.
Mostly its this sort of stuff
No QVC in Wales
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=132.185.240.0-255&ip2=132.185.144.0-255&ip4=132.185.132.0-255
The Lotus Elan
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=132.185.240.0-255&ip2=132.185.144.0-255&ip4=132.185.132.0-255
(surely BBC staff wouldn’t discuss sports cars being in thrall to MMGCC?
And this one is really interesting (and I think we can call it political!)
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=132.185.240.0-255&ip2=132.185.144.0-255&ip4=132.185.132.0-255
Very nice speech David but how about the plea of the majority of the British public who want an end of the BBC TV Licence who are paying for you lot to surf the net all day ?
David Gregory (BBC): “Seriously, most of the edits really aren’t political or controversial”
Most? But many are…
BBC: sweeping bad news news under the carpet – it’s what we do, seriously
Mr. Sao Paolo, you are becoming quite tedious for someone who first appeared here just two days ago. People, including BBC people, don’t come here to get harangued at every turn. Ease up. If you wish to pick on people or harangue them or boast about your snitching to employers then do it on your own blog with your own visitors, not on our blog or with our visitors.
Take this as a final warning. Don’t argue, and don’t answer back here. Send me an email if you must. I’m not interested in arguing in public with anyone who thinks their free speech entitles them to free speech wherever and whenever they wish to indulge in it.
Hi Unbelievable, and welcome to our site. David Gregory (of the BBC) is right to say that most of the 7,000 BBC Wikipedia edits are benign, assuming they are done in people’s ‘own’ time or perhaps briefly in passing as part of their work. (Note though that these 7,000 edits are just the ones we can see – serious Wikipedia editors will be using their own Wikipedia accounts, that aren’t included in these figures).
The most significant issues arising from the BBC’s ‘Wikigate’ are:
1) The utter hypocrisy of the BBC in attacking the CIA and a couple of other favourite BBC targets for these Wikipedia revelations whilst a) ignoring their own just as bad track record; b) playing down their hypocrisy once it was revelaed as ‘just some employees’, in contrast to their earlier approach to the CIA’s edits;
2) The fact that none of the BBC’s ‘juvenile’ edits are slanted to the right – they’re all lefties blowing off steam. This either tells us something about the BBC, or perhaps something about lefties (though there are plenty of non-leftie juveniles in the world, so I tend towards suspecting the former).
Thank you for stopping by and commenting for the first time (of many I hope!).
David Gregory (BBC) | 18.08.07 – 2:47 am,
Those links all go to the same page of the first 500 BBC Wiki edits, so it’s not easy to find your first two and impossible to know which one your unnamed third link refers to. I’m no expert at this, but you should have opened those specific links first in new windows and then copied and pasted the URLS here.
That said, thanks for the page link. As you say, it appears that most of the topics are not political. However, it seems that BBC people have been invited to Wiki meetings
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Meetup/London2&oldid=8100019
and got involved in Wiki Introduction pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Introduction&diff=prev&oldid=9694605
and complex stuff like discussions on Wiki user access levels, which appears to show quite a serious level of commitment to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_access_levels&diff=prev&oldid=9825345
They also somehow feel compelled to edit the Wiki fu*k page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuck&diff=prev&oldid=5878995
the pornography page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=next&oldid=1991366
and take great delight in alleging the sexual prowess of a BBC employee, to the extent of reposting the comments over and over, becoming more and more explicit (after they have been deleted by another BBC person). You can check this, should you want to, by clicking on “newer edit”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Dobbie&diff=next&oldid=147719998
This could be the same person/people who edited Tony Blair’s page to read drinking vodka and working out in the bedroom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Blair&diff=prev&oldid=6578494
Looks like Wiki might ban that IP number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:132.185.144.122
Wouldn’t that be a laugh. BBC staff banned by Wiki for “vandalising” pages. Actually since so much of BBC “journalism” is vandalism anyway, that would fit.
There’s another issue here. The page you linked to showed the first 500 BBC edits – from Sept 2002 to Jan 2005 – of a total of 7567 edits. Only slightly more time has elapsed from Jan 2005 till the present, yet there have apparently been more than 7000 edits since Jan 2005. So it seems there has been a huge jump in BBC Wiki editing over the years.
Although I take the point made elsewhere that 7000 edits in two-and-a-half years is only about 8 per day, how much time do BBC people spend just reading Wiki subjects irrelevant to their work during working hours?
1. I don’t see any reason why people who work for the BBC can’t be invited to Wikipedia meetings, or edit Wikipedia.
2. Obviously nobody should be behaving in a silly, jeuvenile way on Wikipedia.
3. The “pornography” example you chose is someone correcting a spelling mistake. Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?
How are any of these things examples of BBC bias?
“Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?”
No. It’s called skiving off Nick. And as we pay your wages I think we’ve got every right to hold you accountable for your time, no matter how slight. And also, as a barrage of people have already stated:-
“what the hell does mucking about with wikipedia have to do with running a telly station?”
Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?
How are any of these things examples of BBC bias?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.08.07 – 7:21 pm
The point you are skirting around, Nick, and that BBK mentions above, is that BBC staff shouldn’t be editing Wikipedia or anything else on BBC time on BBC computers. And we have no way of knowing how much time people at the BBC are spending reading Wiki, as opposed to making 30 second edits.
Regarding bias, have a look at one of your BBC people adding quotes to Israeli politician Tzahi Hanegbi’s page to make sure he is represented in as negative a light as possible: Click on “newer edit” to see how the the scene develops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzachi_Hanegbi&diff=next&oldid=5303611
Oh, and your BBC-ite dipped into Wiki 5 times between 14:36 and 17:11 that afternoon for the aforementioned editing purpose. Looks like he/she did a bit of reading inbetween to get the info to put on the page, no?
Nice productive afternoon spent working for W… er, I mean the BBC.
Would anyone from the BBC ever go onto Wikipedia to provide the same exposure for someone like Hezbollah’s Nasrallah? Why do I find that idea ludicrous?
Are you saying Bryan that BBC staff should not even be allowed to read Wikipedia?
Of course not. But if it has nothing to do with the job at hand they shouldn’t be involved with their Wiki hobby during working hours and on BBC computers. It probably is a small fraction of staff indulging in juvenile or political edits but what about general time-wasting? I find it quite weird that senior people at the BBC (like yourself) are unwilling to even acknowledge that there is a problem here.
These 7567 edits showing the IP numbers are from unregistered BBC users:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=132.185.240.0-255&ip2=132.185.144.0-255&ip4=132.185.132.0-255&nolimit=1
How many BBC staff have registered at Wiki and are therefore unidentifiable? And are you perhaps one of them?
When is the BBC going to become accountable to the public you claim to serve?