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.
This Wiki situation could turn into a real minefield for the BBC. Here’s an example of a really busy little BBC beaver getting up early in the morning to attack the description of a community church centre in a small Scottish town as “blatant propaganda for a particular church,” and removing the text. Unbelievable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index….oldid=132805560
Gleaned from the above list of all 7567 known BBC Wiki edits.
Here’s a question. At the BBC studio near me (Hull), they have computers set up for the public to access the internet. Couldn’t it be possible that it is these computers or some like it across the country that are being used to access and make edits to Wikipedia, and not the BBC staff themselves?
Sarah H,
That’s a really interesting point and I took the liberty of linking to it from the open thread at the top of page, dated August 24, because I don’t think many people will notice it down here.
You know something you could be right I’m sure everyone thinks about visiting their local BBC centre so they can use the internet to edit Wiki! FFS the things people will come out with to protect them
I found this site through a link on the BBC website.
Is that hypocrisy too? Or is it actually the opposite?
I can’t find any references on the CIA website to the allegations that they have tampered with Wikipedia.
Bias is inevitable. The BBC seems to have a culture where it is avoided (unlike the CIA, for instance). Perhaps the posters here would rather we had Fox News?
Must have been from the editors blog – the article on Wikipedia. I believe it’s the first time they have linked to this blog. I complimented the BBC for the link.
Still this gradually developing openness on the part of the BBC does not mean they are impartial. If you read this blog carefully you will notice that people here do not want the BBC to follow any agenda, whether of the right or the left. We want the BBC to stop pumping out its particular brand of left wing propaganda and to stop lying to us by omission and distortion of inconvenient facts.
And Fox news, though it is right wing, is far more balanced than the BBC. At least Colmes is a left winger. Does the BBC have any right wingers with such a prominent position on such a prominent show?
No, naturally.