* (well, one can dream!). As Ed blogged below, Biased BBC’s story about the BBC’s utter hypocrisy in its desire to embarrass the CIA has gone big, being picked up, among many others, by Daily Telegraph journalist Damian Thompson, Helen at the usually excellent EU Referendum blog (which covers far more than the EU) and the BBC itself, where Pete Clifton has written on the BBC Editors blog:
Words like glass, house and stones spring to mind, because we weren’t exactly sharp about the other obvious question that springs to mind… What about people inside the BBC?
This was an irritating oversight. Some of you have written to complain, others have given the issue a significant airing online (see here, here and here) and beyond.
Pete Clifton goes on to defend the BBC’s participation in Wikipedia – which is fair enough, up to a point. It’s a pity though, and perhaps indicative of the leftist public-sector mentality of the BBC, that the same benevolent attitude wasn’t on show when the BBC leapt gleefully into action to report, with much fanfare (third most important story in the world, remember!), on the CIA’s supposed Wikipedia edits, which are in the main as benign as the bulk of the BBC’s own ‘anonymous’ edits.
Although the BBC has now updated Jonathan Fildes original BBC Views Online Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits’ article with a belated mention of the BBC’s own edits, there’s still room, Pete, to improve the honesty of the article much further – after all, what’s good for the CIA goose is just as good for the BBC gander! You’re too coy about the BBC’s own edits of George W. Bush’s Wikipedia entry and Tony Blair’s Wikipedia entry.
Come to think of it though Pete, the headline and tenor of the article is so badly skewed that the whole article ought to be re-written with a focus on the global embarrassment of large organisations, including the BBC, at the stupidity of (some of) their Wikipedia editing employees, rather than maintaining the pretence that the article is about that great BBC bete-noir, the CIA. Don’t worry though, John Leach’s excellent News Sniffer service will make sure the full history of the BBC’s shabby handling of these revelations is clear for all to see (though as I have said for many years, there is no reason, apart from BBC corporate secrecy and defensiveness for the BBC not to provide News Sniffer’s level of transparency and honesty itself, if, that is, the BBC is interested in being transparent and honest).
The point where the BBC’s participation in Wikipedia ceases to be fair enough though is where BBC employees ‘revise’ Wikipedia articles about the BBC (except for the most minor of typographical errors). It is utterly wrong that even the mildest, most reasonable and honest criticism of the BBC on Wikipedia is dishonestly removed, edited or spun away, and ever so rapidly, by the Corporation’s own employees – especially on the telly-taxpayers time (heaven knows what they get up to on their home IP addresses in their own time).
BBC employees need to recognise that the BBC, in common with all large organisations, can and does do wrong – which is especially dangerous with an organisation with the size, reach and global influence of the BBC. The notion of a faultless, well-meaning, benevolent BBC that can do no wrong, a notion that BBC staff are thoroughly imbued with, is a large part of the ‘BBC culture’ that needs to be thrown out if the BBC is to even hope of regaining the respect that it once, deservedly, had.
P.S.: A special welcome to our visitors from elsewhere on the web. I hope you will take a few minutes to browse our other recent coverage of the BBC, and that you will come back in the next few days to help us keep an eye on the BBC.
* See Wikipedia, where else, for an explanation of this popular British expression.
Biased BBC’s finest hour is upon us. Congratulations to all involved!
Hear hear! *applause*
big pat on the back to you chaps. “wiki edit” spread to LGF, reddit and Digg. its all over the place.
it got so big that the bbc ended up linking back to this blog!
but it started off right here.
well done to all concerned.
Yes, congrats all round. I also notice JR is conspicuous by his absence 🙂
Mr Reith will be just biding his time, waiting for his next opportunity to use semantics to “strengthen” (cough) his argument.
I’m unclear as to why BBC staff shouldn’t contribute to Wikpedia though? Most of the anonymous contributions seem to be about plenty of useful stuff from the Rolling Stones to some quite obscure engineering information.
Some of the edits you seem to really object to were made by Nick who posts here. He says he corrected errors, that seminar all those quotes in the sidebar comes from wasn’t secret for example. If you disagree then change it.
And for the most part this is BBC staff who are passionate and knowledgeable about topics and who are making a great contribution.
The “Wanker” comment about President Bush was stupid and offensive, but certainly not typical.
By the way, while the BBC hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory you might want to compare what it’s done with say, Fox News.
Some of the edits you seem to really object to were made by Nick who posts here.
Geez! Some of the posts I really object to are the vandalism and suppression of BBC critics on Wikipedia.
As for Fox News, I am not compelled to fund them. Their computer hardware infrastructure and software licences are NOT paid for by me. Nor are the staff salaries.
Unlike the BBC.
Don’t you get that part of it?
The excellent Honest Reporting has a link to this blog on the Wiki issue:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Stories_You_May_Have_Missed.asp
David Gregory
Look through these links of BBC edits, see any pattern, anything to object to?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669#c0316
David G: “I’m unclear as to why BBC staff shouldn’t contribute to Wikpedia though”
I don’t mind if they do – ideally in their own (lunch) time or whatever. What I said is “the BBC’s participation in Wikipedia… is fair enough, up to [the] point… where BBC employees ‘revise’ Wikipedia articles about the BBC (except for the most minor of typographical errors). It is utterly wrong that even the mildest, most reasonable and honest criticism of the BBC on Wikipedia is dishonestly removed, edited or spun away, and ever so rapidly, by the Corporation’s own employees – especially on the telly-taxpayers time”.
“By the way, while the BBC hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory you might want to compare what it’s done with say, Fox News.
David Gregory (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 10:18 pm | ”
i’m not forced to pay for Fox News. if i cancel my subscription i wont go to jail.
i dont have that option with the BBC.
even if i decide to watch nothing but sky sports all day , i still have to hand over the telly tax to the bbc.
that is morally wrong. there is no way to argue around that – you are forcing ME to pay for your salary on pain of a criminal conviction.
in my view, that is nothing more than extortion of a kind that Al Capone would be proud of.
Hi Archduke
Well what if the President Bush “wanker” edit was made from a BBC Worldwide computer? Not funded by the licence fee but by commercial activities. Would that be ok?
Surely it’s more a question of journalism not funding?
And saying that I must apologise to Fox, although their online stuff didn’t mention anything I’m watching the channel now and in a report on this as well as mentioning us they also owned up to Fox doing it too.
Andrew; I think you make a very good point. But surely the point about Wikipedia is if you don’t like what’s written and you can support a different take with evidence then edit away. As the Fox report said, sometimes employees of big corporations can be a bit over zealous.
jg: Indeed I do see a pattern. It’s idiotic, stupid and certainly doesn’t add much to Wikipedia. Although I presume only the President Bush one actually breaks Wiki rules.
I haven’t had lots of time to check LFG but that link points to two incidents… out of 7000? Like I said before it mostly is Nicam Stero and the Pet Shop Boys. And one or two idiots.
There’s another crucial point to consider with regard to this. The CIA is an intelligence agency which exists solely to support US interests and propaganda is one of its functions. No one has a right to expect it to be impartial. But the BBC is a publicly-funded body, supposedly with a ‘public service ethic’ and is required by law to be wholly impartial. The BBC’s wilful mutilation of an online encyclopaedia also makes a mockery of its educational pretensions. This is all grist to the mill of the anti-license fee lobby.
Great post Andrew.
David Gregory (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 11:55 pm
“Andrew; I think you make a very good point. But surely the point about Wikipedia is if you don’t like what’s written and you can support a different take with evidence then edit away. As the Fox report said, sometimes employees of big corporations can be a bit over zealous.”
Sorry to intrude here, David Gregory, but perhaps you had better not use the Fox report as your backup. After all, isn’t the meaning here that an overzealous employee might step over the line sometimes to achieve company goals, or to promote the company objectives? If that were a defense for this fiasco, wouldn’t it mean, then, that an overzealous BBC employee would be doing the “wanker” and “freedom fighter” edits (for example) to help promote the agenda of his or her corporate employers?
So what would an overzealous employee of the BBC be trying to accomplish, exactly?
And one or two idiots.
David Gregory (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 11:55 pm
Mr. Gregory, you illustrate the point I made on another thread. The “wanker” author probably is an idiot but it is unhelpful for BBC supporters to dismiss him/her as such. The overriding point here, I reiterate, is not the IQ of the author but the bias.
How many idiots working for the BBC log onto Wiki from BBC computers to make changes that support a pro-America/Israel/Christianity/capitalism/right-wing point of view?
Can you find just one?
Bryan, of course you ask that just after I closed the window on LGF which refers to one or two “good” edits. I’ll try and dig it out. But I think we can assume that would be exactly what you want. I’ll try and dig it out in my lunch hour.
David Preiser: Apologies I meant in the context of editing critical stuff about the BBC. Calling President Bush a wanker is just stupid.
Paul: “The BBC’s wilful mutilation of an online encyclopaedia also makes a mockery of its educational pretensions.” I politely suggest willful hyperbole doesn’t help B-BBC very much.
Wikipedia aside, the truth is that 99.999% of BBC employees think that changing George W Bush’s middle name to an obscenity may be childish but nevertheless “reflects a wider truth”. I challenge anyone from the BBC to argue otherwise. I mean, if you read newspapers that depict George W Bush on a daily basis like this:
http://ellensander.com/bushrespect512.jpg
And oh, what a surprise! The Independent comes to the rescue of the BBC….
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/terence_blacker/article2871463.ece
” David Gregory (BBC) | 16.08.07 – 11:55 pm | ”
if the BBC was entirely a commercial, privatised organisation then yes – no objections. a least then i would have the option of objecting to their output by cancelling my subscription fee.
The Evening Standard ran a substantial single column story today headlined ‘Beeb timewasters targeting Wikipedia’ and naming Biased BBC (p.15)and running Biased BBC quotes.
Well done to all concerned.
You’re reaching “break out point” as we say in celebrity PR.
I presume only the President Bush one actually breaks Wiki rules.
I’d guess the Blair one did, too. I also noticed – but didn’t mention here – an instance where an entire article was deleted. When it was restored, the culprit was warned against future vandalism. I wish I had, now.
was that the “dieu et mon droit” vandalism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dieu_et_mon_droit&diff=139090140&oldid=132742484
the blair one is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=6578494
and calling King James a “queen” is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=23529331
interesting one is the “islamophobia” edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=63394796
whats funny about that one is that the wiki edit blames the media – but it comes from a BBC ip address!
To respond to Andrew’s point above I don’t believe that my changes to the Wikipedia entry “Criticism of the BBC” are “spin” or “dishonest”.
I added supporting material and corrected inaccuracies. For example, as David points out, before my edits the entry baldly stated that the impartiality seminar was secret. The seminar wasn’t secret, it was streamed live on the web. I changed the entry to make it clear:
a)the seminar was streamed live in the web.
b) that it was a newspaper claim that it was “secret” rather than a fact.
Unless your definition of “secret” is “everyone on the internet could see it live”.
I haven’t looked at Wikipedia today but most of my changes have not been removed by wikieditors.
As for Abandon Ship’s point I don’t think this illustrates any “wider truth” either. It was a silly thing to do and I expect that 99% of BBC people would say it was.
As for the question i hand, I am not sure why an entire organisation is responsible for the actions of a few employees. I thought most right-wingers believe in individual responsibility. Very strange.
One point that strikes me as odd is that Nick Reynolds takes it upon himself to speak for the BBC in making amendments to wikipedia.
Does that mean that all the other 7000 plus edits represented the views that the BBC wished expressed – like calling a professional footballer a “violent c*nt”? Obviously not.
From my observation of the BBC it is a highly beaurocratic and hierarchical organisatioal organisation – like the Civil Service which I adorned for so many years. If I had seen an unfortunate reference to my Department in something like Wikipedia I might have drawn it to the attention of whoever was responsible for the outward image of the Dept – possibly our press office – but I would never have taken it on myself to make the changes. This would have been clearly set down in the procedural guidance – as I assume it must be at the BBC too.
It all adds to the picture of the BBC as an organisation out of control – and possibly in meltdown. The lunatics are running the asylum
Nick R
I know half a dozen folk who work for the BBC, every one of whom would agree with the sentiments of the Bush vandalism, and everyone of whom would call it idiotic and childish.
I also know dozens on non-BBC employees (many of whom are staunch Conservatives) who think the same of Dubya. The problem is that the edit came from a BBC gateway not a Barclaycard or BAE Systems gateway, so acts to reinforce the impression that an already left-leaning organisation is also staffed by childish idiots and has pathetically incompetent internal IT security.
I presume that the BBC is using some form of proxy server to connect to the Internet, so why don’t they just check the logs to find out who made the edits?
“It was a silly thing to do and I expect that 99% of BBC people would say it was.”
Ah yes, but unfortunately Nick it’s that remaining 1% that control the BBC.
Isn’t that why we’re all here in the first place?
>”It was a silly thing to do and I expect that 99% of BBC people would say it was.”
So it’s just this tiny 1% of BBC staff who cause all the trouble and create the wrong impression?
Pull the other one.
The BBC has become an expensive joke. Unfortunately we all have to pay for it, like it or not.