The BBC once reported on Wikipedia edits by interested parties….and …em…failed to mention its own activities in that area.
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.
I still think it was a good piece to write, but we should have asked the question about ourselves – and reflected it in the report – before it was published. That may be the sound of the barn door closing, but we have now put a line at the end of the story about the BBC and the fact that the Wikipedia scanner shows updates from people at IP addresses traceable back to the BBC.
Some of the examples are pretty unedifying, but for every dodgy one there are many, many more uncontroversial edits where people at the BBC have added information or changed a detail in good faith. The scanner also shows the same kind of results for a wide variety of other media organisations.
Oh and as for tracing or controlling those ‘rogue individuals’?…..
You are hardly the brightest button if you choose to make unpalatable updates to Wikipedia when you are sitting at a BBC computer, but policing every keystroke of more than 20,000 staff is impossible.
And The Times reveals the Labour Party’s outrageous behaviour that undoubtedly ‘went all the way to the top’ (h/t Andy Burnham)
Among those he alleges have been updating their entries are Wal-Mart, the world’s largest grocer, AstraZeneca, the drugs giant, Britain’s Labour Party, the CIA and the Vatican.
From the Independent:
BBC staff rewrote Wikipedia pages to water down criticism
BBC officials repeatedly altered the Wikipedia internet encyclopaedia to water down attacks on the corporation, The Independent on Sunday can disclose.
An investigation of “anonymous” edits on the site has revealed that the broadcaster’s staff rewrote parts of a page entitled “Criticism of the BBC” to defuse press attacks on “political correctness”. Also included in more than 7,000 Wikipedia edits by BBC workers are unflattering references to rival broadcasters and even the corporation’s biggest names.
An entry claiming that a BBC report found the organisation was “out of touch with large swathes of the public and is guilty of self-censoring subjects that the corporation finds unpalatable” was replaced with a brief paragraph saying the document “explored issues around impartiality”.
A BBC spokesman said staff should use the internet “in a manner that’s consistent with the BBC’s values of accuracy and impartiality”. He added: “At no time should that use bring the BBC into disrepute.”
Noted all the way back in 2007 by Biased BBC and linked to by the BBC:
With breathtaking hypocrisy, BBC Views Online’s third top story
Apparently someone at the BBC was editing Tony Blair’s entry:
Tony Blair: Difference between revisions
Original:
Downing Street aides later suggested that the palpitations had been brought on by Blair drinking lots of strong coffee at an [[European Union|EU]] summit and then working out vigorously in the gym
Altered:
Downing Street aides later suggested that the palpitations had been brought on by Blair drinking lots of strong vodka at an [[European Union|EU]] summit and then working out vigorously in the bedroom
And George Bush’s:
George W. Bush: Difference between revisions
Original:
George Walker Bush
Altered:
George Wanker Bush
And this is on Biased BBC because…?
All of Alan’s links are from 2007. Is there a 2014 story here, or has Alan got so used to posting up nonsense that he’s decided to dispense with any pretence of relevance?
Well you keep posting the same old rubbish Scott…good enough for you…..good enough for me then.
Perhaps you might like to switch off Dr Who and actually watch real world events….you might learn the relevance.
So there’s a story about Hillsborough edits being made from government computers.
But that’s not enough for you. There’s no real link to the BBC, so you dredge up 7 year old stories in order to satisfy your own prejudice.
Well done you. Can see why Vance keeps you around – with you regularly posting such ridiculous bollocks, even the delusional old bugger seems sane by comparison.
Perhaps you might like to switch off Dr Who and actually watch real world events
I watch plenty of real world events, thank you. Perhaps you ought to step outside once in a while, and experience the real world rather than just courting the attention of losers, paranoiacs, liars and racists that infest this site.
I see you’ve lost the argument again Scott.
It’s never an argument with Alan. For it to be an argument, he’d have to craft a proper point. He never does. Just copies and pastes, slaps some bold text on, and then lets the sad little bigots of Biased BBC tell him that he’s awesome.
Shame that a man so desperate for validation can only get some from idiots and liars, really.
Am I one of those “sad little bigots”?
I really do think you lost the argument a long time ago by making so many assumptions about so many people whom you know nothing whatsoever about.
By your abusive ad hominen I can only assume you’ve been on the sherry bottle again.
Scott, it’s not even amusing anymore. It’s just sad. Get a skill instead of trying to play devil’s advocate on topics you have zero-to-little understanding of, because you are destroyed every single time out.
Oh, the Voice of Pyongyang is back.
Ah, Scott – is yours a temporary troll appointment like that linked to below, or are you part of the permanent blog disruption staff? Just wondedered…
http://www.eldis.org/go/jobs&jobID=61186&pageNo=1#.U1p2uHmKC03
Scott,
A responsible broadcaster might when covering the story suggest that editing Wikipedia in such a way is not uncommon as evidenced by members of its own staff having done so. There could though be a problem with being open if no investigation was launched into the edits done by BBC staff or that anyone caught received no sanctions.
Ah
Today is Holocaust Memorial day, but it doesn’t have any relevance because it happened 70 years ago?
More relevant to today perhaps are Hitlers links to Muslim groups which were established during the 1930s and and40s.
Still today around the Middle East they make the Socialist Salute.
But no doubt this history has no relevance because it started 70 years ago.
If you want to be the one to compare Alan’s juvenilia with Holocaust Memorial Day, go right ahead. We don’t really need any further reasons why your chosen pseudonym is so inappropriate, but one more won’t hurt.
So now you claim that the rules which apply to ‘trivia’ do not apply to actions of greater import?
Pray tell us where the line in the sand is drawn in the size of the historical action, because it seems to me it’s as arbitrary as all other left wing constructs which allow them to arbitrarily choose which they support and those they deny.
Oh & by the way Scott, it’s generally accepted that those who resort to insult have lost the argument. I am not abusive towards you and never have been, so why in every post in which you respond to me do you resort to insult?
If I was a leftie I’m sure I could make up and ism or phobia or call you words like ‘vile’, or ‘hate filled’ etc etc (you know all of them), but I don’t, I have higher standards, and I haven’t lost !
I have higher standards
I think that people reading back throughout your posts would see that you only *think* you have higher standards. In common with so many on this site, your self-belief is comically oversized.
If you’re offended by people seeing through your pomposity, brace yourself for a lifetime of offence. Unless you already have that, and you hide out here, amongst all the other no-hopers who like to pretend they’re something?
I think the relevant point here is:
” And this is on Biased BBC because…?”
The folk on here will discuss whatever they wish without asking prior consent from anyone, including you.
Do you deliberately misunderstand Scott?
Not anything to do with ‘self-belief’ when I said I have higher standards I was referring to insulting people using bully words.
What is the point of posting here with a different opinion if the moment your view is challenged you respond by stooping to insult?
If your view is so fragile and impossible to defend then why post at all?
I pointed out a different point of view to yours – you respond not by addressing my argument, but by insult.
When I point out your technique, you respond with another barrage, completely failing to answer any of the points made.
I expect you will do the same again following this.
Scott’s tactic is, and always has been, to ignore what’s actually being said and to spew his neo-liberal ideology while also proving himself repeatedly to be a massive hypocrite in about a dozen different ways, not least of which is to complain about ‘trolls’ when that’s exactly what he is.
And he’s clearly not going to be stopped by things like cogent discussion or facts, so the best you can do is just to report his personal attacks or to ignore them as the infantile narcissistic straw-clutching ramblings that they are.
There is a saying that applies to slimy Scrot !
‘If you run into an arseh*le in the morning you meet an arseh*le! If you run into arseh*le s all day your the arseh*le ‘
“…. amongst all the other no-hopers who like to pretend they’re something”
As I said above, assumptions about people whom you know nothing about.
I’m retired now but I never had to pretend. I actually did things and was involved in events that ‘luvvies’ only ever act out.
Sneer if you wish, but I suspect that I have done an awful lot more in my life than you will ever be able to accomplish.
TPO and others
The fact that a lot of us have real experience of life in the hard world, have actually accomplished things, is totally lost on the likes of Scotty. He is just a troll, he feels superior to us “ordinary” folk – which is why he stoops to insult so much.
“If you’re offended by people seeing through your pomposity, brace yourself for a lifetime of offence.”
Oh the irony!
The problem we have with Scott, is that he diverts attention from the discussion at hand. Every response to his insults means we are not discussing the topic. Every post he makes is full of insults, no discussion or relevant facts. I think that he should be ignored and we should overlook the fact He’s an arsehole (sorry Scott).
“BBC impartiality review was compromised by personal connections and riddled with basic errors”
(-Civitas publication).
http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/CIVITAS+BBC+impartiality+review+was+compromised+by+personal+connections+and+riddled+with+basic+errors+28042014092400?