Wonkette
The new Wikipedia scanner thing has revealed what we pretty much always suspected: The world’s political, religious and media leaders are about seven years old, on average. By matching anonymous edits to Wikipedia entries back to the office computers where they originated, the scanner is able to match up particular changes to particular organizations. For example:
- Somebody at the CIA repeatedly added “Wahhhh!” to the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
- The CIA also made some helpful edits to, uhm, Oprah Winfrey’s profile.
- At the Vatican, they fucked with the entry about the Catholic Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, removing “links to newspaper stories written in 2006 that alleged that Adams’s finger prints and hand prints were found on a car used during a double murder in 1971.”
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee computers added color commentary to the Rush Limbaugh profile, describing him as an idiot, racist and bigot, while noting this about his listeners: “Most of them are legally retarded.”
- Diebold employees removed references to Diebold CEO Walden O’Dell being a loyal stooge of the Bush Administration.
- People at Fox News fucked with Al Franken’s profile.
- Fox News staffers also “de-loofahed Bill O’ Reilly, posted false information about the ratings of Fox News shows, accused Keith Olbermann of making light of Peter Jennings’ death and deleted rating info for MSNBC programs.”
- Somebody at the NYT added the very clever insult “jerk” to Bush Junior’s entry, while others are editing the Wall Street Journal’s entry for some reason.
- A computer at the New York Times was also used to call Tom DeLay a “grand dragon,” which is pretty good but not quite as good as Robert Byrd’s actual title, “Exalted Cyclops.”
Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits’ [BBC]
Fox News, New York Times Vandalizing Rivals’ Wikipedia Entries? [Fishbowl NY]
Comments
A spokesperson for the Democratic Party said that the changes had not been made on its computers. Instead, they said that the "IP address is the same as the DCCC".
Oh, well okay then.
"Most of them are legally retarded."
Well, at least Wikipedia had SOME factual information for once.
I want to know why Wonkette isn't busier fucking around on Wikipedia.
Hot-tub Tom has a grande cyclops?
@Senator Boomdog: Yeah, what a disgrace. C'mon, up the snark factor.
They should ALL have their computer privileges suspended for 48 hours, which is what I did when my 12 year old admitted to editing JK Rowling's page, linking her to the Nazi Party.
I actually own that Vandals record. Yes, for those of you who are too young, the term "record" refers music recorded on a vinyl disk that people used to play on their stereos with a "phonograph." Seriously.
Is it weird that I think the Virgil kid who created this site is kind of cute, even though his name is Virgil?
You'd think CIA employees would be smart enough to, ya know, figure out how IP addresses work. But then again, well, nevermind.
And by "loyal stooge" they really mean "secret puppet-master"
Why do you think Bush bought that property down south? He needs a ranch from which Rove, Cheney and the rest of the fugitives running from justice can rewrite history via Wikipedia.
I was so sure that first entry was going to be about Valerie Plame's page, as in "Wahhhh! Why don't you go cry about it some more, you fucking crybaby!" Alas, no.
Jeez, what kind of lazy idiot spends work time editing Wikipedia? I wish I had that kind of free time!
[glances over shoulder at co-workers, then submits comment to Wonkette]
Do Fox news employees just have way too much free time on their hands? Or do they have a division dedicated to Wikipedia?
That Wahhh thing is a giveaway--John Cox was behind that edit. We've all seen his video.
So, logically, Cox works for the CIA.
Ergo, he will win and become President next year.
@Tra: Of course Fox News employees have that much free time. What else are they going to be doing--fact checking?
@PeeJay: Anarchy Burger! Hold the government...
All Wikipedia entries should have a disclaimer "For Amusement Purposes Only."
The only person sitting there reading Bill O'Reilly's Wikipedia entry is Bill O'Reilly. And he already knows all the weasely things he's done.
I have never trusted the content on Wikipedia ever since I did a search on Clarence Thomas and it stated he was an African American. What the fuck?
@The_Lev: Actually fox news fact checks exclusively on wikipedia, they edit the facts use those facts to confirm the story and then report it. See its all on the up and up.
Wonder who entered the "Turd Blossem" wikipedia bio on, well, the Turd Blossem?
[en.wikipedia.org]
...Because everybody who works at every computer at every organization is making only administratively-mandated edits to Wikipedia. Not likely.
This OMG DIEBOLD/GOP/WWE/WHATEVER IS EDITING THEIR ARTICLE!!!! fad has got to stop. This is akin to thinking that the every actions of a cashier at Target are controlled and approved by corporate headquarters.
@Tukla_in_Iowa: "co-workers"? are they cleaning the combine heads?
@schwnj: I think you need to vent somewhere else cause I dont see anyone here suggesting a conspiracy. I think stephen colbert has done a pretty good job of invalidating any serious consideration of wikipedia as a reputable source of information.
You know, I like Wikipedia because we all know how trust worthy it is.... or ain't. It requires the reader to maintain a skeptical mind. Other sources of news and information expect too much trust, which we give all too willingly.
@gjdodger: Oh hell, no! I'm not one of those hotshot combine jockies. I'm a salt-of-the-earth pigshit shoveler and damned proud of it!
@Tra:
Actually, FOX has an entire division, "Fox News Security," that is dedicated to tracking down people who disagree with Bill O'Reilly and editing Wikipedia entries. O'Reilly required it in his last contract negotiations. Rumor has it that next time, he is going to demand the power to decide who lives and who dies. I think I read that on Wikipedia..., or Drudge, same thing , really.
@rdm7234: I enjoy deliberatly fucking with the Wikipedia entries for topics I assign my students, then seeing if any of my own spurious crap comes back to me in their essays.
They should just stick with Conservapedia...the sight with all of the real pics of Jesus walking with the Dinosaurs and stuff.
So quit messing around on Wonkette and get the truth.
"A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free.
Please read The Conservapedia Commandments before editing.
Conservapedia has about 16,300 educational, clean, and concise entries, including more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 17,000,000 page views and over 262,000 page edits. This site is growing rapidly"
And could someone tell NPR it rhymes with "nicky-pedia"?
They were saying "Wicca Pedia" this morning.
Like totally don't go there, okay?? Yikes!
@gopophobe: This site is growing rapidly
And nobody can tell the difference between the heartfelt content and the parodies...
@Phlip: The stuff on there is pretty scary - even more so when you consider a large percentage of people truly believe it. But at least they admit the spin and don't claim to be fair or balanced.
This is what Conservapedia has to say about Hillary.
In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the Electoral College[Citation Needed]. This received insufficient support.
No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Her current plans are again to socialize the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a Single Payer, government-controlled system.[Citation Needed]
Can they just change the name to Conservapedia{citation needed}. Seems like it'd save them many, many keystrokes.
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?