The real story is Wikipedia is just a bad idea
Aug 17th, 2007 by Mark
FBI, CIA computers used to edit wikipedia content.
Did Reuters do a story on the NYT doing exactly this same thing? Not that I know of.
Michelle Malkin has an article that is more balanced about the wiki-wars
Some lefty attacks Fox over it’s edits — for some reason correcting incorrect info about Fox is considered evil by this idiot. He did not chk out CNN or MSNBC or NYT …
Wired has a list of edits running — note the anti-conservative bias.
BBC and it’s bias on display — ok it’s not new, but I love to point out their hatred
NYT and it’s hate — no shock here.
Seems Reuters is more worried about making death threats, than reporting news.
So Where’s the Beef?
Nowhere to be found.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.
The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.
How does working for either of these organizations preclude you from editing articles they are experts on?
Reuters of course uses the Iraq war, and Gitmo to make it appear that the edits were propaganda that pushes the Bush line. What they don’t say that many in the FBI, and CIA are actively undermining the Bush administration.
Well it’s not like Reuters is a News org employing journalists, is it?
Wikipedia, dumb beyond belief
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the pages. Gee anyone else see a problem with that? Maybe you need to reread the above article, if you don’t. Wikipedia has tried to assuage some critics by now having a log in. Well that is helping!
“Vandalism” of page? What happened to liberals and free speech? Oh right, free speech is them attacking anyone they hate; it’s vandalism when someone else expresses an opinion. Supposedly this IP resolves to Apple.
The best part is the feigned “nice” asking. This crap occurs on bulletin boards all the time. Pokah was notorious for banning people they disagreed with. That is why no one goes their anymore. Wikipedia’s fate looks much the same.
Wikipedia is an experiment in anarchy. It failed, wow! So shocking. This is a good demonstration of why Democracy does not work on a grand scale. No we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Representative Republic.
It’s not that Wikipedia edits have some kind of liberal bias, it’s that reality has a well known liberal bias.
Faux News editing articles about themselves is against Wikipedia norms and standards, just like CNN doing the same. Obviously, (1) most people and institutions have an interest in presenting a flatering image of themselves whether the facts support it or not, and (2) Fox is notoriously unable to tell facts from fallacy. Have you heard of Bill O’Reilly’s two Peabody Awards?
Yes, vandalism. Just like if somebody spray painted the world’s opinion of GWB on your house. If you’d like to spout nonsense, paint with overly broad strokes, and state falsehoods (or at best unverifiable claims) as if they were truth … do it on your blog, not an encyclopedia that, while an open invitation exists to the public for making good faith edits, is a private institution.
It’s not surprising to see a conservative getting it so wrong, and emmulating Fox Noise: “Supposedly this IP resolves to Apple.” Supposedly, some people think; you should read Wikipedia’s article on Weasel Words.
History only has a liberal bias, because Acadamia (you know historians) are liberal.
BTW, the CIA and FBI are rife with liberals who want to make the right look badly. Just take a look at the current NIE report.
Being a liberal means wearing blinders, lying your ass off, and never having to admit you are wrong.
Crowd-sourcing is nothing but lunacy. I hate to agree with the liberal media on this one; but it’s true.