Fox News edits wikipedia- censorship, spinning, smearing rivals

Oct 5, 2004
7,915
1
486
jersey
#1
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/08...ann-and-franken-comprehensive-list-of-changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=12.167.224.228

O’Reilly Media (the techie O’Reilly) has come out with information detailing that Fox News has been changing entries on Wikipedia as well - including one on Al Franken’s case with Bill O’Reilly (the caustic O’Reilly).

So we went ahead and took a look at other changes to Wikipedia allegedly made by the people from the Fox News offices - the changes originating from IP address “12.167.224.228“. (Here’s the DNS lookup for 12.167.224.228.) We’ve done the legwork of poring through all the edits and published a comprehensive list below, omitting corrections of minor errors and clarifications of fact, i.e., the innocuous. The following below are clearly anything but, however.

below you’ll find changes that were made by IP address 12.167.224.228, which resolves to Fox News. Changes are to the articles “Keith Olbermann”, “Chris Wallace”, “Carl Cameron”, “Brit Hume”, “Shepard Smith”, “Al Franken”, “Brian Wilson”, “CNN”, and “Greta Van Susteren”.
 
Oct 5, 2004
7,915
1
486
jersey
#3

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
Nov 20, 2005
19,062
134
268
Las Vegas, NV
#4
I see you have more reliable sources. If they were saying bad things about cnn or the other channels, wouldn't they report it?
 
Mar 17, 2006
3,673
1
218
#5
Yup. Because when I want unbiased journalism, I go to dailykos and huffingtonpost.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
Nov 20, 2005
19,062
134
268
Las Vegas, NV
#6
And even if it's true, who cares? All the news channels lie about shit. You can't trust any of them. So what's the point?
 

pure_waves

© Steven Carr Industries, 2014. Grrrrrrrr
Dec 9, 2004
1,406
1
513
Upper West Side, NY
#7
wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. it also had a ton of editors who can reverse malicious changes. if theres a problem the people whos pages were changed can change them back as well. i dont really care who changes what there, wikipedia is a load of crap.
 

martianvirus

READY THE ANALPROBES!!!!!!!!
Nov 20, 2005
19,062
134
268
Las Vegas, NV
#8
I agree with you on wikipedia. It's easy to find info on it. But you can never really trust that info. But then, how is that diffrent then the real news?
 

pure_waves

© Steven Carr Industries, 2014. Grrrrrrrr
Dec 9, 2004
1,406
1
513
Upper West Side, NY
#9
well the major news outlets are a bit different in that a few people decide what gets out there, like the bosses and editors whereas on wikipedia any retard with an internet connection can change whatever he wants.

the whole point about fox news or whomever changing wikipedia and having it be an issue is ludicrous because wikipedia is a thing that is changed constantly and should be changed constantly by its very definition. it doesnt say only al franken can change al frankens page.

and by the way the IP showing its at the foxnews offices is meaningless...could be a fucking intern or a janitor and not a big corporate conspiracy agains the left, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
 
Aug 11, 2005
27,637
4
51
#13
meh, abc nbc and cbs is fucking up the internet
it's not cool anymore
 

weakside

He was stupid. I was lucky. I will visit him soon.
Dec 9, 2004
3,871
0
0
California
#16
Like everything else, it is always good to look up more than one source for information. I found Wiki to be pretty accurate with stuff I already know. So when I use to look up information I don’t I trust it for the most part but I always crosscheck it with other sites. In any case, most intelligent people are able to tell the difference between a factual tone and one that is bias.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#17
It's also been shown that several Democrat run or controlled agencies were fooling around and editing entries for Republicans or conservatives. I distinctly recall that Rush Limbaugh's entry was hit.

Guess what: both ideological parties being completely childish douche tools isn't really news anymore. It's so common it's the norm.

Although shame on you, "Sack of Chisels", for actually trying to pass off a DailyKos and Huffington Post link as a "reliable source." What a fucking joke on your end.
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#18
None of my edits to Stern stuck...
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#19
BTW, here is a link showing where someone at Reuters edited George W. Bush's entry to state that he's a mass murderer.

I'm sure that you're going to post about your outrage at Reuter's apparent lack of objectivity, right?
 
Oct 5, 2004
7,915
1
486
jersey
#22
Although shame on you, "Sack of Chisels", for actually trying to pass off a DailyKos and Huffington Post link as a "reliable source." What a fucking joke on your end.
Are you fuckin shitting me? It doesn't matter who published it, the contributions page on wikipedia and the whois of the ip speaks for itself. As I already stated, I only first posted that "geeksaresexy" link because somebody took the time to fetch all of the interesting edits and outline the original, and what was changed. Somebody challenged that website, I simply posted a few more links as returned from google news. I'm not defending dailykos or huffington post, I don't even know what the fuck those sites are, or your problem with them, but again, if all I did was post a link to the wikipedia page(s) it would be ignored because you'd actually have to do work to find the changes, or somebody would just write it off as a non story. oh well I don't care... just being an active member of wikipedia I found this to be interesting, you don't have to.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#23
I'm not defending dailykos or huffington post, I don't even know what the fuck those sites are,
This, I'm doubting.


if all I did was post a link to the wikipedia page(s) it would be ignored because you'd actually have to do work to find the changes,
And I happened to post an example of Democrat or liberal leaning news media outlets screwing around with Republican or conservative entries.

So what's YOUR point? Mine seems to be that both ideologies seem to enjoy using the cheapest tactics available to denigrate the other side.
 
Oct 5, 2004
7,915
1
486
jersey
#24
This, I'm doubting.




And I happened to post an example of Democrat or liberal leaning news media outlets screwing around with Republican or conservative entries.

So what's YOUR point? Mine seems to be that both ideologies seem to enjoy using the cheapest tactics available to denigrate the other side.
I don't have much of a point, was just posting it because it seemed interesting. But I don't appreciate being attacked because I might have came off as liberal by posting links to liberal-oriented sites. (which I just looked up as to what they're all about, I was not lying in my original reply)

I also didn't post this to cause a political shitstorm debate, just because somebody affiliated with fox made an ass out themselves.

Jesus Christ.