Wikapidia

[Mani]

On the Kim Commando computer expert radio show she warned that anyone can edit the definitions on wikapidea. There is abutton or something right on the sight.  She said Wiki is concerned that child molesters edited the definition of Pedophilia to put in questionable research claiming it does not children and Kim was upset that these pervs did that.

  About 5? years ago I looked up Ball Busting when I first heard about that fetish some people have.  In my opinion Wikipidia's article on it seemed to be in favor of it.  In other words it did not say how dangerous this is and it did not question weather the people who consent to this could be mental.   When I heard Kim warning about the child molesting thing It made me think of this. 

  Maybe an articulate men's rights proponent like Chris Key could make his own edit on these topics.  Mr. Key could bring up how kicking male Genitals being portraid by the media as funny is dangerous double standard.  He could also point out that it is assault and battery and most men would not like this.  If I remember correctly it made it sound like men enjoy getting kicked.

[bobx23456]

Wikipedia does indeed allow anyone to edit, but they have leftist/feminist moderators who come and delete info that appears to be anti-feminist or conservative politically.  If you repeate your edit, they ban you from the site. 

If Chris does some edits he probably can get some changes made. 

Blessings

Bob

[Mani]

To bad.  Sounds like another place that rigged.

[Malthus]

 Yes, that came to light when the FBI  or the CIA (if memory serves) was caught red-handed 'editing'  stuff about torture, 911 and terrorism.
  After that, it became clear that wiki was just wacko.
  I'll see if i can retrace the initial article blowing them wide open.

[Malthus]

NYTimes And FOX: Both Sources Of Wikipedia TamperingAdd a Comment

August 16, 2007 |
Paul Glazowski


It seems every few days Wikipedia manages to make the news in one way or another. In various instances it’s being crowned a next-generation resource with an incredible wealth of reliable information, some of which simply cannot and will never be found within the bounds of publications such as the OED or the Encyclopedia Brittanica. In others, it’s being scrubbed for fraud and misuse due to revelations of edits made by public personas and institutions (some quite influential) to entries on the website concerning said personas and institutions.

The latest developments to do with the more controversial side of Wikipedia are a particularly interesting. One involves Fox News, in which an IP address at the network was pinpointed as being the source of edits to entries about three of the network’s strongest voices: Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Bill O’Reilly. The other targets The New York Times as the place from which pieces about The Wall Street Journal and US Representative Tom DeLay had been altered.

The NYT and Fox News being polar opposites in their political leanings, this makes for a rather compelling bit of news. One is highly respected, one less so, but both lay claim to certain portions of the American populace. The fact that the two have been caught with their respective hands in the cookie jar – granted, thus far it’s not been proven that these series of edits have not been more than isolated incidents by “rogue” individuals made without the official approval of either media organization – makes one wonder whether two bads made on opposite sides of the aisle cancel one another out or that the revelations diminish the reputations of both. Of course, if I’m blunt about it, Fox News hasn’t a reputation of positive note anyway, this development will likely do no harm to the business.

From what I gather (with no less than some good ol’ common sense), the NYT stands upon a much, much higher and much more esteemed ledge to fall from than its nemesis. And, if we’re frank about things, the edits made from within the Fox News network seem, well, run of the mill, really.

If the story becomes more than a minor irritant to the NYT, the paper will undoubtedly face much greater criticism from all angles. Furthermore, The Times cannot weed out the stray editor of said posts and remove him/her from the company even if it wished to do so. Quite the conundrum.

According to a statement by Abbe Serphos, director of public relations the NYT, made to CNET News, “The IP address listed is our external IP address for all Internet browsing. Therefore, we cannot tell who may have made a posting to the site.”

Either these stories get swept beneath the rug quickly, or slowly and steadily fester into things which require much closer attention. While an investigation into the root of these issues would no doubt be the correct path to take, I cannot see these bits, however interesting, remaining a gripping emergence for long.

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

[Malthus]

   Found this other one (in less than 3 minutes)
  Obviously, anyone with an agenda can edit wiki. It is therefore *unreliable* as a source of info and *reliable* as a source of propaganda.

yelvington.comSubscribe Blogs › yelvington's blogTampering with Wikipedia
August 15, 2007 - 4:24pm — yelvington
The other night I gave a speech at the John Siegenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University in which I urged the new-media workshop students to look something up on Wikipedia, which is, of course, infallible. That drew a good laugh. Siegenthaler, unfortunately, wasn't appearing until later in the week, so I couldn't tease directly.

When you edit a page on Wikipedia, your changes are journaled and your identity (or at least your IP address) is noted. A Caltech grad student and hacker has built a search tool that works on that information, and Wired has launched a crowdsourced project to surface changes that are ... ahem ... interesting.

The results?

Scientologists removing criticism. Gee, no surprise there.
The Israeli government removing criticism.
Electronic Arts removing criticism.
Diebold removing ... you guessed, it, criticism!
Dow Chemical removing references to some of its great products, such as Bhopal, Agent Orange and breast implants.
Dell Computer ... guess what they did?
Somebody at the Washington Post changing the record to say the Washington Examiner is owned by Charles Manson. Wait a minute ... who owns the Washington Times? These cult guys all run together in my mind, sort of helter-skelter.
Fox News not only removing criticism, but also tampering with entries for Al Franken and Keith Olberman.
The BBC changing the Dubya to mean "Wanker" instead of "Walker" and the New York Times adding "jerk jerk jerk" to George W. Bush's entry. Ah, well, it could be worse. Reuters identified him as a mass murderer.
Now, surely all those edits were cowboy actions by some low-level idiot in those organizations, unsanctioned by anyone in charge. I for one would be shocked, shocked ....

Well, it does make for some fun reading.
.crowdsourcingvandalismwikipediayelvington's blog.Comments
August 19, 2007 - 6:38am — Beth Arthur (not verified)
Wikipedia and "corporate policy" guidance?
Hi, Steve. I'd appreciate your take on the topic of edits made on corporate Wikipedia entries.

Is anyone (outside of Wikipedia) discussing "Wikipedia 'rules of thumb'" to guide corporate employees (in legal, PR/marketing and library depts.) what to do when the company page on Wikipedia contains slanted or false information?

Should companies appoint and name "Wikipedia ambassadors?"

Are HR departments formulating policies for employees on whether/when/how to (openly/anonymously?) edit the corporate entry?

Thanks!

[Malthus]

THERE IT IS!!!!
  FBI AND CIA TAMPERS WITH WIKIPEDIA
  Please note the *source* of this information!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1642896020070816

[Chris Key]

The 'ballbusting' article on Wikipedia is probably monitored by ballbusting enthusiasts. If so, then they'll run people like us out of Wikipedia as soon as we state a few facts about their moronic fetish. The old 'cuntbusting' article that was on wikipedia a few years ago was most likely taken down by the ballbusting enthusiasts.

[Serpent Slayer]

I would trust Wiki to track whichever entities have been doing edits on a given page and to have a link for this.  At least the ones doing the editing on Wiki don't own it.  It's a good place to start doing research on a given topic but just MSM - not to be trusted.