David Gregory (BBC):
Oh dear. Well the George W bush incident isn't very clever. Perhaps it was a work experience kid with access to a computer? Perhaps a dramatic example someone was making of the problems of Wikpedia? And perhaps someone was being an idiot.
But otherwise a quick glance shows most of these edits are pretty much for the greater good and in the spirit of Wikipedia. I know Nick who posts here contributes.
And of course it's not just the BBC who's been at it...
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007...list-of- changes
David Gregory (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 8:43 am | #

Nick Reynolds(BBC):
If it is a BBC person doing this they are being childish, silly and are probably breaking Wikipedia's house rules.

I have edited Wikipedia and in particular the section on the BBC. But I always obey the house rules - which stress that entries should be accurate.
Nick Reynolds(BBC) | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 9:15 am | #

Ali P:
B-BBC-ers might like to see too these two edits on Wiki by the BBC regarding BBC impartiality. I _think_ they imply that someone from the BBC added the Randall/Marr paragraph then another Beeboid tried to remove it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=94029533
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=94029625

Seems to be a battle between 132.185.144.122 and 132.185.144.120!

For more BBC edits of 'Criticism of the BBC' (it's really very interesting what they do/don't want you to know) qv:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=93600334
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=93602768

Ali P
Ali P | 15.08.07 - 9:30 am | #

Ali P:
Sorry to bang on, but you've got to love this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=139215058

Ali P
Ali P | 15.08.07 - 9:35 am | #

glj:
BBC staff faffing about editing wiki entries - have they nothing better to be doing during their working day?
glj | 15.08.07 - 9:41 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
The above edits are mainly mine (although I don't know who Mark Thomas is). Regarding Ali P's final one the original entry was inaccurate - the press quote does not reflect what was actually in the Impartiality report. So I changed it to make it accurate.

Of course if people disagree, it's Wikipedia - so they can go and reedit. I think anybody and everybody should use it. It's a great way of learning about the internet.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 10:10 am | #

Anonymous:
Given the bloated size of the BBC staff, 7000 edits over a period of time isn't that big a deal (time-wise that is, I'm not talking about the content of whatever they added).

But I had to laugh at David Gregory's defence of the Bush one. Work experience kid, sure. Or maybe it was a cleaner using your computer overnight? Or someone who came in to change the lightbulb?
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 10:20 am | #

Bryan:
petty personal political prejudices

This is precisely the point. The BBC should be energetically trying to identify staff members who are not only steeped in prejudice but have this juvenile habit of seeing how much of that prejudice they can get away with pumping out on air.

Wikipedia aside, we see this time and time again in the BBC's own output: the wink-wink, nudge-nudge superiority, the jeers and sneers when reporting on the BBC's pet hates such as Christianity, Israel and America. And we see precious little evidence of the BBC correcting this bias - or even being aware that it exists.

Here's a powerful example from the World Service of the juvenile BBC sniggering at both America and Christianity:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments...? a=33685#351534

Now I'm sure that with all the resources at his command John Reith would be able to dig up a recording of that Webb piece, along with the snide comments and sniggering, and explain to those responsible that their attitude should be restricted to their personal lives and not broadcast on the radio.

But would Reith or anyone else at the BBC ever take such a step? Not bloody likely. Prejudice has free rein at the BBC.
Bryan | 15.08.07 - 10:22 am | #

johnj:
Nick Reynolds(BBC):
the press quote does not reflect what was actually in the Impartiality report. So I changed it to make it accurate.

Excuse me exactly the same was quoted in The Daily Mail. Perhaps you would like to do a Winston Smith on that too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...ge_id=1770& ct=5

BBC accused of institutional 'trendy left-wing bias'
The Daily Mail, 1st May 2007, By Paul Revoir
johnj | 15.08.07 - 10:29 am | #

Sarah-Jane:
The 'Wanker' thing is amazing. It is stupid beyond belief.
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 10:40 am | #

MattLondon:
"Sarah-Jane:
The 'Wanker' thing is amazing. It is stupid beyond belief."

Perhaps - but it is not out of line with lots of on air comment in Radio 4 "comedy" programmes, for instance the News Quiz.
MattLondon | 15.08.07 - 10:47 am | #

glj:
I'm sure if the story were that Conservative CHQ had made over 7,000 wiki edits Mr Gregory and his ilk would be equally dismissive, and brush it off as no more than high japes by some work experience kid - wouldn't you Mr Gregory.
glj | 15.08.07 - 10:57 am | #

Anonymous:
I don't care that there are left-wing wankers at the BBC. There are left-wing wankers everywhere. What concerns me is that the BBC is *mainly* composed of them.
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 10:57 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Obviously it's not my job to write Daily Mail stories. But the opening para of the Mail's story does not in my opinion accurately reflect the report. If you disagree you can always reedit Wikipedia.

With Wikipedia, everyone is a Winston Smith! That's what's so great about it.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 11:13 am | #

Anonymous:
>If you disagree you can always reedit Wikipedia.

And you'll re-edit it again.

>That's what's so great about it.

Wikipedia used to be great, but back-and-forth editing and re-editing from warring parties means that now large tracts of it are locked-off.
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 11:23 am | #

Bryan:
Mr. Reynolds, I'm not sure if you realise how revealing that last comment of yours is of the attitude of the BBC.
Bryan | 15.08.07 - 11:25 am | #

johnj:
NR I appreciate your candour- but do you really think this is the sort of article on Wikipedia, that you, as a BBC journalist, should really be editing?

A report on the BBCs impartiality

No matter what you edit or write- however reasonable, or factual it may be- the very fact that you work for the BBC will be held against you.

I guess one can think of many analogies that would illustrate such a similar 'conflict of interest'- for instance, what would we say to a policeman editing something that the IPCC produced on impartiality?
johnj | 15.08.07 - 12:00 pm | #

archduke:
somebody should point this out to the Sun or the Daily Mail. i'm sure they'll lap it up.
archduke | 15.08.07 - 12:00 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Interestingly the Wikipedia editors are being quite nice about this and have not told me to stop. Their conflict of interest rules do not seem to stop me doing this as long as I obey the house rules. See this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tal...ts_on_this_page

The house rules say I have to be accurate. I try to be. Of course I know that I have to be careful about what I say, which is why I concentrate on facts which can be verified. As long as I am not breaking Wikipedia's rules, I don't see a problem.

I meant in my comment that everyone in the world can now be a Winston Smith. So if people disagree with what I have written then they can always change it.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 12:15 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
As for johnj's comment, that would rather depend on what the Policeman wrote and whether he was open about what he was doing. Google News are now allowing people to comment on stories about them.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 12:16 pm | #

archduke:
the george bush "wanker" editor knows
arabic

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=134038541
archduke | 15.08.07 - 12:32 pm | #

ed:
Archduke- brilliant spot. It must have been an arabic speaking BBC cleaner! The BBC, eh? Equal opportunities for all.
ed | 15.08.07 - 12:47 pm | #

Sarah-Jane:
archduke the BBC network (like a lot of ISPs) assigns an IP at logon out of a pool, so it does not automatically follow that the person making one edit was the other.

Although if the edits were made in a very short time of each other, you might reasonably assume it was the same person.

Not that any of that excuses the stupidity of making the wanker edit from a BBC IP.
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 12:49 pm | #

MDC:
This is why wikipedia is so god-awful. Well, I dont really mean that. This is why some of wikipedia is god-awful. For purely factual articles (on science, for instance, or ancient history) it is good, and generally quite accurate. But for matters where there are living vested interests (religious, political and recent historical articles, mainly) the only people who can really be bothered to devote all their time and energy to fighting and winning the edit wars are the vested interests themselves.

What you end up with are extremely skewed articles.

You get a "European Union" article that does not have a section on the Common Agricultural Policy, and mentions it only twice, both times without any explanation, and is not mentioned to all in the 'Economy' section, while the EU's minute common defence sphere is given its own section and two paragraphs of explanation.

You get articles on politicians and political viewpoints where the "Criticisms of" section turns into a debate between two editing factions or, where one vested interest clearly has a large numerical and/or free time advantage, turns into a "Rebuttals of Criticisms of" section.

If you use wikipedia on these issues as anything other than a primer on an issue, or a gauge of public mood amongst internet-obsessed vested interests with too much time on their hands, then you've either been duped by wikipedia's (probably genuine) intentions of impartiality, or you're an idiot.

Obviously we can't know for sure how often its content feeds into the media interpretation of events, but given the glowing terms in which BBC employees have described it, I have a sad feeling it is used quite frequently.
MDC | 15.08.07 - 12:57 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Why don't you write a section on the CAP in Wikipedia MDC?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 1:09 pm | #

The Moderator:
Let's not get into a debate here about the merits of Wikipedia. Or the CAP.
The Moderator | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 1:16 pm | #

archduke:
odd how people working at the bbc seem to find enough time to discuss the intricacies of the Chairman Mao page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tal...ke_it_more_NPOV

("132.185.x.x" addresses are bbc)
archduke | 15.08.07 - 1:17 pm | #

MDC:
Because I have better ways to spend my life than getting involved in an edit war with a bunch of obsessive wikipedians who have much more time on their hands than I do.

But really, dozens of people, if not hundreds, have already dedicated days to that article - it shouldn't have such glarring ommissions. That is precisely my point - the wikipedia system produces poor results (and it's really just one example of a very wide spread problem, my whole opposition to wiki isn't just due to that one problem with that one article) on politically sensitive topics because the most numerous and obsessive groups can twist the whole tone and content of the articles to favour their views.

It would be much better if people stopped being lazy and researched these topics for themselves. If you want to know about the anatomy of a ladybird then sure, look it up on wikipedia, no one has any reason to distort that, but if you want to know about a matter of political debate, the only way to get an objective(ish) answer is to do some indepdendent research.
MDC | 15.08.07 - 1:19 pm | #

MDC:
Goodness, this is the second time this has happened. When I started writing my post Nick Reynold's most recent post was the last post up (note 3 minute time difference). Also, I wasnt debating the CAP or intending to start a debate on it. Sorry again.
MDC | 15.08.07 - 1:23 pm | #

Sarah-Jane:
(MDC this is a bit OT but haloscan does refresh itself so it will tell you if other people have posted something while you are typing. It comes up next to the '22 visitors online' bit.
Its quite a useful feature if you know it's there, although you do have to copy what you've typed onto the clipboard before you check or you lose it.)
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 1:27 pm | #

MDC:
(I hadn't noticed that before. I'll try using it in future.)
MDC | 15.08.07 - 1:30 pm | #

archduke:
bbc "wanker" edit is now on the front page of reddit.com

http://reddit.com/

(very high traffic site)
archduke | 15.08.07 - 1:34 pm | #

David Gregory (BBC):
Hang on, can I just say while there is no way of knowing for sure who made the President Bush "wanker" edit if it was a memeber of staff than they were an idiot. Full stop.
David Gregory (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 1:43 pm | #

Anon:
>bbc "wanker" edit is now on the front page of reddit.com

It's moved down a bit now. One of the stories that has replaced it is one about FOX News people editing Wikipedia. I know which one I'll be hearing about at the next chattering-class dinner party I go to!
Anon | 15.08.07 - 1:45 pm | #

Anon:
It's all very well you apologizing, David. But it isn't just about them being an idiot. It's about the fact that this sort of BBC story always seems to involve an expression of left-wing politics. Very rarely do you find some BBC idiot doing something similar which indicates that they're a right-winger.

(Of course BBCers may sometimes attack a lefty, but this is always an attack from further to the left).
Anon | 15.08.07 - 1:50 pm | #

glj:
Anon | 15.08.07 - 1:45 pm |

I just did a quick search on the wikiscanner page (which is getting hammered traffic wise btw) and Fox News throws up no more than a hundred or so results. So i'm not sure why Fox would be more newsworthy than the BBC.

Incidentally I would have to concede that the overwhelming majority of the "bbc" edits are nothing to write home about.
glj | 15.08.07 - 1:56 pm | #

glj:
Ah, I see, the bbc story is lower down.
glj | 15.08.07 - 2:06 pm | #

archduke:
somebody at the bbc changed "terrorists" to "freedom fighters"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=1667544
archduke | 15.08.07 - 2:11 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Again a silly thing to do, especially as it's impossible to tell from the article who these groups actually are so neither word is accurate. Something more neutral like "those inside" would have been better.

Mind you it was in 2003, as part of a article about the military uses of a bulldozer.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 15.08.07 - 2:17 pm | #

archduke:
it is somewhat amusing to see Fox News slug it out with the BBC in the great war of the wikipedia:

http://reddit.com/

bbc "wanker" has upped to no.3
fox is at 7
archduke | 15.08.07 - 3:03 pm | #

pedant:
Quoting:

Not that any of that excuses the stupidity of making the wanker edit from a BBC IP.
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 12:49 pm |

Sarah-Jane, so in your view the editing was stupid because it was made from a BBC IP address, not because it was stupid in itself. I suppose you're implying a clever BBC employee would have done it from a private IP.

How interesting.

And more interesting yet, the same IP address (whatever that means) did a lot of editing in the 'British Asians' category...

Diversity and cohesion, that's what we do best.
pedant | 15.08.07 - 3:20 pm | #

Anonymous:
The Wikipedia Scanner, which trawls the backwaters of the popular online encyclopaedia, has unearthed a catalogue of organisations massaging entries, including the CIA and the Labour party.

Workers operating on CIA computers have been spotted editing entries including the biography of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, while unnamed individuals inside the Vatican have worked on entries about Catholic saints - and Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams.

Meanwhile, an anonymous surfer from Labour's Millbank headquarters excised a section about Labour Students which referred to "careerist MPs"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ techno...eaccountability
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 3:24 pm | #

GBEHBawgies:
@ Sarah-Jane

the BBC network (like a lot of ISPs) assigns an IP at logon out of a pool

Indeed. But such networks don't usually release the IP address to anyone else the instant you log out. Your "lease" on it remains in place for some period of time. At my company, for example, if someone came into work day in day from Monday to Friday they would retain the same address throughout.

So it might not be the same person every time. Or, probably equally plausibly, it might.

Incidentally, isn't it funny how even when you can identify someone who is actually right of centre at the BBC, they don't seem to display any right-wing bias? Has anyone at the BBC edited the entry on Broon, for example, to suggest that he's a prolific nose-picker?
GBEHBawgies | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 3:56 pm | #

archduke:
somebody in the comments on reddit makes a valid point:

"The hypocrisy is mind-boggling:

Fox News changes Wikipedia Entry - Outrage! It's a conspiracy! Those fucking bastards!

BBC edits Wikipedia - It's just a guy working for them! He's right, anyway! Funny, funny!"

BBC "wanker" is now at no.2
http://reddit.com
archduke | 15.08.07 - 4:14 pm | #

towcestarian:
David, Nick, Sarah-Jane
The BBC "wanker" editor is not simply an "idiot" as you all seem to be saying. His/her actions are malicious and almost cerainly break the BBC employment rules by bringing the BBC into very serious disrepute. Given the heightened sensitivity to trendy-lefty bias at the moment caused by the outrageously biased coverage of the Redwood proposals, I predict this one is going to explode big time in the BBC's face when the MSN pick up on it.
towcestarian | 15.08.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Sarah-Jane:
pedant:
Quoting:

Not that any of that excuses the stupidity of making the wanker edit from a BBC IP.
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 12:49 pm |

Sarah-Jane, so in your view the editing was stupid because it was made from a BBC IP address, not because it was stupid in itself. I suppose you're implying a clever BBC employee would have done it from a private IP.

That is a fantastic strawman pedant - hat tip to you for it. It is either brilliant or moronic, I cannot make my mind up.

Just in case I hadn't been clear enough - this is an immature and idiotic thing to do in any case. That someone, almost certainly a BBC employee, would do it from a BBC IP address, leaves me speechless.

Thank heavens the likes of pedant are here to put words in my mouth for me.

:-P

And with morons like this wikipedia editor about, B-BBC might be out of a job sooner than they can dream.

It's embarrassing to the point of... fortunately I am moving so will be away for a bit.

Have fun.
Sarah-Jane | 15.08.07 - 6:44 pm | #

jg:
"Just in case I hadn't been clear enough - this is an immature and idiotic thing to do in any case. That someone, almost certainly a BBC employee, would do it from a BBC IP address, leaves me speechless."

Why speechless SJ? After all, the BBC newsroom had a poster of Bush/Hitler up for a long time. Surely you see the pattern here?
jg | 15.08.07 - 7:05 pm | #

Sam Duncan:
Presumably the same work experience kid was responsible for these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=6578494
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=23529331
Sam Duncan | 15.08.07 - 7:32 pm | #

Anonymous:
Stuff here on BBC Views Online about the new Wiki tool...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/techn...ogy/ 6947532.stm

...But no mention of the vandalism to George Bush's page done from BBC Towers!
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Ali P:
Front page news on BBC:

"Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'"

... but nothing about themselves.
Ali P | 15.08.07 - 8:03 pm | #

Ali P:
(snap. sorry.)
Ali P | 15.08.07 - 8:04 pm | #

towcestarian:
"I don't belieeeeeve it!!!"

Auntie Beeb has just put this priceless article on their website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/techn...ogy/ 6947532.stm

Now please excuse me for a second whilst I try to remember a time-worn adage about glass houses and stones.
towcestarian | 15.08.07 - 8:04 pm | #

Sam Duncan:
This, of course, is simply an objective fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=36957685
Sam Duncan | 15.08.07 - 8:23 pm | #

tom atkins:
BBC's CIA edits wiki article

to paraphrase Basil Faulty

Oh I see now -
There I was thinking it was your fault and all along it was my fault.
tom atkins | 15.08.07 - 9:07 pm | #

Anonymous:
The UN are up to no good either...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=38791682
Anonymous | 15.08.07 - 10:08 pm | #

Sam Duncan:
More fun edits from the fair, impartial and high-minded BBC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=105351692
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=119715943
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=109304918

The last one's interesting. Given the subject (C4's "100 Worst Britons" programme) I was expecting an amusing reference to a prominent Tory, or Mr. Blair. In fact, it's a reasonably fair point about the depth to which Channel 4's standards have sunk. But it's a bit rich coming from the Beeb.

To be fair, though, it's true that most of the edits are unobjectionable - the bulk of them seem to be professional journalists correcting the often appaling grammar and spelling of other contributors. However, that doesn't excuse the few that aren't, and it certainly doesn't excuse the BBC's smokescreen about CIA edits.
Sam Duncan | 15.08.07 - 10:22 pm | #

BBK:
Sam Duncan:

Perhaps the bulk of the Wikipedia changes are reasonable enough but what the hell are BBC employees doing correcting wikipedia entries anyway, when they should be getting on with making crap telly programs and nonsense news reports?

Are they seriously that overstaffed and overfunded they can afford to have employees languishing around their desk taking stabs at Wikipedia when it suits them.

In fact, Nick Reynolds, John Reith, Sarah Jane et al, what are you ALL doing posting here when you should be working? Don't you peole have schedules?

I wish to god I had as much time in my day as these BBC staff to idly surf the internet.

Seriously, the BBC offices sound like one gigantic lefty free range farm to me.
BBK | 16.08.07 - 3:15 am | #

Bryan:
Seriously, the BBC offices sound like one gigantic lefty free range farm to me.
BBK | 16.08.07 - 3:15 am

Precisely. It's like Animal Farm with the pigs in control.

(But with the infiltration of the BBC by radical Islamists, a comparison with pigs is not really suitable.)
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 6:22 am | #

Purple Scorpion:
And when I last looked, Fox News wasn't funded by US taxpayers.

It's the people's money the BBC are frittering away.
Purple Scorpion | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 10:20 am | #

Tomasz Seratov:
Nick Reynolds - it appears one editor was "being nice" and he clearly had a left wing agenda given his remarks about the DMGT.

Others have pointed to the conflicts of interest page

"avoid, or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"

I'd avoid. It's much cleaner.
Tomasz Seratov | 16.08.07 - 11:41 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I disagree - I think you should "exercise great caution" but not avoid. I have discussed this with a wikipedia editor. They have not told me to stop.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 12:02 pm | #

towcestarian:
Nick
Well then why don't you and the other BBC acolytes that do Wiki-edits not "exercise great caution" when editing the "Criticism of the BBC" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cri...cism_of_the_BBC Wiki page. This is a classic example of Wipipedia not working.

Criticism of the BBC is airbrused out of this Wiki page by the BBC and various BBC linked individuals (ie Pit-Yacker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use...ser:Pit-yacker) on an almost daily basis. This is not exercising caution, it is Stalinist suppression of criticism.
towcestarian | 16.08.07 - 2:06 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I edited those pages and I did not "airbrush out" criticism of the BBC on those pages. In fact I left almost all the criticism there. What I did was add extra material and links.

For example anyone reading the orginal entry would have come away with the impression that the BBC Impartiality seminar held last year was "secret". In fact it was streamed live on the web for anyone to see and I watched it with my own eyes. So I changed the entry to reflect that.

I made all these changes to make the entry more accurate and to try and improve wikipedia. So far the Wikipedia editors have not told me to stop.

To me this is an example of Wikipedia working well.

But I don't do this on a "daily basis". So if you want to change it...
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 2:19 pm | #

Licence Fee Payer:
Are we paying you to surf the internet all day Mr Reynolds? If so do you have any jobs going? I assume I have to pretend to be a leftie?
Licence Fee Payer | 16.08.07 - 2:31 pm | #

towcestarian:
Nick
For your benefit, I am going to spend an hour or so going through the last couple of months of edits to the "Criticism of the BBC" page and post up a message with each one of santisations by the BBC staff or anonymous supporters (Pit-Yacker).

Au revoir
towcestarian | 16.08.07 - 2:39 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
The CIA story has now been changed and there's a post on the BBC Editors Blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ theed...edia_edits.html
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 3:24 pm | #

MJ:
[MJ - please don't shout. To contact us please email biasedbbc@gmail.com.]
MJ | 16.08.07 - 4:19 pm | #

chris Edwards:
Mmmm have you ever complained to the beeb about their glaring bias, I have and recieved heaps of ass covering bullshit in return, I usually keep an eye on honest reporting, a Jewish website exposing examples of medis bias, through them I have complained a few times (checking facts elsewhere) and beyond wasting their time it achieved little. I think blogs are really upsetting those who want to control what we read and believe, they must be getting real stressfull at their inability to affect, let alone control this new media.
chris Edwards | 16.08.07 - 8:53 pm | #

Bryan:
Mmmm have you ever complained to the beeb about their glaring bias

Frequently. I've rarely had the courtesy of a response, even an automated one.

But that could be because I don't live in Britain.

Re the excellent Honest Reporting, they link to this blog on the Wiki issue:

http://www.honestreporting.com/ a...Have_Missed.asp
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 9:55 pm | #

dmatr:
@ Nick Reynolds (BBC):
"...[anyone] would have come away with the impression that the BBC Impartiality seminar held last year was "secret". In fact it was streamed live on the web for anyone to see and I watched it with my own eyes.

Ms Boaden also made this point on the editor's blog, but it seems the only people who were aware of and watched this live stream were BBC employees. Perhaps you can clarify:

1. How or where the URL for this live stream was publicised?

2. Via your access logs, can you give us approx. numbers for how many people accessed this stream, and how many were from outside the BBC (i.e. non-BBC IP's)?
dmatr | 17.08.07 - 2:10 am | #

Bryan:
Yes, I recall people in the blogosphere looking for that "live stream." Don't recall anyone finding it.
Bryan | 17.08.07 - 8:19 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I can't do that, but there is a full transcript of the seminar as an appendix of the recent BBC Trust "Impartiality in the 21st Century" available on the Trust's website should you wish to read it.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 - 10:46 am | #

The Wilted Rose:
let's see whether the beeb has edited any entries relating to the labour party or Gordon Brown?
The Wilted Rose | Homepage | 20.08.07 - 9:19 am | #