anonandonandon..:
and this from little green footballs

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/..._BBC_Edits& only

And in the entry for D-9 Caterpillars, a BBC employee changed the word “terrorists” to:

freedom fighters
anonandonandon.. | 15.08.07 - 9:40 pm | #

archduke:
i'm getting the feeling that this is going to be a big one. anyone forwarding this to the Mail or the Sun?
archduke | 15.08.07 - 9:50 pm | #

pounce:
Two can play that game
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/
pounce | 15.08.07 - 9:54 pm | #

jg:
This stinks of a damage limitation story. The BBC are scared that they are going to be shown up when the BBC edit story hits the MSM, so they get the CIA version in first, and try to spin that as the real story.

A bunch of lying hypocrites.

Perhaps Nick Reynolds or JR can tell us why the story makes no mention of the BBC edits?

It's hard to believe just how low the BBC have sunk.
jg | 15.08.07 - 9:57 pm | #

archduke:
dont forget this one folks - where the bbc edited "criticism of the bbc" wiki page to make itself look better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=139215058
archduke | 15.08.07 - 10:03 pm | #

archduke:
"editing of wikipedia" is now on the "criticism of the bbc" page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=151452528
archduke | 15.08.07 - 10:07 pm | #

dave t:
BBC and 'do the decent thing'? Oxymoron methinks!

Amazing how this damage limitation exercise started this afternoon - do you think the papers are running something about the BBC edits and this IS a defensive measure as you suggest?
dave t | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 10:44 pm | #

archduke:
"editing of wikipedia" section has been expanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cri...ng_of_Wikipedia

thanks to whoever has done this.
archduke | 15.08.07 - 10:50 pm | #

Chris Palmer:
Perhaps someone should set up a website to document all the instances where the BBC were actually impartial.

I don't suppose it would have many entries though.
Chris Palmer | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 10:50 pm | #

archduke:
" dave t | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 10:44 pm"

interesting point. it wouldnt surprise me.
archduke | 15.08.07 - 10:56 pm | #

Arthur Dent:
John Reiths middle name appears to be Macavity, never there when the BBC is caught red handed.
Arthur Dent | 15.08.07 - 11:04 pm | #

archduke:
lgf has this "editgate" story on the front page - bbc & united nations

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
archduke | 15.08.07 - 11:05 pm | #

dave t:
http:// business.timesonline.co.u...icle2267778.ece

Bloody hell..everyone's at it now! Certain companies are deleting stuff that is embarrassing to their public image such as the Bhopal disaster.

I always tell my students never to use Wikipedia as there is far too much bias in the thing and now I have even more proof.
dave t | Homepage | 15.08.07 - 11:35 pm | #

MDC:
You just couldn't make it up.
MDC | 15.08.07 - 11:36 pm | #

jg:
And if you actually read the CIA story, you know, the one the BBC thinks is the third most important story in the world, just what are these appealing edits the CIA have made?

Somone using a CIA account put "Wahhhhhh!" in an article about Ahmadinejad. that's it. That's the worst the BBC can come up with. As I said before it just defies belief.

You can just see the beeboids today, after Reynolds posted on the internal blog. Oh god we're in for it, how can we deflect attention? Who can we have a go at......I know, how about the Bush/Hitler CIA/Gestapo, quick dig something up, anything will do. Oh yes, someone put "Wahhhhhh!", quick get a story up on the front page.

In the same story we also learn that Democrats changed text to "brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."

Is this not more of a story then a "Wahhhhhh!", should the headline not have reflected this bit of information?

The more I think about the BBC actions here the more angry I become. Come on Nick, come on JR, defend this stinking hypocrisy if you dare.
jg | 16.08.07 - 12:19 am | #

archduke:
" jg | 16.08.07 - 12:19 am "

it gets worse.
somebody at the U.N. did a wiki-edit of Oriana Fallaci calling her a "racist whore"

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/...cist_Whore& only

and we all know how much the BBC just loves the U.N.
archduke | 16.08.07 - 12:24 am | #

archduke:
"wicksy" on lgf has posted a big long list of bbc edits here:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ ...try=26669#c0316
archduke | 16.08.07 - 12:55 am | #

jg:
^ that list, and I mean the actual edits, not the links, needs to be on the front page here IMHO. It beggars belief.
jg | 16.08.07 - 2:58 am | #

No1Dad:
"jg:
^ that list, and I mean the actual edits, not the links, needs to be on the front page here IMHO. It beggars belief."

I agree. At least until the BBC acknowledges it.
No1Dad | 16.08.07 - 5:16 am | #

Anonymous:
Can "John Reith", Sarah-Jane, David Gregory or anyone else offer an explanation as to why the BBC Wikipedia edits seem to be skewed in, shall we say, a certain manner?

Vandalism of the George Bush page; why is there no BBC-originating vandalism for John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton etc?

If the BBC was representative of the country at large then surely there'd be some Beebie doing that sort of thing, what with the staff having enough free time to carry out 7,000+ edits?

Where are the counter examples at the other end of the spectrum?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ ...try=26669#c0316

I mean, anyone would think the organisation was biased or something.
Anonymous | 16.08.07 - 5:36 am | #

Bryan:
Anonymous | 16.08.07 - 5:36 am,

It's a good point. John Reith often tries to portray BBC employees (I hesitate to call them journalists) as representing a wide spectrum of society and politics. We see little or no evidence of this, but continually see evidence that the BBC is comprised of those with the most narrow of left-wing agendas.
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 6:36 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I think you credit my internal BBC blog with too much influence. There has been no mass panic, damage limitation exercise or even much interest inside the BBC about the Wikipedia story that I know of. (Although I haven't opened my work email yet this morning and its currently just gone 7).

The BBC story is quite funny, as indeed are the Blair edits (although the Blair edits are vandalism in Wikipedia, against its house rules and shouldn't be happening).

I commented on the bulldozer story on the previous thread. Poor use of language, as neither word can be backed up.

You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story. I wouldn't describe it as "breathtaking hypocrisy".

I'll keep you posted if anything happens.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 7:17 am | #

Anonymous:
You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story.

Cobblers.

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been caught out in a way that is of much more relevance to the people of...Britain.

After all, we pay for the whole sorry show.

The long-claimed bias-free and impartial broadcaster is shown to be a lie (again).

Again, that is much more interest to British people who pay for the disgraceful organisation.
Anonymous | 16.08.07 - 7:37 am | #

Bryan:
Mr. Reynolds, if someone catches you out in gross bias, you shouldn't then try to divert attention from yourselves by pointing out that someone else has done something vaguely similar. That's juvenile.

Rather, take an honest look at yourselves. Self-knowledge is a liberating, though often painful experience. You guys at the BBC really should try it sometime. It could even start you on the road to meaningful reform of your organisation.
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 7:54 am | #

Sao Paulo:
I've been banned by the mods for including a link to a site that criticises the BBC and its TV Licence and someone who is pro BBC always removes it. I pointed out to the mods that these people were BBC and I got banned so have known that wiki has been pro BBC for sometime
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 8:22 am | #

archduke:
nick reynold's reaction is quite similar to the moonbats on Reddit.com

if Fox News are caught doing it , its "oh my God - its a vast right wing conspiracy!!! how dare they!"

if the bbc are caught its

"ho hum, its only a joke. nothing to worry about"
archduke | 16.08.07 - 9:14 am | #

ed:
"the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story"

It really depends, doesn't it? From the perspective of a British tellytaxpayer, perhaps the CIA is quite marginal.

It seems a cliche to say that this is a telling comment. When the ability to do things that ordinary citizens or institutions can't is at issue, of course the CIA is privileged and more "important". In terms of world power politics, the CIA is perhaps more important, but I think actually the gap is narrowing- the political decisions about withdrawing troops from Iraq (for instance) will be made following perceptions of public opinion influenced and reported by MSM media (the British decision, btw, will likely be very influential on the US' course of action). The BBC is still, mainly by virtue of its national associations, the most respected of the MSM. The forum for debate has shifted from elected officials to the media, insofar as it takes place- therefore the BBC has real political power.

The BBC loves to exercise influence, to be the first to know and to have a say on what goes on, yet when its failings of partiality are revealed it's always keen to say that it is not very important and its failings are not of public interest.

This shouldn't be possible, but it is all too possible.
ed | 16.08.07 - 9:48 am | #

towcestarian:
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 7:17 am |

"But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story."

You have this completely ares-about-face, Nick. The CIA edits are not news. One of the official CIA remits is disinformation - intelligence agencies have large departments dedicated to it. It is a central part of a spook's job and it would be news if the CIA were NOT doing Wiki-edits. It is only newsorthy element is that they seem to have been very unprofessional in leaving a forensic trail.

The BBC wiki-edits are however newsworthy, because the BBC has no corporate remit for disinformation, correcting grammatical errors on other people's websites or even left-wing vandalism of an eductaional resource. The only legitimate use of BBC staff time (paid for by me) to Wiki-edit is in maintaining factual accuracy (not opinion) on the BBC page.

The fact that you and the rest of the BBC come out with this kneejerk "CIA Bad - BBC Good" response shows the level of institutional media-liberal bias and corporate complacency there is in the corporation.
towcestarian | 16.08.07 - 9:52 am | #

DavidK:
Has anyone looked at the BBC News entry in Wikipedia? It's a masterpiece of (slanted)self-puffery, almost certainly written by someone within the corporation - I can spot it because it is exactly the stuff I used to churn out when I was a BBC press officer. The section on bias is particularly interesting and relevant. It goes entirely on the weak but oft-used press office defence that 'we get criticism from all sides, therefore we can't be biased'.

It's probably high time for someone, somewhere, to start amending this self-congratulatory propaganda. Perhaps at the CIA?
DavidK | 16.08.07 - 10:10 am | #

archduke:
anytime i've tried to add a link to this blog on that "bbc news" page it gets swiftly removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc_news
archduke | 16.08.07 - 10:21 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I didn't say the BBC is good and the CIA bad. I said the CIA is more important.

I am not spreading "disinformation" on Wikipedia - and anyone who tries to is breaking Wikipedia's own rules, and it
is usually removed.

Since all edits in Wikipedia can be viewed it would be rather difficult not to leave a forensic trail.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "the BBC page" - do you mean the one on Wikipedia?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 10:33 am | #

archduke:
cia edit is the top story on the technology page:

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

the CIA added ""Wahhhhhh!" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's wiki page.


no mention of course that somebody at the BBC changed George W. Bush to George Wanker Bush.

no mention of a whole raft of BBC edits listed out here:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/ ...try=26669#c0316

the hypocrisy is utterly nauseating.
archduke | 16.08.07 - 10:44 am | #

Anon:
Nick Reynolds is pretty good at maintaining a straight face when spinning the most unbelievable horsecrap.
Anon | 16.08.07 - 10:45 am | #

towcestarian:
Nick R

The forensic trail I mean is leaving the corporate IP address on your Wiki-edit. The official CIA disinformation team (the proper name is InfoOps - the younger, prettier sister of PsyOps) will be using sophisticated IP spoofing techniques to cover up their tracks. There is a good Wiki page on Information Warfare if you are interested.

Because of the forensics, I am now inclined to think that the CIA Wiki-edits were done by bored staff with a malicious intent or done on an unofficial basis by individuals to "correct" opinion to better fit their own (CIA) mindset. ie exactly the same things the BBC staff are up to. In fact the CIA and the BBC in general have an awful lot in common.

So the main story seems to be "Juvenile idiots from lots of different organisations are allowed by their managemnt to deface Wiki-pages" and "Organisations with polarised views of the world are trying to influence public opinion".

Singling out the CIA and not mentioning similar handiwork by BBC staff shows the innate anti-CIA bias and an implicit support of the BBC world-view.
towcestarian | 16.08.07 - 11:21 am | #

bodo:
CIA more important? I've met a few BBC people who would probably disagree.

Reynolds' comments amount to little more than 'F*ck you, there's nothing you can do about it'.
bodo | 16.08.07 - 11:38 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Well there is something you can do about it.

Go and edit Wikipedia.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 12:11 pm | #

jg:
^ but where is the story in someone adding "Wahhhhhh!"

Is not the UN edit of Oriana Fallaci calling her a "racist whore" more newsworthy, or the BBC's 'wanker' edit?

Please tell us Nick, why you ran with the CIA one?
jg | 16.08.07 - 12:15 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Would this nick be AKA Nick Cooper on Wiki the self confessed BBC 'fan' who removes anything from the TV Licence subjects that makes them look bad ?
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 12:30 pm | #

MattLondon:
It really seems necessary to repeat the basic acts about which Nick Reynolds is so dismissive:

1. on 15 August a blogger reports that 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia have been made from BBC addresses - and shows that one is a highly insulting reference to the President of the USA.

2. on 16 August the BBC Website headlines a story about a "new Web tool" - the one used in the analysis published in "1" above? - which revealed that the CIA and various US organisations and companies had apparently been moifying Wikipedia articles.

3. There is no mention of the previous day's blog post, no mentio of BBC involvement in such editing. No mention that an edit from the BBC called George Bush a "w*nk*r". No dismissive comment on the likely origins of such edits such as BBC voices on this blog have used to excuse the BBC's own massive involvement in such editing.

I'm sorry, Mr Reynolds but you and the BBC can't just shrug your shoulders at this. Its an old cliche - but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - this is even more the case if, as seems more than possible, the idiots who wrote your "CIA" piece only learnt of the "new Web tool" from the blogs!

Simply, if it is worthy of comment - and implicit criticism - that the CIA, the US Democratic Party and individual US companies made, or had made from their web addresses, self serving comments, then it is only fair to admit that the BBC (7,000 edits!) similarly involved in such activities. Indeed given the current levels of distrust in the Corporation I would have though that the BBC should have bent over backwards to avoid the entirely reasonably complaint that your news comment is both biassed AND self serving.
MattLondon | 16.08.07 - 12:34 pm | #

Damian Thompson:
Congratulations to everyone at Biased BBC! I've picked up this story on my Daily Telegraph blog:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukc...ents/holysmoke/
Damian Thompson | 16.08.07 - 12:49 pm | #

Anon:
>Well there is something you can do about it.
>
>Go and edit Wikipedia.

But the CIA can shrug their shoulders and dismiss the CIA edits on exactly the same grounds! Yet the BBC still felt that that was a big news story, even though anyone could go and edit the CIA's Wikipedia entries. Unbelievable.
Anon | 16.08.07 - 12:50 pm | #

wrinkled weasel:
Complacency, arrogance and a lack of imagination seemed to characterise most of the BBC executives I met. Nick Reynolds typifies the arrogant strain.

The editing of thousands of wiki entries is at least a disturbing side hobby for overpaid BBC staff, who have no official remit to do this, or it is a concerted effort to manipulate wiki for unethical journalistic or ideological purposes.

This does not sit well for the BBC. This story is big and will not go away.

By the way, last time I looked, I am am not forced to fund the CIA. The BBC however, does extort money from me, promising to be impartial and committing to the highest journalistic standards, which it serially fails to do on a whole raft of well-rehearsed issues.


The BBC is Ceaucescu being told he is a great leader. The BBC is Saddam railing at his executioners. The BBC is Pinochet, calling in favours from heads of state.

They know they are under siege and there is something of a scorched earth policy being undertaken here. The telling of barefaced lies and a vein of arrogance matched only by dictators in bunkers, together with risible justifications for their misdemeanors, indicated to me that the writing is on the wall.
wrinkled weasel | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 1:13 pm | #

anonandonandon..:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com...these- days.html
anonandonandon.. | 16.08.07 - 1:21 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Anon their isn't any point in editing Wiki because you'll just have it removed if it criticises the mighty BBC. Plus when this has happened go into that persons profile and check it because I've found they always have a glowing report about the BBC and how great it is!
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 1:22 pm | #

sean morris:
"You may have half a point about not mentioning the BBC edits to Wikipedia. But the CIA is far more important than the BBC and therefore more of a story. I wouldn't describe it as "breathtaking hypocrisy".

No I would describe it as post-modernist relativist bollocks that you and the rest of the beeb crew learned at poly in media studies.

I want my f[******] money back

[Sean: can you censor your own language next time please - this is a family blog!]
sean morris | 16.08.07 - 1:23 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Ps I've contacted a few papers this morning about this because I think more people should be made aware of what the BBC employee's do while getting paid by the BBC TV Licence
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 1:24 pm | #

Hettie:
Dear Nick Reynolds

I'm wholly amazed that the BBC is such a small and insignificant organisation that it does not deserve a mention next to the CIA. Last time I looked the BBC provides services in many languages throughout the world and has BBC World a 24 hour news channel.

Many nations's media use the BBC as source of news and analysis. Not to mention the recent expansion of the BBC into America and the Middle East. Who are you kidding?

I posted on the wiki editing last night and will be doing a follow up today on my very small Hungarian blog that sits in the blogs corner of our national slightly left leaning broadsheet. Bloggers around the world will be doing the same, no doubt.

I will never forgive the BBC for turning into what it is now, robbing newly democratized nations of an ideal and example of public broadcasting.
Hettie | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
They'ves edited it again, This is what used to say "In August 2007 the Wikiscanner website revealed that BBC employees had made nearly 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia. These included an edit to the George W. Bush article which replaced his middle name "Walker" with "Wanker", a popular insult in the UK.[40]

BBC employee edits also included calling James the First a Queen, vandalising Tony Blair's entry and renaming the word terrorist to freedom fighter.

The BBC's own article about the Wikiscanner concentrated on CIA edits to Wikipedia and failed to mention the corporation's own." and this is what it says now "In August 2007, searches on Wikipedia Scanner revealed that BBC employees had made nearly 7,000 anonymous edits to Wikipedia. These included an edit to the George W. Bush article which replaced his middle name "Walker" with "Wanker", a popular insult in the UK.[40]" so as I told the wiki admins/mods last year the site has been taken over by the BBC scum
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 1:40 pm | #

archduke:
"Damian Thompson | 16.08.07 - 12:49 pm"

well done folks. its hit the MSM.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukc...ents/holysmoke/
archduke | 16.08.07 - 1:47 pm | #

archduke:
Calling george bush a "wanker" wont go down very well in the America-loving Eastern Europe (not to mention the "we want to be the 51st state" Kurdistan)

http://hettie.nolblog.hu//?post_id=28066
archduke | 16.08.07 - 1:59 pm | #

archduke:
somebody is doing their darn best to remove any reference to this blog as its not a "reliable source"

its nothing more than censorship.

see this talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tal...e_BBC#Medialens

note what the wikpedian "pit-yacker" says - and note the paranoia

"also bares the hallmarks of the continued well organised campaign eminating from the right in the US to attempt to use Wikipedia posting any old rubbish"

so there you have it. we're part of a neo-con global rightwing conspiracy.

i'm having a beer with Dick Cheney this evening. anyone care to join me?
archduke | 16.08.07 - 2:20 pm | #

dave t:
And the Telegraph advises people to come visit this blog - stand by for the British equivalent of an Instalaunch!

Well done mods!
dave t | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 2:22 pm | #

archduke:
they really are doing their darn best to shut down debate...

"and the notion that George Bush is a Wanker is something that 80% of the UK population would probably personally agree with. On a final note could editors sign there comments using ~~~~ please? Pit-yacker 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"
archduke | 16.08.07 - 2:28 pm | #

will:
well done folks. its hit the MSM.

I've arrived here via a link from the BBC's CIA report at

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

But the CIA is far more important than the BBC

This journalists are ever so humble line is getting a bit tired. As a commenter above states, the media are all powerful in democratic countries.

I complained to Andrew Neil about his harsh treatment of a backbench MP, whilst giving an easy ride to Brownite columnist Routledge of the Mirror. Neil kindly replied, but claimed that the MP was a person with power.
will | 16.08.07 - 2:36 pm | #

Ali P:
Eh? Sao Paolo says that the infamous "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'" article had been changed to mention Bush, Blair and James I... and then reduced to just the Bush bit.

Well the version I'm seeing now hasn't got any of that at all, it just says: "BBC News website users contacted the corporation to point out that the tool also revealed that people inside the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia pages." And that's it.

So, they've censored themselves again? Is there a battle going on in the newsroom between admission and denial? Something's up.
Ali P | 16.08.07 - 2:47 pm | #

Ali P:
Apologies, I think Sao Paolo was talking about the wiki page, not the BBC page.
Ali P | 16.08.07 - 2:51 pm | #

archduke:
he's referring to the "criticism of the bbc" page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cri...cism_of_the_BBC

blog references have been removed.
direct links to bbc wiki edits also removed.
archduke | 16.08.07 - 3:01 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Well I didn't do it so take it up with the wikieditor.

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

I think their policy is not to link directly to blogs.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 3:13 pm | #

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ theed...edia_edits.html
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Dan:
Fantastic - I love the internet. Until I followed the link from the bbc news website I had no idea how similar the CIA and BBC were. They both inspire the same sort of paranoid conspiracy theory freakery!
Dan | 16.08.07 - 3:32 pm | #

archduke:
" Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 16.08.07 - 3:23 pm"

that blogpost deftly skirts around the issue of what was actually in some of the more controversial wiki edits :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=9152976
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=1667544
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=6578494
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....& oldid=23529331
archduke | 16.08.07 - 3:40 pm | #

bodo:
Hmm, on the Beeb editor's blog, strange that CIA edits are deemed by the BBC to be the work of the organisation itself, whereas BBC edits are merely 'updates from people at IP addresses traceable back to the BBC'.

Mr Reynolds, you [and your colleagues] would be well advised to just shut up, cos your spin is just earning more contempt .
bodo | 16.08.07 - 3:49 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
I've reported Nick Reynolds to his employer and I suggest the others do the same because TV Licence money shouldn't be wasted like this
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 4:15 pm | #

MDC:
In the middle of a crisis of trust in the BBC, how is a story that shows the BBC has, basically, institutional political bias (that its employees try to foist on the general public by breaking the house rules of an open source encyclopedia), less important than the CIA editing articles about two foreign politicians, both of whom are dead?

You are grasping at straws.
MDC | 16.08.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Ali P:
Sao Paolo: Nick Reynolds is undoubtedly one of the good guys.

The BBC is absolutely right to update Wikipedia on entries that directly relate to the BBC (eg. "BBC Radio Gloucester", or some presenter) and is right too to allow corrections to other articles. They're journalists after all, and that's what a wiki is for.

The overwhelming majority of the BBC edits are of a positive nature - tidy ups, extra info etc. It's childish to complain that BBCers editing Wikipedia is a waste of our money - for the most part it's actually quite a good use of our money, better than that food-fight trail they have at the moment which must have cost a packet.

That doesn't excuse the stuff under discussion, but if you can point to any edit that Nick has 'fessed up to that is 'reportable' then post it here!

A
Ali P | 16.08.07 - 4:57 pm | #

Fran:
Sao Paolo

"I've reported Nick Reynolds to his employer"

Why have you done that?

Nick Reynolds is one of the BBC people who is prepared to get stuck in and engage with his critics on this site. From time to time, he concedes a point and something gets changed PDQ. We generally don't agree with him, but he argues courteously and cogently.

It's not done to try to get a blogger into trouble with their employer, and if you really have done this, then I for one deplore your action.
Fran | 16.08.07 - 4:58 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Because Fran those who are forced to fund the BBC via the BBC TV Licence shouldn't have their money wasted with BBC employees using public equipment and time paid for by the TVL used in this manner simple as. I think just about everyone with some common sense knows the BBC is currupt and biased so those who can be traced should be sacked
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 5:08 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Ali P does the mighty BBC have anything to do with Wiki ? Has BBC Worldwide taken over that now too ?? No they haven't so stop making excuses for this vile and obsolete dinosaur. Perhaps the BBC fits in with a biased opinion you hold which is why you’re here now standing up for a so called public service which 75% of the country doesn’t even want!
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 5:12 pm | #

Anonymous:
Presumably it will be in the interests of the CIA to report on the BBC Wikipedia edit on George Bush.

BBC America , a very important outlet of the BBC,must be very worried about how this will appear in the American media.

BBC America will no doubt appear in the light of such a report without a forthright APOLOGY from the BBC, with maybe a DISMISSAL of the culprit within the BBC as an untrustworthy news organisation.

I guess this will be the CIA spin?
Anonymous | 16.08.07 - 5:37 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
Oh look the hypocrites have just made it worse now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ theed...edia_edits.html
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 6:59 pm | #

Sarah-Jane:
Kind words Ali P and Fran.

Sao Paulo do you think pro BBC commentators and staff would be better kept away from this blog?
Sarah-Jane | 16.08.07 - 7:29 pm | #

towcestarian:
Sao Paulo
You are a prat. If the beeboids stopped coming here, I wouldn't bother either. The presencve of S-J and co on this blog (probably officially sanctioned) means that there is some small chance that our concerns are being heard inside the evil-empire. Without them we are little more that sane people locked in an asylum and screaming in the dark.
towcestarian | 16.08.07 - 7:50 pm | #

archduke:
"I've reported Nick Reynolds to his employer"

i too wholeheartedly comdemn this.

that really is not a civil thing to be doing. for gods sake - the guy could lose his job, lose his house, lose his marriage - all because YOU reported him to his employer, the BBC. and then the BBC pick him out as a scapegoat.

you do know that they are looking for £2 billion in cuts?

at least Nick is on here reading OUR comments and more than likely reporting them back to BBC management.if that results in them dump Marcus f**king Brigstoke , then i'll say "job well done".

we're just pissing in the wind if beeboids arent on here.
archduke | 16.08.07 - 9:09 pm | #

archduke:
"You seem to be under the impression that the BBC wants to listen to you but they don't want to listen to anyone but themselves
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 9:57 pm"

listen mate - you wont acheive privatisation of the BBC by making enemies. you have to convince them that its a good thing for Britain overall.

that John Redwood referred to the license fee as a "poll tax" is in my view a direct result of the non-stop blogging by Andrew and others on this blog and all of us commenters- for five f***king years. some beeboids are finally getting the message. lets not piss off the few that are sympathetic insiders.
archduke | 16.08.07 - 10:04 pm | #

Andrew:
I've deleted a lengthy ding-dong between Sao Paulo and Archduke (and one or two associated comments). Please don't continue that debate here. Sao Paulo, please calm down and ease up on your language. Thank you.
Andrew | Homepage | 16.08.07 - 10:04 pm | #

Bryan:
Sao Paul, 99% of us on this blog are on the same side here - against the BBC. You jumped in too quickly, misjudged the situation and now what you really need to do is take a deep breath and then have a look at where you went wrong.

That said, I find the idea of Nick Reynolds getting into trouble from his bosses at the BBC for spinning for the corporation a bit on the funny side. Mr. Reynolds is a senior member of the BBC. I'd go so far as to say that he is the BBC.

Sack him for being "reported" by a right-winger? They'll probably promote him.
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 10:28 pm | #

Bryan:
I didn't see your post before posting mine, Andrew.
Bryan | 16.08.07 - 10:33 pm | #

BBK:
Can I just say that for anyone wishing to edit anything on Wikipedia associated with the Beeb, it's management, it's journalists, it's telly programmes etc...

Then get in now while the goings good!

Al Beeb is not likely to return to that particular fire in a hurry.
BBK | 17.08.07 - 2:14 am | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
Blimey. I have been called many things on this blog, but never that I am the BBC.

I'm not. I'm just me.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 - 10:52 am | #

Anon:
"It's not done to try to get a blogger into trouble with their employer, and if you really have done this, then I for one deplore your action."

Can't agree more. The comment boards are much improved by the inputs from people that actually work for the BBC even though the more partisan critics here tend to characterise themselves as intellectual giants in comparison.

For those with longish memories the B-BBC comment board has some previous for reporting people to their employers: John Anderson, aka DumbCisco/JohninLondon [JohnA who posts now at your "uncensored" site, Archduke?], who took it upon himself to send a threatening email to John Band's employers back in 2005.

Ironically, it's the BBC that tends to get described as the Stasi/fascist etc etc
Anon | 17.08.07 - 11:24 am | #

Bryan:
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 - 10:52 am,

I think what I was trying to get across is your degree of identification with the BBC. To me, that seems to be total. You seem unable to distance yourself from the organisation and take a fair and square look at what it has become.

I found the idea of someone who helps write policy guidelines at the left-wing BBC getting fired from the selfsame BBC through being "reported" by a right-wing contributor to a blog a bit on the ridiculous side.

Has the BBC ever fired a journalist? Besides Kilroy-Silk for his anti-Arab remarks, that is.
Bryan | 17.08.07 - 12:11 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
I can say Bryan is that the BBC is required by law to be impartial in its output. And that includes output about itself. It is very difficult to be impartial or objective about oneself. But not impossible.

It helps you to be objective if you get feedback. From, for example, a sites like biased bbc.

I don't "identify totally" with the BBC although I do enjoy working there. There are things that the BBC does that I disagree with and times when I think the BBC has got it wrong.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 - 12:20 pm | #

Arthur Dent:
Nick Reynolds works for the BBC, and to give him credit posts on this site under his own name.

This happens to be a free country where everyone, regardless of their employer, has freedom of speech and as far as Wiki is concerned everyone is entitled to edit within their rules.

As far as I can see the only possible gripe one may have is if Nick is editing wiki in company time (part of which is paid for by me via the license fee). Otherwise he has every right to edit wiki to his hearts content and all of us have every right to correct his edits.

There are two important issues here:

a) Most of the 7000 BBC edits are probably minor technical corrections, but some of them are not and it appears, since there is no evidence to the contrary, that these display a guardianista point of view. If so this supports the view here that the BBC is institutionally leftist.

b) The blatant hypocrisy displayed by the BBC in criticising organisations like the CIA for doing precisely what the BBC did, but conveniently omitted to mention.

It is noticeable that having been discovered the BBC now defends itself by implying that the BBC edits were the actions of individuals (no fault of the organisation) whilts still implying that in other cases Dow, CIA and the Vatican that the edits indicated organisational interference.
Arthur Dent | 17.08.07 - 1:16 pm | #

The Moderator:
Sao Paulo,

We here at Biased BBC do not support your snitching on BBC people to their employers.

And we do not appreciate you coming on here boasting about it like it's something to do with us. It isn't.

Any further comments along these lines will be deleted.
The Moderator | Homepage | 17.08.07 - 1:54 pm | #

Bryan:
There are things that the BBC does that I disagree with and times when I think the BBC has got it wrong.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 17.08.07 - 12:20 pm

Fair enough. There are times when I think the BBC has got it right. Unfortunately, they are probably as infrequent as the times you think the BBC has got it wrong.
Bryan | 17.08.07 - 2:51 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
The Moderator I respect everyone opinions only when it comes down to them giving them in a neutral sense and your friend Nick isn't doing that. I think it's more than clear he's abusing his position and doing this while getting paid by the TV Licence paying public. You and some of the others here may not like be 'snitching' as you call it but we all know the BBC protect their own anyway so it's not like something's goin gto happen to him and he knows it which is why he's still editing wiki and posting here!
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 17.08.07 - 2:56 pm | #

The Moderator:
He's allowed to edit Wiki. He's allowed to post here. Our beef with the BBC is not that some BBC staff may do some internet posting while they're on a "lunch break".
The Moderator | Homepage | 17.08.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
The BBC are like what they are today because of the staff for crying out loud. I tell you what if I was Nick I'd be laughing my backside off at you people talk about push overs
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 17.08.07 - 4:20 pm | #

Unbelievable:
I cannot believe my eyes. Not an internet person, my wife's domain, I found this website simply by chance. Having read through the entire pages of 'posts' and 'links' upon this subject, I am astonished and shocked. Millions of license payers are totally ignorant of the BBC inputting 7000 factual changes. Many for political reasons? This blatant bias should be put before Parliament upon it's resumption. I shall be in contact to my M.P. tomorrow. The withdrawal or suspension of it's operating license should be considered for such outrageous behaviour. The blatant refusal of culpability by the corporations representative on these pages is beyond belief. Shame upon the BBC.
Unbelievable | 18.08.07 - 12:48 am | #

David Gregory (BBC):
Unbelievable: Seriously, most of the edits really aren't political or controversial. Obviously I can't stop you talking to your MP, but please do examine what most of these edits are actually about.
That isn't to excuse the one of two stupid ones. Just a plea for some perspective.

Mostly its this sort of stuff
No QVC in Wales
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.p...2.185.132.0- 255

The Lotus Elan
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.p...2.185.132.0- 255
(surely BBC staff wouldn't discuss sports cars being in thrall to MMGCC?

And this one is really interesting (and I think we can call it political!)
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.p...2.185.132.0- 255
David Gregory (BBC) | 18.08.07 - 2:47 am | #

Sao Paulo:
Very nice speech David but how about the plea of the majority of the British public who want an end of the BBC TV Licence who are paying for you lot to surf the net all day ?
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 18.08.07 - 9:52 am | #

xlr:
David Gregory (BBC): "Seriously, most of the edits really aren't political or controversial"

Most? But many are...

BBC: sweeping bad news news under the carpet - it's what we do, seriously
xlr | 18.08.07 - 11:42 am | #

Andrew:
Mr. Sao Paolo, you are becoming quite tedious for someone who first appeared here just two days ago. People, including BBC people, don't come here to get harangued at every turn. Ease up. If you wish to pick on people or harangue them or boast about your snitching to employers then do it on your own blog with your own visitors, not on our blog or with our visitors.

Take this as a final warning. Don't argue, and don't answer back here. Send me an email if you must. I'm not interested in arguing in public with anyone who thinks their free speech entitles them to free speech wherever and whenever they wish to indulge in it.
Andrew | Homepage | 18.08.07 - 12:17 pm | #

Andrew:
Hi Unbelievable, and welcome to our site. David Gregory (of the BBC) is right to say that most of the 7,000 BBC Wikipedia edits are benign, assuming they are done in people's 'own' time or perhaps briefly in passing as part of their work. (Note though that these 7,000 edits are just the ones we can see - serious Wikipedia editors will be using their own Wikipedia accounts, that aren't included in these figures).

The most significant issues arising from the BBC's 'Wikigate' are:

1) The utter hypocrisy of the BBC in attacking the CIA and a couple of other favourite BBC targets for these Wikipedia revelations whilst a) ignoring their own just as bad track record; b) playing down their hypocrisy once it was revelaed as 'just some employees', in contrast to their earlier approach to the CIA's edits;

2) The fact that none of the BBC's 'juvenile' edits are slanted to the right - they're all lefties blowing off steam. This either tells us something about the BBC, or perhaps something about lefties (though there are plenty of non-leftie juveniles in the world, so I tend towards suspecting the former).

Thank you for stopping by and commenting for the first time (of many I hope!).
Andrew | Homepage | 18.08.07 - 12:40 pm | #

Bryan:
David Gregory (BBC) | 18.08.07 - 2:47 am,

Those links all go to the same page of the first 500 BBC Wiki edits, so it's not easy to find your first two and impossible to know which one your unnamed third link refers to. I'm no expert at this, but you should have opened those specific links first in new windows and then copied and pasted the URLS here.

That said, thanks for the page link. As you say, it appears that most of the topics are not political. However, it seems that BBC people have been invited to Wiki meetings

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....2& oldid=8100019

and got involved in Wiki Introduction pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=9694605

and complex stuff like discussions on Wiki user access levels, which appears to show quite a serious level of commitment to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=9825345

They also somehow feel compelled to edit the Wiki fu*k page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=5878995

the pornography page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....t& oldid=1991366

and take great delight in alleging the sexual prowess of a BBC employee, to the extent of reposting the comments over and over, becoming more and more explicit (after they have been deleted by another BBC person). You can check this, should you want to, by clicking on "newer edit":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=147719998

This could be the same person/people who edited Tony Blair's page to read drinking vodka and working out in the bedroom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....v& oldid=6578494

Looks like Wiki might ban that IP number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Use...132.185.144.122

Wouldn't that be a laugh. BBC staff banned by Wiki for "vandalising" pages. Actually since so much of BBC "journalism" is vandalism anyway, that would fit.

There's another issue here. The page you linked to showed the first 500 BBC edits - from Sept 2002 to Jan 2005 - of a total of 7567 edits. Only slightly more time has elapsed from Jan 2005 till the present, yet there have apparently been more than 7000 edits since Jan 2005. So it seems there has been a huge jump in BBC Wiki editing over the years.

Although I take the point made elsewhere that 7000 edits in two-and-a-half years is only about 8 per day, how much time do BBC people spend just reading Wiki subjects irrelevant to their work during working hours?
Bryan | 18.08.07 - 12:46 pm | #

Nick Reynolds (BBC):
1. I don't see any reason why people who work for the BBC can't be invited to Wikipedia meetings, or edit Wikipedia.

2. Obviously nobody should be behaving in a silly, jeuvenile way on Wikipedia.

3. The "pornography" example you chose is someone correcting a spelling mistake. Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?

How are any of these things examples of BBC bias?
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.08.07 - 7:21 pm | #

BBK:
"Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?"

No. It's called skiving off Nick. And as we pay your wages I think we've got every right to hold you accountable for your time, no matter how slight. And also, as a barrage of people have already stated:-

"what the hell does mucking about with wikipedia have to do with running a telly station?"
BBK | 19.08.07 - 12:55 pm | #

Bryan:
Are you saying that because someone works for the BBC they should not spend 30 seconds correcting a spelling mistake on Wikipedia?

How are any of these things examples of BBC bias?

Nick Reynolds (BBC) | 18.08.07 - 7:21 pm

The point you are skirting around, Nick, and that BBK mentions above, is that BBC staff shouldn't be editing Wikipedia or anything else on BBC time on BBC computers. And we have no way of knowing how much time people at the BBC are spending reading Wiki, as opposed to making 30 second edits.

Regarding bias, have a look at one of your BBC people adding quotes to Israeli politician Tzahi Hanegbi's page to make sure he is represented in as negative a light as possible: Click on "newer edit" to see how the the scene develops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index....t& oldid=5303611

Oh, and your BBC-ite dipped into Wiki 5 times between 14:36 and 17:11 that afternoon for the aforementioned editing purpose. Looks like he/she did a bit of reading inbetween to get the info to put on the page, no?

Nice productive afternoon spent working for W... er, I mean the BBC.

Would anyone from the BBC ever go onto Wikipedia to provide the same exposure for someone like Hezbollah's Nasrallah? Why do I find that idea ludicrous?
Bryan | 19.08.07 - 10:57 pm | #

Nick Reynolds(BBC):
Are you saying Bryan that BBC staff should not even be allowed to read Wikipedia?
Nick Reynolds(BBC) | Homepage | 20.08.07 - 11:05 pm | #

Bryan:
Of course not. But if it has nothing to do with the job at hand they shouldn't be involved with their Wiki hobby during working hours and on BBC computers. It probably is a small fraction of staff indulging in juvenile or political edits but what about general time-wasting? I find it quite weird that senior people at the BBC (like yourself) are unwilling to even acknowledge that there is a problem here.

These 7567 edits showing the IP numbers are from unregistered BBC users:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.p...0-255& nolimit=1

How many BBC staff have registered at Wiki and are therefore unidentifiable? And are you perhaps one of them?

When is the BBC going to become accountable to the public you claim to serve?
Bryan | 21.08.07 - 7:11 am | #

Bryan:
This Wiki situation could turn into a real minefield for the BBC. Here's an example of a really busy little BBC beaver getting up early in the morning to attack the description of a community church centre in a small Scottish town as "blatant propaganda for a particular church," and removing the text. Unbelievable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index....oldid=132805560

Gleaned from the above list of all 7567 known BBC Wiki edits.
Bryan | 21.08.07 - 8:13 am | #

Sarah H:
Here's a question. At the BBC studio near me (Hull), they have computers set up for the public to access the internet. Couldn't it be possible that it is these computers or some like it across the country that are being used to access and make edits to Wikipedia, and not the BBC staff themselves?
Sarah H | 24.08.07 - 11:31 am | #

Bryan:
Sarah H,

That's a really interesting point and I took the liberty of linking to it from the open thread at the top of page, dated August 24, because I don't think many people will notice it down here.
Bryan | 24.08.07 - 3:46 pm | #

Sao Paulo:
You know something you could be right I'm sure everyone thinks about visiting their local BBC centre so they can use the internet to edit Wiki! FFS the things people will come out with to protect them
Sao Paulo | Homepage | 25.08.07 - 8:16 am | #

Ben:
I found this site through a link on the BBC website.

Is that hypocrisy too? Or is it actually the opposite?

I can't find any references on the CIA website to the allegations that they have tampered with Wikipedia.

Bias is inevitable. The BBC seems to have a culture where it is avoided (unlike the CIA, for instance). Perhaps the posters here would rather we had Fox News?
Ben | 27.08.07 - 12:00 pm | #

Bryan:
Must have been from the editors blog - the article on Wikipedia. I believe it's the first time they have linked to this blog. I complimented the BBC for the link.

Still this gradually developing openness on the part of the BBC does not mean they are impartial. If you read this blog carefully you will notice that people here do not want the BBC to follow any agenda, whether of the right or the left. We want the BBC to stop pumping out its particular brand of left wing propaganda and to stop lying to us by omission and distortion of inconvenient facts.

And Fox news, though it is right wing, is far more balanced than the BBC. At least Colmes is a left winger. Does the BBC have any right wingers with such a prominent position on such a prominent show?

No, naturally.
Bryan | 27.08.07 - 10:14 pm | #