I thought none of you read wikipedia anyhow, because like everything else you think it has a 'liberal' bias.

So now you have conservapedia, which is more suited to your tastes and intelligence levels.

Enlightening post. Well, as enlightening as one can be when reporting on the fact that unkempt little children, like the ones who took all of the "w" keys from the keyboards when they left the WH, are actually acting like unkempt little children. It is so pathetic when they make in their pants, and the grown-ups have to clean it up.

What's really pathetic is the fact that this behavior amounts to the height of erudition on the part of the lefts intelligentsia. Wow, Bernie Goldberg is totally right, we MUST be whimps not to be able to annihilate these drooling perverts. If this sort of thing continues, maybe an uprising by torchlight would be in order. Anyone got some spare tar ? Bag of feathers ?

Gene:

I thought none of you read wikipedia anyhow, because like everything else you think it has a 'liberal' bias.

That may be true, but a more likely position by most people is wikipedia should only be used as a ref after being backed up by the use of other non-editable-by-everyone-under-the-sun sources.

We've sent an inquiry to the Times and will report their response...

I'm sure they'll get right on this ;->

We've sent an inquiry to the Times and will report their response...

I agree Purple Avenger, unless it was colored in neon red and triple marked TIPPITY-TOP-SECRET-DOSCLOSURE-UNDER-THREAT-OF-DEATH it will get no where.

If marked as described it would headline Wednesdays late edition.

And we'll have fun, fun, fun, 'til your Daddy takes the T-Bird away.
========================================

It's no surprise that Wiki was hacked by well, hacks, but its interesting that the crime isn't exactly anonymous, at least from an organizational perspective.

I don't know the law, but his acts may not be criminal.
================================

I wuz using 'crime' in the figurative sense rather than literal, as in the one that done it, probably not the best choice in this instance.

I'm glad I left Wikipedia some while ago after being fed up with the drama and constantly changing rules that meant I had to re-do my work time and again. Now I'm glad I didn't do more.

and gene immediately goes for the moronic insult because they have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

way to act like a typical liberal, gene! cheers!

No Rodney, it's an interesting question at the nexus of First Amendment rights and libel.
=============

er, tort, maybe. Still, disinforming will be criminalized in the Information Age.

One thing that persistently amazes me at how easily lying memes persist even in an information age which can refute them. They take on life, but not really truth, if something else sustains them, like politics in the case of Plame, Wilson, Libby.
============================

Hey Gene

How do those sour grapes taste?
Isn't it great that the ever shrinking NY Times now is reduced to penis comments.

As Rush says, they cannot compete in the arena of ideas so they resort to hate and sophomoric behavior.

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/08/14/fox-news-changes-wikipedia-to-smear-rivals-olbermann-and-franken-comprehensive-list-of-changes

Your favorite "fair and balanced" news source does the same thing to the same stupid website. And the NY Times isn't even liberal, unfortunately. They still let assholes like Tom Friedman waste ink, and they were the ones that gave Judy Miller a platform from which to spew her bilious lies that cost a whole lotta lives. You people are simple and small-minded. Enjoy being politically irrelevant once the stupidest president in US history finishes his term with a 25% approval rating.

This is of course the New York Sewer the most vile of all the bird cage liners AND NEVER EVER IN MY CAGE NO SIR RE

The NYSlimes stopped being a 'news' organization long ago. Now every dime they spend should be counted as a donation to the DNC, they are a wing of the DNC aren't they? I guess they learned this type of edit from the DNC since the DNC has also been doing some massive edits on Wikipedia themselves. All the democrats and their supporters have left is slime and slander. This makes everything on Wikipedia suspect at best, and a total failure at it's worst. Don't bet your last dime on anything gleemed from there. Kind of like watching/reading the rest of the antique MSM, nothing newsworthy, same old made up stories (lies). I now read the credits, if it says AP or Reuters I'm sure the story (everyone of them) is wrong in some way.

Scrapiron, are you retarded? The Democrats have control of both houses of Congress, and every single poll in the country has Obama, Clinton, and Edwards polling ahead of any Republican. Other than that, though, the Democrats have nothing, right? Oh, except the NY Times and every other media organization, according to your deranged hatred of the corporatist media.

Gene,

I thought none of you read wikipedia anyhow, because like everything else you think it has a 'liberal' bias.

So, an article is posted showing outright liberal bias, and your argument is that we don't read it anyway, because we think it has a liberal bias.

Brilliant!

Dear "Are you retarded",

and every single poll in the country has Obama, Clinton, and Edwards polling ahead of any Republican. Other than that, though, the Democrats have nothing, right?

No, these are skewed polls. ie: New York Slimes slanting the results by oversampling Democrats... So no, the Democrats don't even have that.

Let me taste your yummy tears.

Demonstrate the flawed methodology, SotG. Bring something to the table other than ideological prejudice. Show how every news organization and polling company oversamples Democrats. Does it ever occur to you that it would take an opposite sort of oversampling that so bothers you to level the polls for Republicans? Of course not. You're a True Believer. Americans hate the war and hate Republicans. Now why do you hate America?

By the way, why would you want to taste a stranger's tears? You're creepy.

I always find it hilarious that the Left supports "collectivist" movements, but one of the largest collectivist movement, that of open source information like Wikipedia, is just constantly vandalized by the Left.

I'd say this qualifies as a hate crime.

Majority Rules,

I am creepy, indeed. (thanks!)

And I have no problem with skewed poll results... it will likely lull Dems into a (extremely) false sense of security, much like those infamous exit polls which were so accurate.

Cling to your belief, based on media reports, of a commanding Democratic lead in all things. Look to your polls for guidance. In the end, it will not matter at all, you see, we have control of all the Diebold systems.

*Queue evil Rovian laugh*

You know, Gene, you are right. I do not read Wikipedia, and I try my damnest to keep from linking to it wherever and whenever possible.

Why? Because I think it is liberally biased? Well, oddly enough, this little stunt chronicled here would tend to support that belief. However, that is not the primary reason, by far. Instead, I simply hate the concept - the very idea of making a universally-editable "encyclopedia" is just something that should send shivers up and down the spine of any intelligent person, and, again, these events only serve to illustrate that.

But moving on... according to your logic, simply because we do not read it, we also should not correct it? Well, thankfully, there are those people who think about others besides themselves, and are firmly of the belief that no one should be subjected to erroneous information, regardless of their political or social leanings. I know this concept is rather foreign for you, considering your response, but it is one that has helped America on more times than not. I would suggest that you think about it, but I firmly doubt your current mindset would allow such a ... revolutionary concept.

As for those constantly crowing about how bad the President's approval ratings are, and how the Democrats own Congress, and this, that, and the other... Just remember that all of the polls in the US also indicate that the Congressional approval rating is lower than the President's. Funny how that never comes up.

Isn't it interesting that when liberals (or their institutions) are caught red-handed the tinhat trolls come out of the woodwork stomping, screaming, and attacking at full throttle. I've heard this behavior is promoted in chapter 13, 15, an 19 in the "Chomsky Reader".

And Karl Rove's the reason for America being split???? lololol. You nutjobs should save your postings on this site, the DU, Kos, etc. and show them to your grandchildren in 30 years. I dare you!

Hey look, the New York Times has a Wikipedia entry!

I wonder if anyone has the sudden urge to do some creative editing?

pudge:

The story about the "W" keys was discredited long ago. White House staffers have admitted at the time that they knew it was a bogus story, but they didn't care to set the media straight.

As for the editing of Wikipedia, it seems that there are plenty of juveniles on both sides. Not just the Pro/Anti Bush edit wars, but any issue which has strong supporters on both sides. That's why from time to time Wikipedia finds it necessary to lock down certain articles to restrict updates.

like the ones who took all of the "w" keys from the keyboards when they left the WH

Wow, where'd you pull that debunked myth out of deep freeze?

Isn't it interesting that when liberals (or their institutions) are caught red-handed the tinhat trolls come out of the woodwork stomping, screaming, and attacking at full throttle.

Apparently you missed this post.

I simply hate the concept - the very idea of making a universally-editable "encyclopedia" is just something that should send shivers up and down the spine of any intelligent person, and, again, these events only serve to illustrate that.

With regard to current politics and other controversial issues, I'd agree. However...

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

Lord have mercy grab onto your socks and jocks wiznuts. Don't choke on your bone - just go back and read your over the top, hypocritical posts on this subject cause FAUX (emphasis on little n)news has just been nailed for - gasp - CHANGING Wikpedia about amongst others that blackhearted Keith O. Those of you who are wiznuts (eg the ever reliable "pudge") were just hoisted on your own petards.

Funnier than the clowns at Barnum and Bailey - you ought to ask for pay.

Now here's the catch - you have to go to the dreaded Kos to read all the gory details and IP addresses etc. Come on now you can do it - just type it in the address bar. Or don't you have the balls?

"Someone at Fox News has been spending a good amount of time on Wikipedia recently.

In fact, you can view all of their edits here.

The IP listed is 12.167.224.228. According to Whois,

Search results for: 12.167.224.228

AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1)
12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
FOX NEWS CHANNEL FOX-NEWS73-224-224M (NET-12-167-224-224-1)
12.167.224.224 - 12.167.224.255 Read more.."

The thread has gone silent after the wizzers collective "OOPS"

But they are busy with their little mice pointers issuing negative scores. That whole concept is another topic that hits my funny bone.

Funny, there are those of us who dislike Wikipedia and those who edit it to their own causes, and the information that Fox News did it themselves does not really change that.

As has been said, there are children on both sides of this problem, as with any other situation. However, both sides doing it does not make any one side right, and both the NYT and Fox should own up to it.

And, yeah, I saw that article, Brian, but you missed the key word:

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

Unfortunately, that only addresses a single aspect of the Wikipedia, and cannot be used to extrapolate or assume the rest of the online system is just as accurate. In fact, I would almost be willing to wager that its science sections are among its most accurate, but that is just speculation on my part.

I didn't miss that word; it was the point of my post. Indicated when I said "With regard to current politics and other controversial issues, I'd agree. However..."

And yet, Limoge, many of Wikipedia's seemingly safe-from-controversy science sections become the battleground of ideological vandalism too. Various chemical phobia groups have made a hash of many areas and there are even wacky edit wars in the physics' sections.

Wikipedia's model is simply a failure.

The thread has gone silent after the wizzers collective "OOPS"

Uhm, no. The article was about the New York Times involvement in BDS. If you're only refutation is a claim that "hey, others are doing it too!", then you are admitting your acceptance of the validity of the article.

If you think by posting a final statement, after realizing there are NO arguments of refutation, that you have somehow won an argument, then by all means, claim victory.

OOOPS!

Now hack away at your keyboard in pitiful and expected rebuttal. Unless you can come up with some information that negates The New York Times shenanigans, you lose. Ah, the beauty of simplicity.

Now hack away at your keyboard in pitiful and expected rebuttal.

Now that's funny! And so is this...

"The thread has gone silent after" JFO's "OOPS"

Wow, SotG, that was an admirable desperate attempt to try to appear like you didn't just get your ass handed to you.

Again, again!

You liberals are so impressive with your intelligence and compassion. No wonder the liberal majority congress has been SOOOO successful "speaking for the american people"....yeah, the ones that hold you in such contempt only (is it 14% this week or 16?) approve of your actions.

Back to your parent's basements asshats.

Definitely not disputing the failure of Wikipedia, SPQR, just saying that the science section is probably the most accurate portion of it... of course, when compared to the negligible accuracy of the rest of it, that is not hard, now, is it? ;)

Limoge, oh yeah, just making an observation my friend.

Brian:

Wow, SotG, that was an admirable desperate attempt to try to appear like you didn't just get your ass handed to you.

So you approve of JFO's tactic of pointing out someones else's asshattery as a debating tactic and in defense of the hacks at the NYT?

Wow, SotG, that was an admirable desperate attempt to try to appear like you didn't just get your ass handed to you.

Wow, Brian, , that was an admirable desperate attempt to appear like you just didn't lose your argument...

Again.

Has wizbang really really reached a point of citing anything that comes from LGF?

Has wizbang really really reached a point of citing anything that comes from LGF?

Which negates the article how?

PS: You could learn from LGF - Go ask Dan "Courage" Rather.

Ya know I visit here often...and as someone espousing views contrary(not all the time)...however..for the most part Wizbang issues and many responses attempt logic and stay away from ...well...cultural hate as exhibited by responses here
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26658_Mosque_Torched_in_East_Bay#comments

Nogo war, there is also a Wired article on this.

Have you really reached the point of rejecting anything from LGF? That makes you half of Dan Rather's remaining audience.

Trying to disparage LGF from its comments section is a weird way to try to hijack the thread.

So what if the Dem. Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush? Read the polls as to who voters would like to elect in that regard. It's obvious that people hate that the Dems haven't ended the war yet, and are going along with Bush's shredding of the Constitution. And yet, they'd still trust them over the Republicans.

You. Are. Irrelevant. Issues like this NY Times-Wikipedia business will be all you have to crow about for a long time, chuckleheads. '08!!!

So what if the Dem. Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush?

Ahh, yes, the mantra of the leftie: Go with anything a poll says... unless it says something you do not like.

Pass the Turing test, you would not.

Pass the Turing test, you would not.

Here's a great link to Bill Quick from Reynolds.

http://dailypundit.com/?p=27261

civil [mis]behavior:

Has wizbang really really reached a point of citing anything that comes from LGF?

I don't know, maybe you can go over there and count all the posts in say... the last month. Then count how many of them are refed here.

Bet you look to be the fool for posting that remark.

"By the way, why would you want to taste a stranger's tears? You're creepy."

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Folks,

Just about everybody is altering Wikpedia, including Fox:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201800211

And introducing the Wikpedia Scanner:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Ooops, missed the scanner line in the article!

Hey tinfoil pirate, I think the short bus just pulled away leaving you behind.

btw, tinfoil pirate, according to your logic the phonelines to congress would be lit up with folks screaming for a retreat from Iraq spurring your liberal congresstoads into action pulling the war funding.

Instead, they strengthen domestic survellience!!!!! bwahahahaha

Comment removed for violation of Terms of Service.

Continued violations may result in banning.

It isn't domestic spying, tph, and the electorate knows it. Your 'mandate' last fall was Blue Dog Democrats who don't bay at the same moon you do.
==============================

The whole world beyond your insane red state enclaves thinks the war is a catastrophic failure, but no, they're wrong and you've got it figured out.

NOW you're getting it!
Admitting the truth is the first step in your recovery process, Tinfoil. Well done, and contined success eradicating the scourge of BDS from your system.

Blue Dog Democrats who don't bay at the same moon you do.

Oh snap! LOL

Nice response tinfoil, you're a class act.

Must have woke up this morning and gobbled TWO hate sandwiches.

I'm still laughing at this:

"...according to your deranged hatred of the corporatist media."

Diebold and Fox have also been caught editing Wikipedia entries to their advantage. You guys heard about that and think that's awful too, right?

Yes, Jim, Wikipedia is a joke. Collectivist theory shot to hell. Regardless of whether or not Diebold or people at Fox edit entries. By the way, Diebold is not a conservative entity. Your association of it to the right only shows your own whacky paranoia.

I consider the theory that the NY Times is liberal pretty wacky. Especially considering just how much cheerleading they and the rest of the so-called-liberal US media did for the Iraq invasion.

As for Diebold, its run by conservatives, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a conservative company. But it *is* something many conservatives don't want to admit is a problem. The US has a history of voter fraud going back to the beginning of the country - so liberals are wacky for demanding Diebold prove it's secure, and have a paper trail just to be safe?

But as for the real issue of this article - I'm just pointing it's not only conservatives' favorite target who edit to suit. It's some of conservatives' sacred cows as well.

jim, Democrats have no interest in preventing voter fraud. This is evident not merely from their long history of voting fraud, but from their opposition to rules requiring voters to present ID. Not to mention hiring voter registration organizations like ACORN that have a history of fraud.

Your belief that the New York Times ( whose editors and publisher admit to the paper being liberal in viewpoint ) is not liberal only shows just how far from center [b]you[/b] are, it tells us nothing about the NYT.

Hey, the CIA and FBI edit Wikipedia too!

Jim

I consider the theory that the NY Times is liberal pretty wacky.

OK, I'll take you at your word on that. Would you name just on wide ciculation print publication that is liberal?
And just for grins, name a conservative one also.