FOX News - Caught editing Wikipedia Facts

[SMM]

Here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/15/fox-news-caught-re-writing-wikipedia-history/) you go - Happy Reading

[TheAnswer]

Their wikismear campaign against some of their critics is documented here (http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/08/14/fox-news-changes-wikipedia-to-smear-rivals-olbermann-and-franken-comprehensive-list-of-changes).

[Thomas Veil]

Umm...OOPS??

I especially love the one about the black "X" appearing over Cheney's face for 1/7th of a second (changed from 1/15th of a second).

Television pictures transmit at 30 frames per second. Last time I checked, 15 divides evenly into 30, but 7 does not.

So they're not only adding stuff that's biased; some of it's also physically impossible. :D

And this is from people who work in television. :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

Umm...OOPS??

I especially love the one about the black "X" appearing over Cheney's face for 1/7th of a second (changed from 1/15th of a second).

Television pictures transmit at 30 frames per second. Last time I checked, 15 divides evenly into 30, but 7 does not.

So they're not only adding stuff that's biased; some of it's also physically impossible. :D

And this is from people who work in television. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but 1/7.5 doesn't have the same ring, nor does 2/15ths...

people don't deal with 15ths or even 16ths enough to have any experience but 7 is close enough to 8ths or 10ths to get people to recognize it more easily...

why they didn't just go with a 10th is a bit of a mystery...

[obeygiant]

Here (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=12.167.224.224-255&ip2=12.30.108.96-127) is a direct link to the wikiscanner. If you click on the middle column with the numbers a side-by-side comparison will pop into a frame.

My favorite one is:

Changes are in red.

On Monday, August 8, 2005, the day following [[Peter Jennings]]'s death from lung cancer, Olbermann revealed on-air that he had had a benign, fibrous tumor removed from the roof of his mouth just ten days earlier. In an explicit and controversial monologue, he attributed his tumor (and the resulting fear and pain) directly to his 27-year habit of smoking pipes and cigars. He vigorously urged his viewers not to wait until they see symptoms to quit. "Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking — now. While it's easier." This move was widely ciritcized by the the media and the blogosphere and Olbermann was attacked for making the death of news icon Peter Jennings about himself. According to [[Don Imus]] on the following morning's [[Imus In The Morning]] broadcast, that statement nearly got Olbermann fired.

I can totally see Olbermann doing that, cuz he's such a self-righteous bastard. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Their wikismear campaign against some of their critics is documented here (http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/08/14/fox-news-changes-wikipedia-to-smear-rivals-olbermann-and-franken-comprehensive-list-of-changes).

And a complete article and more general thread here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=342675

[dswoodley]

It looks like everyone is doing this, Apple, Dell, Microsoft and anyone who has a message that they want a favorable spin on...

[nbs2]

So, why is it important for this story to be highlighted with Fox making changes rather than highlighting it as the Democratic Party making changes to people that are opposed to them or as an observation that people across the spectrum are making changes? Just curious.

[PlaceofDis]

this is the problem with wiki, anyone can come in and edit it.
and as it expands, they're going to have to expand their review panel so that less stuff slips through the cracks.

[dswoodley]

So, why is it important for this story to be highlighted with Fox making changes rather than highlighting it as the Democratic Party making changes to people that are opposed to them or as an observation that people across the spectrum are making changes? Just curious.

Because the fair and balanced network is evidently evil!! :)

Go ahead and pound Fox, but pound everyone else who does it too.

[lord patton]

what's a "Wikipedia Fact"?

[dswoodley]

what's a "Wikipedia Fact"?

Nice. Post of the day!

[mactastic]

Yeah, I wouldn't get up too high on that horse about FOXNews Nutwork and their penchant for wiki editing. That wiki tracker thing is going to embarrass a whole lot of people on both sides of the aisle (and plenty of others with no political axe to grind) before the dust settles.

[Ugg]

this is the problem with wiki, anyone can come in and edit it.
and as it expands, they're going to have to expand their review panel so that less stuff slips through the cracks.

Yep. On sites like wikipedia, there needs to be full disclosure of people's identities. Anonymous posting is fine on forums like this but if wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, they need to change their policies.

[IJ Reilly]

Odd how this thread has attracted so much more interest than the more general thread on this topic. I suppose every time the "F" word gets dropped, some people automatically pay attention.

[dswoodley]

Odd how this thread has attracted so much more interest than the more general thread on this topic. I suppose every time the "F" word gets dropped, some people automatically pay attention.

I'm sorry, did you just mention the "F" word?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm sorry, did you just mention the "F" word?

Yes, Fox. I am deeply sorry. :o

[dswoodley]

Yes, Fox. I am deeply sorry. :o

Primetime entertainment. Somewhere between Jerry Springer and Phil Hendrie. Unfortunately, some people are misled by that "news" word.

[LethalWolfe]

Odd how this thread has attracted so much more interest than the more general thread on this topic. I suppose every time the "F" word gets dropped, some people automatically pay attention.
Presentation. People down here love to hate FOX news. If the thread you started was titled something like, "Microsoft Caught editing Wikipedia facts" it would probably be 3 pages long by now. ;)


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Presentation. People down here love to hate FOX news. If the thread you started was titled something like, "Microsoft Caught editing Wikipedia facts" it would probably be 3 pages long by now. ;)

I know, I know -- and if I wore a tie, I'd have a better job. :)

[FrankBlack]

I saw a bumper sticker about a year ago, that had the Fox new logo on it, followed by this caption: "Fox News. Big Brother is Watching, shouldn't you be too?"

Don't know why, but I like it. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

It looks like everyone is doing this, Apple, Dell, Microsoft and anyone who has a message that they want a favorable spin on...
But none of them claim to be a fair and balanced news organization.

So, why is it important for this story to be highlighted with Fox making changes rather than highlighting it as the Democratic Party making changes to people that are opposed to them or as an observation that people across the spectrum are making changes? Just curious.
Because, again, Fox claims to be fair and balanced. They were caught being not so much. Plus, it turns out, as usual, a lot of it was factually incorrect.

Bias is bad enough, lying just makes it worse.

I can totally see Olbermann doing that, cuz he's such a self-righteous bastard.
Maybe, but at least he isn't a liar.

[ham_man]

I read a New York Times article about this a few days ago (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)) and found it very interesting. I don't really know how it can be policied aside from having a large number of devoted volunteers, because any sort of censoring on a large scale would be contrarian to the whole idea behind Wikipedia. You really just have to spot treat any issues that arise.

[Lyle]

So, why is it important for this story to be highlighted with Fox making changes rather than highlighting it as the Democratic Party making changes to people that are opposed to them or as an observation that people across the spectrum are making changes?You must be new here. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

You must be new here. ;)

Come now Lyle, that's just a cheap shot.

I started a thread on this topic days before this one, which attracted a grand total of six posts, two of which were mine. I didn't see you there, did I?

[Lyle]

Come now Lyle, that's just a cheap shot.

I started a thread on this topic days before this one, which attracted a grand total of six posts, two of which were mine. I didn't see you there, did I?I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. As you've already pointed out (in this thread), anything that's critical of FOX News is red meat for many of the denizens of the PRSI forums. It just struck me as an odd question for nbs2 to ask, unless he was doing so tongue in cheek.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. As you've already pointed out (in this thread), anything that's critical of FOX News is red meat for many of the denizens of the PRSI forums. It just struck me as an odd question for nbs2 to ask, unless he was doing so tongue in cheek.

Okay, I guess I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make. I thought this entire issue was quite interesting, and I was also impressed by what this graduate student had accomplished. Hardly anyone else thought so, I suppose.

[leekohler]

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. As you've already pointed out (in this thread), anything that's critical of FOX News is red meat for many of the denizens of the PRSI forums. It just struck me as an odd question for nbs2 to ask, unless he was doing so tongue in cheek.

Fox News is a joke. You're damn right it's red meat for us. It should be for anyone.

[nbs2]

It just struck me as an odd question for nbs2 to ask, unless he was doing so tongue in cheek.

Partially tongue-in-cheek...

Okay, I guess I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make. I thought this entire issue was quite interesting, and I was also impressed by what this graduate student had accomplished. Hardly anyone else thought so, I suppose.

...and partially that as IJ pointed out yesterday, by mentioning Fox in the title many more people paid attention to this thread. I didn't see anything to post in your previous thread, as I thought the observations were impressive enough that the facts left little to discussion. My concern was that stories that clearly affect both sides of the aisle are presented in the PRSI more "successfully" when they focus on the negative of the right. Just disappointing that people let their bias show so clearly, and are loath to accept that they coudl be wrong.

[leekohler]

Partially tongue-in-cheek...



...and partially that as IJ pointed out yesterday, by mentioning Fox in the title many more people paid attention to this thread. I didn't see anything to post in your previous thread, as I thought the observations were impressive enough that the facts left little to discussion. My concern was that stories that clearly affect both sides of the aisle are presented in the PRSI more "successfully" when they focus on the negative of the right. Just disappointing that people let their bias show so clearly, and are loath to accept that they coudl be wrong.

If we're wrong, most of us here will admit it. When we get irritated is on the occasions people present their own opinions as fact (without presenting proof backing up said opinions) and expect us just to take their word. It doesn't work that way here.

As for the right wing, as I've stated before- they've let their party be taken over by wackos. That's not our fault. It's hard to find anything "right" as in "correct" about the right wing these days. That doesn't mean the left doesn't have it's problems, it does. However, the right wing is really nuts these days.

[solvs]

Just disappointing that people let their bias show so clearly, and are loath to accept that they coudl be wrong.
Is it biased to distrust a network that calls itself Fair And Balanced, but besides being completely partisan, is known for lying and doing things like this?

As Lee alluded to, and as I keep saying, if they'd stop giving us reasons to dislike them, we'd stop having reasons to dislike them. Nor does it take away any dislike from the other side. They just aren't doing enough. Which is actually why we dislike them, because they don't do anything.

[mactastic]

My concern was that stories that clearly affect both sides of the aisle are presented in the PRSI more "successfully" when they focus on the negative of the right. Just disappointing that people let their bias show so clearly, and are loath to accept that they coudl be wrong.
And also disappointing to see that some people will use a few examples to stereotype the entire PRSI forum with...

[solvs]

And also disappointing to see that some people will use a few examples to stereotype the entire PRSI forum with...

Well, it's obvious isn't it? If Fox is conservative than everything that isn't Fox is liberal. Just like if we disagree with a conservative here, we must all be liberal. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes: