Your's truly secured the photo for the Prime Minister's article, and it was a HELL of a hassle to do. I've learned the hard way: wikipedians can be excessively anal. Check the article discussion history for what I went through; apparently confirmation from the PMO itself that a picture is in the public domain isn't good enough for some of the more anal retentive users.

has anybody checked whats coming out of the CBC computers? There just might be a few mother corp 'edits' out there.

Wikipedia, kind of like David Letterman's top ten list. Completely useless and when reading you chuckle at the complete stupidity.

Actually, if folks would visit my own wiki entry and vandalize it out of existence, I'd be most grateful. I asked them to remove it, and they wouldn't. So might as well make it ridiculously irrelevant.

I do not care what you write. The most outrageous the better.

The insidious problem is News orgs rewriting history to suit there own agend driven POV.
So far guilty parties include Al Jazeera, Reuters and the BBC.
I saw a note on FOX doing and edit changing the word 'occupying' to 'liberating' in description of US forces in Iraq.
Very telling is what they (wikpedia) let stand VS what they undo............

The insidious problem is News orgs rewriting history to suit their own agenda driven POV.
So far guilty parties include Al Jazeera, Reuters and the BBC.
I saw a note on FOX doing and edit changing the word 'occupying' to 'liberating' in description of US forces in Iraq.
Very telling is what they (wikpedia) let stand VS what they undo............

Darnit...sorry for the DP

Thanks for the link! Kate...I'm not tech savvy enough, nor do I have the time to fiddle with wikipedia. But I did read the 'interview' and I'd love to be at that gathering with Mark,Ted and PET!...lol..Your philosophy of life is evidenced in your blog.
If I could I would add somewhere in wikipedia that you write obits for your gophers after you shoot them. How's that for outrageous?

Once more a seemingly good idea gets corrupted to the point of irrevelence. Now, instead of a quick reference site (or more importantly, a starting point for research) it will be a flame zone that sheeple will take as gospel. Kind of like the MSM, opinions become news.

I just went to wikipedia.org and noticed that you can get a tax deductible receipt for a donation to "wikipedia foundation". There is no way that this outfit should be receiving any donations that are TAX DEDUCTIBLE. They are cleary political and need to be reported to Canada Revenue Agency!

LGF's has been been posting an expose on MSM edits to wikipedia: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

Scroll down, the BBC, the NYT's, Al Jazeera and the UN have all been busy with egregious insertions at wikipedia, proving that what units lefties and Islamic fascists is the need to hijack facts and re-write history in their favor.

The left and Islam are a reflection of each other. They deserve each other.

Greenpeace eh?
Not really any surprise there.

There is no way that this outfit should be receiving any donations that are TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

You've decided that the money I might give to Wikipedia - which I use every day and which my kids use every day during the school year to do homework with - you've decided that for my own good, this money must be taken from me by the taxman so they can use it to fund, say, millions of dollars of subsidies to Bombardier, and to pay government consultants to come up with new, lesbian- and transgender-friendly school curricula, and to pay for pro-FLQ television miniseries. Among thousands of other wasteful, corrupt uses. Do I understand you correctly, that you and the government know better than I do, where the money that I earn should be spent?

Thanks for caring.

No real surpise here Kate. I reported the shameful Wikipedia tactics at play during the Regina Civic Election. Seems these leftards have nothing better to do than Aryan Rand Atlas Shrugged history rewrites. The pr*cks.

see: http://www.iheartregina.com/regina-blog/wikipedia-leaning-left-or-perhaps-pushed.html

Wikipedia is a nice idea thought up by nice college kids who lacked life experience.

Now they are big enough to be a target of every nut, creep, lawyer (special case of creep), and a-hole in the entire world with an ax to grind.

And they are all shocked and surprised!

"Gasp! Mean people are screwing up our nice Utopian thing which we made for The Benefit Of All Mankind (TM), how can this be?!!!"

If they had a couple years outside the Ivory Tower they would know that the number of sleazy, slimy, lying, cheating, thieving a-holes is small as a percentage of population (except in New York City), but they do damage out of all proportion to their numbers.

This is why we have things like money, guns, security guards, professional standards and photo ID.

But being from the Ivory Tower, they were too smart to think of all that.

Wiki is great for technical things where you want a quick idea of what it is, like quantum entanglement or something. Controversial subjects? Forget it. Worse than a blog, you don't even know who posted it. Go look up gun control if you need a giggle.

I took a look at WikiScanner, where I see that it has a search by Wikipedia page that is currently disabled due to a slow implementation combined with a lot of traffic. However, consider the following case.

Say this kind of functionality were actually integrated into Wikipedia, so that whenever you read a page, there is a simple link available that shows you the history of the page editing along with whatever information is known about where the edits come from.

It occurs to me that such a function would make Wikipedia even more valuable than it is now, pace those who would argue that it is not now valuable.

Caveat emptor secus emptor culpa.

Pretty negative entries at Wiken..

But y'know what?
The bottom line is that Chuck Guite recently outed Mr JEAN CRETIEN, as the man in charge, overseeing the THEFT of Canadian TAXPAYERS money, known as The Sponsorship Scandal.

In the Blogosphere though it is lovingly referred to as the "tip of the iceberg".

And on another note, the recent marriage of the queer Brison, it is reported from "reliable sources", nudge..nudge..wink, wink, that the bride wore a gown of stuffed envelopes.
Cheers to Lieberal slime, where ever you are slithering!

assholes...

For the record, "whodat" is Robert Bollocks, who was banned from SDA after the exchange recorded in this PDF - tinyurl.com/22gsoe - in which he writes as isp_whut_isp.

Scroll down, the BBC, the NYT's, Al Jazeera and the UN have all been busy with egregious insertions at wikipedia, proving that what units lefties and Islamic fascists is the need to hijack facts and re-write history in their favor.
penny at August 15, 2007 9:43 PM

So when the CIA and the Vatican do it, your moronic assertions are confirmed how exactly?

Vitruvius,

Persistent nut case. I can't get your link ... get errors on being a php not a pdf. Can you submit a .pdf link?

Bollocks. Great. Guy is bat**** crazy, and awful proud about it, too.

Hey Robert: If I give you my old barbeque, will you finally shut up?

Sorry to go OT, but this is worth a look,

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26640_Video-_Marine_Corps_Poetry_Slam&only

whodat - are you like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory?

Sorry Kate - just playing.

Check the history of edits for the Wikopedia biography of Avi Lewis. Looks like the lefties are constantly watching to retain control, in this case eliminating facts that show their boy as the idiot he is. Most significant of those, someone quickly elimianted reference to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview when it was added, giving the logic "restored article without POV and other non-wikipedia style challenged information". However, it was not POV (Point-Of-View) nor could it be challenged, as it was a straight transcript.

So that's to be expected in Wikopedia. If this really wrinkles you, remember that it can work two ways, but you better be prepared to be persistent.

But then, for better or worse, most of us don't have time for that kind of game. To approximately quote a famous blogger named Kate, "don't sweat the small stuff, and most of it is small".

Thanks for the heads up. His comments are gone.

The case of Mr. Bollocks is actually interesting in a way that is directly relevant to the topic. While he has certainly gone out of his way to establish his sociopathic behaviour, imagine if, like to some degree WikiSearch provides for Wikipedia, we could simply search all the comments in a blog, by author, topic, content, IP address pattern, &c, even those that had been elided from the thread view due to violations of house rules.

If we had such an ability, then when a case such as the egregious behaviour of Mr. Bollocks comes up, instead of people arguing over what did or didn't happen, we could simply push some buttons and read for ourselves what actually happened, instead of having to rely on snapshots such as the one I captured as above.

Note that I am not proposing any sort of ban on anonimity, but it would be interesting to be able to correlate comments from individuals anonymously identified, without revealing their indentity.

It would be a bit more like history at your fingertips, and knowledge of history is good, if I understand correctly. For Wikipedia, and for blogs.

The bride wore stuffed envelopes.which one is the bride?

Has anyone edited the Greenpeace entry to reflect their latest activity at editing wikipedia?
That would be kinda ironic, wouldn't it?

Wikipedia is the most pernicious revisionist dystopian propaganda on the web. Masquarading as fact we see partisan spin on almost all issues that the left has politicized. The editors are the stuff of 5th columnist quislings....and their out put would gag a gut wagon buzzard.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic amassing of left wing angst and paranoia.

Yo Ugh! Wikipedia is a "commercial" enterprize and has no business getting "charity" status and especially if they are being "political". Maybe your kids could find a less biased source for their information.

I'm not sure how anyone can conclude that Wikipedia is either leftwing or rightwing.

It is all of us: It is basically open text. Anyone can comment and sometimes it seems nearly everyone does, including the PMO caught making changes - outright deletions of fact for campaign pamphlet style promotion. This week, an entry might have been more recently visited and edited by some leftard commie; tomorrow it will be counter-edited by some rightwing fascist.

Wikipedia is what it is. Like Phantom wrote, good for a quick sense of something, maybe even great for non-controversial items, but anything political or cultural it is pretty useless. To complain that Wikipedia gets changed misses the point entirely about what it is: a community development.

Sorry, forgot to post the link to the article exposing the government's complicity in altering facts in Wikipedia, the article I'm assuming inspired this post despite any links: Is Wikipedia becoming a hub for propaganda?
Tracking website shows thousands of changes to articles originated from federal government offices.

"A website that tracks the origins of millions of edits to Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, shows that computers inside federal government offices are responsible for more than 11,000 changes to articles, including some significant edits of entries about parliamentarians."

[And I wrote PMO above. I meant government offices, although one might understand that these days there doesn't seem to be any difference.]

Ted you have the most advanced case of selective naivety on the planet....go get a real job will ya. :D

"It is all of us:"

Mo it's nit! It is the board of editors and if you are changing a fact they don't like you will be banned...happened to me so may times in correcting false statements on Wiki and providing references that I just gave up on finding any unbiased editor there at all.

I filter my search engine to exclude Wikipedia returns now...I don't even want to give them hits.

As always it's best to get your info first and and unfiltered...Wikipedia is an info FILTER...not a source.

Wiki editorial plagiarism?

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

'NUFF SAID!

WL Mackenzie Redux:

I never said wasn't biased. I said it just reflects the biases of the most recent editor and anyone can edit.

Sounds like the oh-so-truthful Conservapedia is probably more up your alley.

Wikipedia is cool, and I think the one improvement that they could make was ensure that authors can be identified, so that if we see propaganda then we can identify who wrote it.

But ted - you focus on the PM's office changing Wikipedia. Your - yet again - logical error, is that you are assuming the item in Wikipedia was 'right' and 'accurate' - and that the PM's office was changing this Truth for a political agenda.

What if the item in Wikipedia was NOT the truth but was grossly slanted - and the PM's office was merely taking out the slant - and inserting 'just the facts'. Facts do exist - without bias. And it is quite possible to post something that is factually accurate - so, your illogical supposition that whoever posts on political themes, is, one way or the other - biased is, well, it's illogical.

Just as your claim that gov't offices = PMO. Also illogical..and unproven.

And your supposition that the PM's office only takes out 'facts' and inserts propaganda. Illogical. What if they are taking out propaganda, and inserting facts? Hmmm? Not possible in your Hate Harper World?

My goodness, ET, once again showing a real problem with reading and with reading comprehension.

For once, ET, I'll deign to reply to you typical baseless, knee-jerk silliness. Why? Maybe too much sun, maybe because it is so easy to point out your silliness by... reading.

Example one, from the Globe article I linked to and you decided was irrelevant in forming an opinion about the matter:

"One user, with an IP address that points to a government office in Ottawa, removed Wikipedia's entire entry on homosexuality several times on July 20, 2005, and replaced it with such sentences as: "Homosexuality is evil," "Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible" and "Homosexuals need our help and counselling." The IP address responsible for that edit continued to deface the entry on homosexuality a total of 24 times between July, 2005, and July, 2006, and also edited more than 500 other Wikipedia articles on topics such as epidemiology, Ebola and Deal or No Deal (a TV game show starring a Canadian host)."

Ah, our tax dollars at work. ET's version of the government correcting false information (actually no information because the prior entry was silent on the issue, merely describing homosexuality without a health reference) with THE TRUTH!

An even better example of ET's "truth":

Paul Martin's entry before "government" intervention: "Paul Martin (born August 28, 1938 in Windsor, Ontario) was the 21st Prime Minister of Canada and is the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party of Canada." Tell me, ET, is that the leftie propaganda that you refer to?

Paul Martin's entry after "government" intervention: "Paul Martin (born August 28, 1938 in Windsor, Ontario) was the worst Prime Minister of Canada and is the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party of Canada."

There you go. ET's "truth".

In fact these are the most eggregious examples. Most of the changes by the government employee being paid with my tax dollars are less partisan and merely delete existing text (written in the style of a encyclopedia entry) and replace it with campaign style literature. I'm not denying its factualness, but it reads like it comes right out of a pamphlet and not an enclopedic entry: eg. "[Conservative MP] Jeff [Watson] understands from personal experience the devastating toll that plant closures and the resultant job losses have on Canadian workers, their families and their communities. He is also acutely aware of the plight of Essex County and Ontario producers due to trade injury. Maintaining well-paying jobs, protecting the family farm and environmental concerns, particularly the quality of our land, air and water for future generations are Jeff's top priorities as MP for Essex."

Cripes, I wish there were more conservatives like ET. We'd never have to worry about a Conservative government.

Ahh, Ted, your reading and logical comprehension is weak.

You informed us that the sites were being changed by the PM's office. Now, your example on homosexuality, is from a 'gov't office'. The civil service, Ted, is not the PM. Nor is it 'the government'.

Your claim that there is no difference between the PM's Office and the government offices is, as you ought to know, invalid. You've made this illogical claim to try to support your axiom that it's really 'Harper's people' who are changing the Wikipedia text. Such a tactic is - invalid.

The civil service, as you well know, is a union-babied morass of Liberal/NDP types...and, again, is not the PM's office. So - your example shows that your original claim is - factually invalid.

Same thing with the Conservative MP example. That could have come from a die-hard supporter; nothing to do with the PMO.

Your Die-Hard hatred of Harper and Conservatives has led you into an illogical axiom - that any and all changes to Wikipedia text about Canadian political figures come from the PM's Office. Wrong. Your data doesn't support this.

Try again. Logic 101.

Try again, Edwina. Reading 101. You really seem to have a hard time with it despite your ivory tower PhD.

"And I wrote PMO above. I meant government offices, although one might understand that these days there doesn't seem to be any difference."

I've had the displeasure of again proving you to be utterly an illogical poor reader and willing to spew silly conclusions with out any substantiation of fact. And it gets tiring.

But just for fun, with respect to your most recent silly comment - "Your Die-Hard hatred of Harper and Conservatives has led you into an illogical axiom - that any and all changes to Wikipedia text about Canadian political figures come from the PM's Office. Wrong. Your data doesn't support this." - since you put yourself out as (and, frankly prove yourself to be, albeit not in the way you intended) an expert on illogic, please prove or even give one single shred of evidence to support the following:

1. My "Die-Hard hatred of Harper and Conservatives"

2. "that any and all changes to Wikipedia text about Canadian political figures come from the PM's Office."

On your mark. Get set. Go....

ET: "Your - yet again - logical error, is that you are assuming the item in Wikipedia was 'right' and 'accurate' - and that the PM's office was changing this Truth for a political agenda."

1) If this is an error, it is an error of fact, not an error of logic.

2) The salient point is that all sorts of people are editing wikipedia, right-wing, left-wing, and in-between.

ET, if you yourself had taken Logic 101 you'd know the difference between validity and truth.

Hmmm. False start. Let's try again, Edwina.

On your mark. Get set. Go....

no, exile, the salient point in Ted's posts, is that the editing is coming from the PM's Office. that's what he kept informing us, of 'the gov'ts complicity in altering facts in wikipedia', of 'the PMO caught making changes'...etc. And, he informed us that there was no essential difference between 'gov't offices' and the 'PMO'.

No, exile, it's an error of both fact and logic. The factual error is just the assumption that the item in Wikipedia is 'truth'.

The logical error is an If-Then proposition of 'IF there are changes in a Wikipedia item, THEN, this is an act of the PMO'. The logical error is linking 'changes' and 'the PMO'.

All you can logically say is: 'There is a PM's office' AND 'There are changes in Wikipedia'. You can't logically link them into an IF-THEN statement, and say: IF there are changes in Wikipedia, THEN, these come from the PM's Office.

Ted - your focus on my statement of 'any and all' is a red herring.

Ted - your die-hard hatred of the PMO and conservatives is evident in all your posts to this blog.

If they are all over the internet then it should be gosh darn easy to prove, so go to it.

And my focus on your "any and all" statement is not a red herring. It is highlighting your practice of sweeping over-generalizations that are utterly disconnected to the facts. As exile points out, you have a real problem with facts.

If they are all over the internet then it should be gosh darn easy to prove, so go to it.

And my focus on your "any and all" statement is not a red herring. It is highlighting your practice of sweeping over-generalizations that are utterly disconnected to the facts.

As exile points out, you have a real problem with facts. You don't seem to like them... and they certainly don't like you.

An example of ET's "truth":

Paul Martin's entry before "government" intervention: "Paul Martin (born August 28, 1938 in Windsor, Ontario) was the 21st Prime Minister of Canada and is the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party of Canada." How illogical of me to assume this is truth.

Paul Martin's entry after "government" intervention: "Paul Martin (born August 28, 1938 in Windsor, Ontario) was the worst Prime Minister of Canada and is the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party of Canada."

That's ET's "logic" for you.

no Ted, your first fallacy is assuming that Wikipedia is a site of ultimate Truth. When you have two contradictory statements - you can't assume that.

Again, your other fallacy is that you are merging 'government' and PMO. Furthermore, you are generalizing - where ONE individual in the civil service is defined, by you, as 'the Government'. heh.

As I pointed out, you can't, logically (or factually) do that. You were the one who kept telling us that the changes were coming from 'the government' and that 'the government' was equivalent to the PMO. That's both factually - and logically - invalid. That's not merely a 'sweeping generalization' - which it is, but it's an invalid generalization.

You are trying to pin the blame for changes in Wikipedia - on the PM's office. That's wrong. Why are you trying to do this? Because - you hate Harper.

Facts are facts; they don't have any emotional agenda. Therefore - for you to say that 'they don't like you' (ET) - is illogical. And non-factual.

Fact - I didn't say that your dislike of Harper and conservatives is 'all over the internet'. Fact - I said it was evident in your posts to this blog. Facts. And this is evident in your attempt to link changes in Wikipedia, to the PM's office. That's pure nonsense. Heh.

Facts are indeed facts, ET. And your continued attempt at either deliberately misstating the facts or not being able to properly read them tells us everything we need to know about what is wrong with our education system.

In fact, you outright lie.

ET: "your first fallacy is assuming that Wikipedia is a site of ultimate Truth."

Unless you have a severe problem with reading comprehension, you know perfectly well that I said the exact opposite. The point I was making was exactly opposite to that. eg: "I never said wasn't biased. I said it just reflects the biases of the most recent editor and anyone can edit." among many other statements.

ET: "your other fallacy is that you are merging 'government' and PMO."

Another fabrication, ET. Shameful really. I've consistently said government, not PMO, made it clear to you over and over again that it is not the PMO. I even put "government" in square brackets because it is clearly not THE government but, in this article, conservative individuals who work at the government.

You continue to make spurious and groundless remarks. Please, just once provide some substantiation to your ad hominem attacks.

And you keep ducking challenges. You said: "Your Die-Hard hatred of Harper and Conservatives has led you into an illogical axiom - that any and all changes to Wikipedia text about Canadian political figures come from the PM's Office. Wrong. Your data doesn't support this." I've asked you over and over and over to please prove or even give one single shred of evidence to support the following:

1. My "Die-Hard hatred of Harper and Conservatives". If it is indeed in "in all your posts to this blog, it should be easy to find this "die-hard hatred of conservatives".

2. "that any and all changes to Wikipedia text about Canadian political figures come from the PM's Office." I said absolutely nothing of the sort but you are the "logic" queen so let us all know out of what hat you pulled that rabbit.

Still waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

Ted- you are moving into red herrings with your attempt to focus on 'any and all' and 'all'. Try to remain focused on the content of your posts, which were hostile attacks against Harper.

Again, you stated that changes to Wikipedia FACTS (ie. TRUTHS) come from the PM's Office.

'the government's complicity in altering FACTS in Wikipedia" (my emphasis of 'facts').

"I wrote PMO...I meant government offices...these days there doesn't seem to be any difference"

"including the PMO caught making changes - outright deletions of FACT" (my emphasis of 'fact').

So, Ted - you did explicitly merge PMO and 'government'. You said that there 'wasn't any difference'. You did assume that Wikipedia's texts were truthful or factual - and that these truths were changed by nefarious individuals in the PM's office=government offices.

Cheers.

ET: "The logical error is an If-Then proposition of 'IF there are changes in a Wikipedia item, THEN, this is an act of the PMO'. The logical error is linking 'changes' and 'the PMO'."

The correctness or incorrectness of that proposition is a matter of fact rather than of logic. It is, of course, factually ridiculous, but I very much doubt that's what he was saying.

Oh, well, another piece of useless "dialogue". I guess I'll go to bed.

One more thing: There are various kinds of if ... then statements. Just do some googling.

The If ... Then statement, 'IF there are changes in a Wikipedia item, THEN, this is an act of the PMO' would be a causal statement.

Run and hide, ET, run and hide.

Next time, if you can't support your attacks and over-generalizations, and knee-jerk reactions that produce silly and petty comments with a shred of evidence, then just resist the temptation to tap away at the keyboard.

For what it is worth, though I did not accuse the PMO of anything (except in a typo that was immediately corrected) I have zero doubt whatsoever that the PMO does regularly change facts to lies in wikipedia in addition to changing outright lies inserted by others into truths just like every other politician and political supporter of every stripe.

Obviously you are too obtuse to get it, but that was my one and only point. Wikipedia is what it is: text online that anyone can edit and everyone does. The information is marginally better than the information you get at the water cooler.

Wikipedia is neither good nor bad, and I neither attack it or praise it. It is us, a reflection of how we each form our own opinions and also how we try to shape the opinions of others.

It's surprising that an ivory tower academic who specializes in sociology doesn't get what Wikipedia is or has a typical knee-jerk reaction to its description as being partisan, but like I said, that says all you need to know about the state of our intellectual elite and how so many of them are neither intellectual nor elite.

"ET: "Your - yet again - logical error, is that you are assuming the item in Wikipedia was 'right' and 'accurate'"

It isn't illogical to assume a statement to be true unless it contains a contradiction (and this one does not). This statement is obviously not true, but that is a matter of fact, rather than of logic.

"All rabbits are blue" is not an illogical assumption, though it is incorrect.

Incidently, I've seen some very right-wing entries on wikipedia and there was some talk in some far-left circles for awhile of setting up some kind of alternative.

What a load of sophist BS!
Here's a fact..... CBC domain IPaddresses produced over 1200 anonymous edits on Wikipedia ... over 1000 of those came from the Ottawa offices!

Correcting errors? Re-writing History? Or just being asshats?

OMMAG...I love how your comments skip right to the point.No puff, no fluff.

Bottom line for me: what possible motive would greenpeace have for altering a site that is supposedly used for 'reference', not editorials?
Wikipedia cannot be trusted.