Breaking News From NYT: George Bush Is a "Jerk"

There's a new tool that lets you see the sources for anonymous edits made on Wikipedia. Naturally, hilarity ensues. The best one so far is an edit to the "George W. Bush" page originating from the ever-impartial New York Times:

Submit your favorite self-interested or vindictive edits to Wired's Wikipedia Wall of Shame.

Update: Doubters can see for themselves by clicking on the image, or looking up the IP address at the top to verify that it belongs to The New York Times.

Comments

[Christopher Monnier]

I don’t get it…how do you know it came from the New York Times?

[Randolph Carter]

that’s their IP address

[NoStar]

I’m glad to see the NY Times get at least that fact right.

[URKEL\'S FOLD]

That’s the sound coming from the NY Times offices.

[Lamar]

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

[Episiarch]

Can’t be true. All American media outlets are completely unbiased. I know because they tell me so.

[joe]

When people say that they don’t consider it possible for someone with an opinion to set is aside and be professional, we should keep that in mind as we read what they have to say.

[thoreau]

When people say that they don’t consider it possible for someone with an opinion to set is aside and be professional, we should keep that in mind as we read what they have to say.

Damn good point, joe. Damn good point.

[Episiarch]

joe,

Who watches the watchers? 😉

[joe]

The NSA.

[crimethink]

Tracing an IP address to a specific organization isn’t a new thing. They’ve been doing that on Wikipedia to combat vandalism for years.

[joe]

Oops, now I have to kill Episiarch.

Everyone look away. National security.

[Episiarch]

joe,

I understand–hell, if it’s for National Security! But make it quick.

[Brandybuck]

Weird. I checked on all the anonymous edits on my Wikipedia entry, and they’re all made by me!

[shodan2020]

Faux News has done stuff like this to several wikipedia pages, most notably Al Franken, and Keith Olbermann’s wiki pages.

[TLB]

What we really need to worry about are those who know what they’re doing and who use means to cloak where something is coming from and who see WP as a fine tool to spread their agenda (since it appears so high in search results).

[Lamar]

“Oops, now I have to kill Episiarch. Everyone look away. National security.”

Can’t we just break his arm and say we’re just protecting a few states?

[Josh]

Jesus Christ. I’m supposed to be worried about the professionalism of the people poking fun of “jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk”, not the person who wrote it? Even for joe, that’s a mindbending stretch. But at least we have self-consciously high-minded thoreau available to grant his approval.

[e]

gotdamn that was close. I almost clicked on a Little Green Footballs link.

[brian]

An informative post from someone at the Republican Party on the cheese sandwich

Also, the same (Repub. Party) IP deleted the entire Harry Potter article with a one sentence spoiler of the second-to-last HP book. (WARNING! SPOILER! Don’t click if you don’t want to know how it ends)

I also like the Rush Limbaugh one, as edited by someone at the Democratic Party.

Also, someone at ExxonMobil is writing articles on the lore of World of Warcraft.

For the hell of it, I looked up the IP range on my organization, and while I found mostly small factual edits of my organization’s page, I also found edits of Buffy Summers, Vampires, Beer Pong, and other amusing subjects.

[brian]

Oooh another great one from the Republican Party IP.

Someone replaced each use of the word “Irish” with “penis gourd” in the article on

[brian]

oops. I’ll try that again.

Oooh another great one from the Republican Party IP.

Someone replaced each use of the word “Irish” with “penis gourd” in the article on Saint Patrick’s Day

[Josh]

Think about this:

When people say that they don’t consider it possible for someone with an opinion to set is aside and be professional, we should keep that in mind as we read what they have to say.

Explain how this is different from “When people say that they don’t consider it possible for someone who expresses their belief in White Pride to set it aside and not be biased against other races, we should keep that in mind as we read what they have to say.”

[Bobster]

Josh,

Because White Pride people are not biased to begin with?

[Bobster]

That was a joke by the way.

[MP]

There’s no better way to shed the cloak of bias than to publish silly posts attacking an MSM outlet for what some guy in the mail room posted during his lunch break.

[jf]

Eric Dondero creating his own Wikipedia entry should be noted.

[Andy P]

Someone at my job edited Allah to include

“ALLAH IS THE ALMIGHTY NO BODY CAN CHANGE HIS POWERS AND HE IS EVERY THING TO ALL AND ALL PEOPLE WORSHIP HIM ONLY”

awesome.

[thoreau]

But at least we have self-consciously high-minded thoreau available to grant his approval.

high-minded?

1) I’ve never inhaled.
2) My mind is most definitely stuck down in the gutter. Ain’t nuthin’ high up about it!

[mike_twincities]

Ah…who’s dissin on Thoreau???

Wikipedia. Love it for obscure articles. Where else can you find an episode guide for Ghost in the Shell: SAC?

However, the wisdom of crowds can be interpreted as mob rule, too.

Like alot of things on teh internets: Caveat Emptor.

Out here.

[Paul]

I approve of this comment.

[Fluffy]

Wow, I’m really late to the thread and there’s still time for me to make the obvious joke:

“Wow, finally the Times gets a story right. Too bad the rest of their reporting isn’t this solid.”

[Mo]

Not that I don’t think the Times dislikes Bush, but y’all are aware that the only people with NYTimes IP addys are reporters. It could be an IT guy, a secretary, an intern, etc.

It’s still really funny.

[Taktix?]

NoStar | August 15, 2007, 3:36pm | #
I’m glad to see the NY Times get at least that fact right.

Sadly, too late.

[Goldthwait]

“Faux News has done stuff like this to several wikipedia pages.”

Faux news!!! Hahaha, man that is a hilariously original joke. Did you just come up with that one. I’m glad someone called them on it, because as this article makes clear all of the other news organizations are totally non-biased and objective.

[Goldthwait]

“I’m glad to see the NY Times get at least that fact right.

Sadly, too late.”

Yeah, because up until this point, they have stuck to totally objective, principled and non-biased reporting on George Bush and his administration. I can’t remember even once in the past six years when the Times ran a hit-piece on the President or his Republican allies. It is a shame they broke that six year streak of presidential objectivity so close to the end of the Bush Administration.
Actually, the only biased source of news regarding the Bush Administration has been Fox News (or maybe I should call them Faux news, because that epithet is just so damn hilarious).

[wayne]

This is the whole problem with Wikipedia. As somebody pointed out, Wiki is great if you are looking up some arcane fact that almost nobody in the universe cares about.

On the other hand, when a Wiki citation is used in support of an argument that is the least bit controversial, well then you just have to laugh.

Of course you would expect to find the fingerprints of smug, know-it-all liberals on the Rush Limbaugh Wiki entry. You expect to find jack-booted footprints of closed-minded right wingers on the Bill Clinton entry.

[de stijl]

[Homer]: (Stage whisper) Which one is the mouse?
[Bart]: George W. Bush.
[Homer]: George W. Bush is a jerk.
[Bart]: Ha ha ha.

[joe]

“When people say that they don’t consider it possible for someone who expresses their belief in White Pride to set it aside and not be biased against other races, we should keep that in mind as we read what they have to say.”

Um, ok. Yes, if somebody says something that it is impossible to set aside one’s belief in ‘White Pride’ and report in a fair and objective manner, we should assume that that person has every intention of spinning everything they write to advance their “White Pride” agenda.

Exactly right. Same thing with anyone who announced their objection to fair, accurate, nonbiased reporting.

[Goldthwait]

Wikipedia is about as reliable as a Venezualan exit poll.