Talk:FOX News fares poorly in investigation of media edits to Wikipedia

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OR[edit]

Ok here is the deal. This new tool called WikiScanner is probably going to stir incredible amounts of trouble, and here is our chance to make it big yet again.

WikiScanner scans IP addresses of companies, cities and or ranges of IPs to link them to one or the other on Wikipedia (Wikinews and Wikiquote to be added shortly thanks to BrianMcNeail). Unfortunately because of traffic, you will likely have to use the cached page here.

If you search in companies: FOX News and News Corporation you will get a combined total of nearly if not just over 1,000 edits. Now search: Cable News Network (or CNN), MSNBC and BBC News, and you will see that none of the other news networks listed here made a single edit to Wikipedia.

So far, I have only looked over about 10 or so each of the results for: FOX News and News Corporation. Notice that even with News Corp, that the edits all still come from FOX News. The point is, so far out of the 20 total edits I have seen, I would say maybe 2 or 1 were ligitimant edits. The rest were bogus, false, or they removed information that criticized them and then added information criticizing their opponents (CNN being at least 1).

So it seems that we can have a ligit article, both balanced in NPOV and Wikinews:Style Guide. The problem is, we need to look over every single one of the edits, indiviudally and do a hard tally of what edits are good, bad, or in between. I would love help. Since Virgil is going to talk to us sometime in the next week or so, we have until after he talks to Wikinews to publish. So plenty of time, I just need manpower. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to focus on FOX? I mean, I'm sure there are many organisations that could be found to have been making questionable edits. If we are going to have an article about this tool we shouldn't focus on any organisation in particular but take a broader view with perhaps a few specific examples. Whilst of course appreciating it is quite early in the development of this article, phrases like "smoking gun" are very clichéd and should be avoided. Adambro 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did change the page title to put it in a more neutral tone. I propose a more generic title: Wikinews investigates Wikipedia edits by different companies. MessedRocker (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's going to cause some concern over at Wikipedia. I wonder if they might attempt to block FOX News for vandalism. 204.52.215.107 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
BBC did edit, check today's entry in the Editor's blog, they changed GWB's middle name to "Wanker". --Brian McNeil / talk 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
They edited, Almost 8,000 edits. but most of the edits were ligit...not a lot of BS, compared to FOX. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Correction: this search of the Wiki scanner returns all 561 edits for Fox News. First is in January 2005, latest is this month. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Virgil[edit]

Please leave questions for his interview here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A few issues s that haven't gotten major press but we may wish to point out(requires possible original reporting) + lets publish already.[edit]

1) Since the software only finds anon edits, it is likely drastically undercounting the actual amount of COI edits. 2) The vast majority of problematic edits were reverted in a few hours. 3) This is a well understood problem, and Wikipedia has a conflict of interest noticeboard for a reason.

Also, we should publish this ASAP because right now we're lagging behind. There was a front page article in the New York Times. JoshuaZ 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been told by Virgil that he will be able to add Wikinews, Wikiquote etc to the scanner fairly shortly. I'd like to check Wikiquote, has anyone been removing quotes? Adding ones that put people in a favourable light? Also, read the bit above the line, and the first couple of paragraphs below it - above is a partial rewrite to put this in context. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I reckon we should publish. We can create a new article for Wikinews/Wikiquote - besides, the guidlines say that if an update occurs 24 hours or more after the original event, start a new article. So I vote publish. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The idea of waiting to publish was to talk to Virgil first. I still think we should do that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines say updates after 24 hours, to published stories. I'm not sure who put a date template on it in story prep, but that can be bumped - an investigation can take more than a couple of days when you're looking at lots of edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're allowed to fiddle the date temp, then we can afford to wait a bit, then. (you triggered an edit conflict with me, my comment was going to be "If we don't publish before tommorow, it'll be off the main page before it even goes on it"). I'll delete the tag now, actually. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Others?[edit]

I think we need a few more agencies just for balance such as the Associated Press, Reuters...at least two more or one maybe. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pattern of Fox and Wikipedia problems?[edit]

Given their prior behavior with the wrestling scandal, this seems to be part of a larger pattern. Should we mention this in the article? JoshuaZ 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good Idea. I think we should add it. But I would like to see the opinions of others' first. But yes thats a great Idea. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Motion seconded. Sounds good to me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I'm not sure what a good phrasing would be. JoshuaZ 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I will have to think about that myself as well.... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Suggested wording "This is not the first time Fox has had a negative run in with Wikipedia and the WikiMedia foundations. Earlier, Fox claimed to have an exclusive story about Chris Benoit and edits made to his Wikipedia article reporting his death prior to police announcement. The story was in fact reported by the English Wikinews first and there were suggestions that Fox had plagiarized from Wikinews. Fox never replied to attempts by Wikinews and attempts by the Wikimedia Foundation to contact Fox News regarding the matter." JoshuaZ 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

The sixth paragraph: More recent edits include downplaying Sean Hannity's importance to the show Hannity and Colmes by removing the fact that his is executive producer and downgrading him to host on at least two occasions; removing the details of Wendy Murdoch's previous marriage to the husband of the couple who sponored her trip to study in the United States.

That needs clarifying...if I knew what it was supposed to say, I would clarify it :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hannity is the show's "executive producer". At least twice someone deleted that and put "host" or "co-host".
Read the history and talk on the Wendy Murdoch article, details of her life prior to marrying Murdoch have been removed. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Gotcha :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Last few news places[edit]

AP[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Edits to own pages (except last). Opinions? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention AP just so as it does not seem like we are targeting only FOX. I just want to make it clear that we are investigating other agencies and not just fox. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reuters[edit]

[7] [8] >[9]< [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Don't dish it until you try it[edit]

Define rubbish. I think this is the most NPOV something like this can get. We did our research, we are probably the only agency to wait to publish instead of going right out and saying so and so did this and that.

As said in the mailing lists. It cannot be denied that the edits were made with computers that are property of FOX News Channel and News Corp. That cannot be denied and the proof is there at the tool. By the looks of the edits, none were "authorized" to make any of them. But regardless of that fact, they, all of them, are employees working for FOX News and News corp.

If this were an intentional smear campaign then we would be doing just that. We cannot smear what is already undeniable proof. The edits are fact (fact in the sense that they are there, they happened, and regardless of false edits or not the fact is they did this).

Wikinews is not responsible for who made bad edits or good edits. The fact, and proof is, using WikiScanner, is that CNN was clean with NO edits period. So was MSNBC, and BBC admitted to on bad edit. We cannot make edits appear. The NPOV part is we did not target specifically FOX News or News Corp. This is what the edits show, and Wikinews or anyone else cannot change that.

So for anyone to call it rubbish, because its a smear campaign or whatever is false. Do me a favor. Use the tool if you have not. Understand what it does and shows. Do not criticize ligit research, thats is undeniable, if you have not understood the tool etc etc. This is all fact. And if you like we can source every edit, but that would be a thousand or more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The first question one would ask is why you are focusing so much on FNC when it is a well known fact that other organizations like Diebold have a much more egregious edit history from wikiscanner results. The wording in general is very POV, and it would appear that most of your research was done to try and attack FNC without putting into context that there are many more companies which would fare far worse than FNC if your research was in fact neutral. Furthermore, what is your proof that these edits were made by employees? Do you have actual inside information that identifies the actual employees? Or are you simply making an assumption that they must be because the edits came from IP addresses on FOX's network. 24.180.149.193 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why are we so anal about FOX? Pilotguy roger that 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Title is POV[edit]

How can Fox News be in the title when they are not mentioned until the sixth paragraph? --SVTCobra 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Jason has a bit of an obsession with them. I don't like Faux News much either though. :P ;) --TUFKAAP 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-english media[edit]

I've not had much from the French or Germans on their media, so here are some links to check:

French[edit]

German[edit]

--Brian McNeil / talk 12:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Publish[edit]

I will publish this tomorrow AM if there is no progress on adding interview questions for Virgil. There has been next to no response from fr. and de. about their media - am currently bugging Hegesippe. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

This article was deleted because it was not put to prepared stories. The interview, as brianmc stated, will take place in a separate article. To delete an article, which was worked on for weeks, without a concensus to do so is rude. And not to be rude myself, but this was really uncalled for and really just disregarded the edits everyone made and the work put into it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This was already published. For at least a day. If a reason cannot be given as to why its "unpublishable" then give reasons why. Stories cannot be deleted without a consensus and or a damn good reason to do so. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's a published story. You can't just delete it because you feel something which has been decided to go in another article isn't here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was only saved from DR, because it was a work in progress, if that was not true, DF, were you telling lies on DR? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Do NOT call me a liar. And do not insult me. I added the vote when I was under the impression that the interview would be added. Brianmc made it very clear that the interview would be in another story. This was published for over a day, and has been worked on by many. These are NOT POV's they are all facts, whether anyone likes it or not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)