Koch Brothers Edit Wikipedia

[lame54]

http://m.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/03/are-koch-brothers-rewriting-wikipedia

Beside screwing with EPA regulations – meddling in Wisconsin – and courting Supreme Court Justices - what else are the Koch brothers up to now? Try rewriting Wikipedia. ThinkProgress has uncovered evidence that the Koch’s employed a PR firm to act as a “sockpuppet” for them on websites.

A “sockpuppet” is Internet lingo to refer to someone who creates a fake online identity to hype up himself or herself or a company they work for on message boards or social networking sites. If a sockpuppet is found out – it usually leads to the person’s account being disabled. The Koch’s “sockpuppet” edited their several Wikipedia pages to remove any references to the Tea Party – hype up George Soros conspiracy theories – and delete any citations to progressive media outlets – essentially scrubbing the Internet of any potentially embarrassing or damning facts about the Kochs.

The Kochs have contracted with dozens of PR firms – they are BILLIONAIRES – to ensure their political agenda is kept under wraps. But thanks to some great reporting nowadays – these guys aren’t in the shadows anymore.

[Shagbark Hickory]

1. Yet another story not being talked about on corporate media. nt

[physioex]

2. Sort of....

I just saw a great documentary on Bloomberg about the Koch brothers. It was well done.....

Edit: But you are right though, I was also wondering why you don't see it on CNN. In the documentary there was a segment of Rachel Maddow Show.

[Shagbark Hickory]

3. What was the name of it? I'll check it out if it gets re-aired.

[physioex]

4. Ohhh...

It was called Bloomberg Game Changers. They profiled several other people Steve Jobs, Netflix founder (dont know his name off hand), and Craigs list founder. It maybe on later today check your schedule. :hi:


Edit: I found the link to the website:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70603974/

[B Calm]

12. Too busy with the Earth Shattering Weiner flirtation.

[digitaln3rd]

5. Whoa. Stop the presses.

Someone editing a site with which boasts the motto "the site anyone can edit"?

This IS news, right?

It's Wikipedia - who cares. I can go edit it to say that Big Bird was the 1st president, if I wanted to. It's not like Wikipedia has any relevance or anything.

[tammywammy]

6. +1 n/t

[Forkboy]

7. It's an indication of a larger issue.

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. There are standards established to help keep the entries accurate and unbiased.

If they're editing wiki articles in a way that is malicious or detrimental to the project, that's definitely worth pointing out.

[The Doctor.]

11. Except that it doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

You can't simply edit it to say that 'Big Bird was the 1st president' and not expect it to be revised, your login deleted, and your IP address flagged within minutes.

The high degree of reliability comes from a combination of diligence by the administrators/moderators and the ability of users to cross-reference information.

Given that the speed of rectification is nearly commensurate with the effort to splice in misinformation, Wikipedia is no less reliable than a set of Encyclopedia Americana. Those often published misinformation, but it was virtually impossible to rectify.

Wikipedia is very well-managed and quite relevant. I have often challenged people to find anything fraudulent that persisted for more than a few hours recently. The principle of Wikipedia makes it relevant; the truth persists while lies perish.

[digitaln3rd]

13. Sorry but using Wikipedia for any type of serious research just shows a lack of judgement.

Sorry but using Wikipedia for any type of serious research just shows a lack of judgement.

Any time you let anonymous users edit something and have overly zealous administrators, it's a recipe for disaster.

I'd sooner laugh if someone brought a research paper to me with citations from Wikipedia.

[Jim Lane]

15. Here's the point you're overlooking....

In #5 you wrote, "It's not like Wikipedia has any relevance or anything." In #13 you inveighed against using Wikipedia for serious research.

Here's the key point: These are two very different propositions.

Wikipedia is relied on by literally millions of people who aren't doing serious research for a research paper but who just want to know something, quickly. Most of those people don't read DU or any other political website, and most of them don't know things that DUers would take for granted.

Wikipedia is relevant because it reaches those people.

In 2008, after McCain picked Palin, the Wikipedia bio of Palin had something like five million hits in two days. Were you campaigning for Obama/Biden in 2008? Were you, or people you know, going door-to-door and leafletting at events and phonebanking? If you were, I'm glad of it, but you and all your friends combined didn't reach five million people.

On the other hand, I reached five million people. In July, I happened to read that this "rising star" in the GOP was married to a BP employee. I edited her bio to include the fact that she was (literally) in bed with Big Oil. OK, it's not the single most important fact about Palin, but my point is that with about three minutes' work I got that information to five million people. Well, more precisely, to five million people in two days, plus more thereafter.

The Koch brothers spend real money to influence Wikipedia content. They're evil but they're not stupid. They know that it's worth their money to affect what people read in Wikipedia.

We don't have their money but we have people and time. Unlike the corporate media, Wikipedia doesn't rely on paid subscribers, or on ad revenue from selling people crap they don't need. It relies on volunteers. It's the only major medium in which our people power can counter the right wing's money.

Now I'm off to see what I can do about . Anyone who wants to help out, follow the link or PM me.

[MikeMc]

18. +1 Jim. Yahoo constantly gives me Wik as the +1 source, on any search. NT

[The Doctor.]

16. Out of curiosity, I ask;

Do you peruse the posts you respond to, or just 'get the gist'?

"and the ability of users to cross-reference information."

Look, this might be something you simply didn't know, but every Wikipedia page is sourced per Wikipedia rules. Anyone doing 'serious' research can use the site as a perfect preliminary tool, and any pertinent, material, or particular fact or conclusion can be ascertained with a few simple strokes.

When someone tells me that "Wikipedia cannot be trusted", what I am hearing VERY clearly is; "I haven't the basic skills necessary to perform research!"


As I said; When other http://books.google.com/books?id=gZtiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=The+lemming+is+remarkable+for+migrating+at+certain+periods+in+immense+multitudes.+They+move+in+parallel+columns+and+nothing+will+induce+them+to+deviate+from+the+straight+line,+the+migration+always+terminating+in+the+sea+and+ending+in+the+drowning+of+all+that+have+survived+the+journey&source=bl&ots=SxbVRZlrVh&sig=79USmRXXkXJhzIL7b79rZNh8tFo&hl=en&ei=R8P1TbO2HJTAtgeNzMT4Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20lemming%20is%20remarkable%20for%20migrating%20at%20certain%20periods%20in%20immense%20multitudes.%20They%20move%20in%20parallel%20columns%20and%20nothing%20will%20induce%20them%20to%20deviate%20from%20the%20straight%20line%2C%20the%20migration%20always%20terminating%20in%20the%20sea%20and%20ending%20in%20the%20drowning%20of%20all%20that%20have%20survived%20the%20journey&f=false">Tomes have proven unreliable, they remained sources of misinformation for decades. This is unlike Wikipedia which is constantly improved upon with greater solutions for vandalism all the time.

The model evolves... quickly.

[nilram]

8. k&r

Even on DU, this won't get kicked above Weiner's junk.

[physioex]

9. Pisses me off.....

I have another post on GD and they are talking about weiners than real issues. :mad:

[Kaleko]

14. kick

[highplainsdem]

17. K&R