I once edited Wiki when some nerd listed Scotland as an independent country. I said I lived there and as sure as Brown is an Englishman it was not!

It is so easy to trace these people, not being fully used yet but the peodos are bing hit first

This paper is lying by omission. The original article, when it appeared elsewhere stated that one on the major organisation guilty of editing their own Wikipedia entry was the BRITISH LABOUR PARTY.

But then what do you expect from a LABOUR PARTY RAG, which can only say that poor Leslie Hinds was a "victim".

I wonder if The Scotsman Publications are also guilty of editing their own entry? Well part of their entry cantains this statement "The Scotsman was a staunch supporter of Scottish devolution....", so draw your own conclusions.

This paper is lying by omission. The original article, when it appeared elsewhere stated that one on the major organisation guilty of editing their own Wikipedia entry was the BRITISH LABOUR PARTY.

But then what do you expect from a LABOUR PARTY RAG, which can only say that poor Leslie Hinds was a "victim".

I wonder if The Scotsman Publications are also guilty of editing their own entry? Well part of their entry contains this statement "The Scotsman was a staunch supporter of Scottish devolution....", so draw your own conclusions.

Nice one #1

'Wikipedia gate-Scandal', well-done Scotsman news, to reveal the scandalous 'going's-on' at government levels and the like!
Now expose the Monkeys!
Just when I quite like this site, Wikipedia, my viewpoint on the 'click' to learn or look-up something wont be the same knowing, someone is out there using it for sinister causes. ;-)

Its always been quite simple to do - but the advantage of the wiki scanner is it covers a range of IPs rather than just doing a backwards check per edit.

It is very easy to work round to avoid this - but I would hate to spoil things!

;-)

#4, OH-MY-GOD, if that true, are we being spied on?

I'm not sure the SoS is "revealing" this, considering the Wikiscanner has been big news on the internet for the last week or so! And Aberdeenshire Council make a very good point - schools and public library computers are generally routed through the local council network infrastructure - and school kids most assuredly enjoy vandalising Wikipedia!

This story is so non-news - try editing wiki from any company site and you will find you are barred because someone in your company has done an edit that was not approved. Most councils are barred because of vandalism by bairns on wiki!!

Quite pleased to see the Law Society of Scotland caught out again, and quite laughable their explanation.

Of course, they also have a go at editing the newspapers from time to time or trying to plant false evidence against people in incidents relating to actions from their own colleagues :
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=145782006

#11 Unrelated to this article. The lead article on the day in your link is "Schools lose £1bn a year to town hall bureaucrats". Perhaps if that hadn't happened we wouldn't be having the school closures now.

As a Wikipedia administrator I'd like to inform readers where they can report persistent abuse in progress. If the most recent activity is less than 24 hours old, type WP:AIV in Wikipedia's search box. That reaches the "Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism" page.

Surely Durova et al. have some sort of screen for changes to WP entries. It's a bit daft to put up a changeable site and expect nothing but respect. A Labour supporter will edit out criticism of his party, a football team supporter will change material on his favourite side, and so on and so on. Have some system of editing the editors, of corroboration, then allow stuff to be added. Otherwise, stop editing dead.

Of course Edinburgh's council have not been too shabby themselves with 1,013.

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=City%20O...

and that's only from one of their domains (edin.org)

This is not the least surprising. Almost all the Wiki-articles I wrote in different languages on the history of Low German have been tampered with by Poles to leave the impression that Pommerania (which is defined differently by Germans and Poles) as well as East and West Prussia have always been Polish. However, facts are facts and trying to obscure them is nothing but childish.

Any employee accessing the internet for private use should face dismisal or at the least a warning,it should be in public employees contracts.

non-story

Why does Wikipedia not just introduce a "changes pending" section at the bottom of the page, so that submissions for articles can be screened by the masses before being approved for the main article?

What edits has the staff at The Scotsman made themselves? Some including repeatedly removing references to its own politics, adding the keyword Dogging to someone's profile, and putting libellous abuse on a page about Hibs player Zbigniew Malkowski. As well as such noteworthy topics as Sliced Sausage, Potato, and Creamola Foam.

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=194.61.49.0-255&am...

@16

do you have proof any of the local authority access came from employees?

no,

neither does the Scotsman, just more sensationalist nonsense right up there with other red-topped rags.

@21
hilarious!!!

they keep taking out any reference to unionist alliegance!!

I simply cannot fathom how The Scotsman could declare itself having no political bias! Its the reason so many nationalists come to these forums - to try and address the bias!

I wonder when AM2 will get his own mention in the Scotsman entry? hehehehehe - back in 10 minutes... ;0)

Interesting to note that the Scotsman hacks are pretty well-behaved in this regard (try wikiscanner - the relevant IP address range is 194.61.49.0-255).
Even here, however, you can find vandalism at work: "The Heart of Madlithuanian" edit to Heart of Midlothian F.C. entry, on 10 January 2006, is a case in point. Other edits show that the Scotsman is as concerned as other organisations to ensure that its Wikipedia entry toes the party line (in this case, the party line is "No political allegiance").

No3 You are perfectly correct..

CIA and British Intelligence involvement.

Its well known that you take any article from Wikipedia with a pinch of salt.

Anyone who wants to be certain about the facts checks by cross-referencing.

As they used to say "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers (or should be changed to Wikipedia)".

@27
yes, and wikipedia is no different from *any* other encyclopedia...

wikipedia is just if not more accurate than encyclopedia brittanica - wikipedia is a victim of being onlien and 'open source' where the debates on accuracy rage publicly rather than privately.

#7 shall we tell them?

I've edited a few items. I've added bits of information about people who were at school with me . All true and harmless. They've stayed in .
If not abused, the process is beneficial.

Anybody who uses Wikipedia as their sole source of information is a fool. Any intelligent researcher will use many sites and filter out and ignore the spurious ones.

You need a severe and discriminating sense of enquiry to attain a feasible, believable, and proveable premise or citation.

Since so many people are intellectually lazy and could not refer to a hard-cover dictionary or encyclopedia if their life depended on it, what is one to expect from shoddy investigative research?.

Wikipedia is good but you get a lot of point of view edits. i.e. some arses keeps changing anything with UK in the article to Scottish no matter how little to connection to Scotland and vice versa.

Leave Wiki alone!!

I like reading about interesting facts such as Methil is the official birthplace of Nelson Mandela and Alexander the Great was defeated in Lochgelly by the Lumphinnans Young Team!!!!

"using sophisticated scanning software....."
I wonder what other nefarious practices this 'news'paper uses it for.

CIA and Labour Party 'edit' Wikipedia entries - Telegraph - 20/08/2007

The CIA and the Labour Party have been caught editing their own entries on the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, in an apparent bid to improve their public image.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007...

I didn't do the editing myself - but I pointed out an entry that was a blatant lie from beginning to end - and it was removed. The person who wrote it had not signed it - what a coward.

wikipedia will survive for in most it is just great to use as a first stage of inquiry then one would check out other authoritative sources as to one's intent to the usage... but it is just fun and most advance readers know the when their is need for caution as the internet is still in developmental stages ... let the reader beware .... is the adage and have fun with the language but in remember in great need hire a professional researcher with verifiable creditable credentials and there will be no problem for your reading entertainment....
In the short for now think of wiki as a great dictionary and with possible lunatics invaders and go to other sites to move forward as needed.
Great reading is fun and wide reading is just wanderings in the forest of thoughts...
So relax and read....

We have been testing Wikipedia and there own staff are protecting high profile webpages like the BBC's.

We tried entering submissions to the BBC webpages and 8 times they were removed within minutes.The BBC had been promoting Wikipedia weeks before in news articles.

The attached email is from Wikipedia staff and a further apology after we informed them we had been testing their system.They suggested they thought it was SPAM when in fact it was links to ALTERNATIVE views of the BBC Big Brother Censors.

THE WIKI EMAIL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. REDVERS ? S?EVDE? 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to BBC. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Will (aka Wimt) 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to BBC, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing an

Here is a couple that SCCRC will wish they could have edited.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1119704228&si...

http://sccrc-cover-up-merchants.blogspot.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP-ACuK1w0I

It just shows us you cannae use Wikpedia alone to back up an argument!

Cause it could be right or Wrong who knows which unless you lave their site and do futher reading.

As for the lawyer's hand in all of this, Larry the
Cable Guy said it best: "99% of the lawyers give
the rest a bad name".

As 'exclusively' revealed in two English papers a week before SoS.

Good work, fellas.

Aren't we being continually told that public sector workers are stressed out and undermanned?

If that is the case, why they have the time to visit this site far less "sabotage" it, is beyond me.

Can someone please explain the dichotomy?

I must admit to being slightly surprised that there is no mention of the Vatican's involvement in editing the Gerry Adams page.
Deliberately changing a page containing information that may be harmful to Mr Adams and from the Vatican of all places.
More proof (if required) at the lengths this religion will go to in order to suppress the truth and negative publicity

#14, Got to admit I edited the entry for Dundee Ynited for a laugh. Dee 'til eh die!

Who cares?