The FCC needs to shut FOX News down, if for nothing else for being an oxymoron.

It bodes well with the White House's revisionist history tactics. No surprise.

I think it would be an error to make too much of this. All you can conclude is that someone with access to the internet from Fox News has done this, not that Fox News itself is behind it. You are falling into the same trap as LGF when they conclude that the NYTimes is behind similar edits. (Personally, I find the Diebold eliminations of criticisms of that firm the most egregious examples of this type of thing.)

Technology will bite you in the ass.

Someone should document all the Fix News Wikipedia edits. It would be really interesting seeing how unfair and unbalanced they have been across the board.

they went through the trouble of editing their own punctuation mistakes... LMAO

fascinating to see how the minds of the corporate media work - spread falsehoods, but keep your spelling impeccable!

I would think the Ministry of Truth could cover of their tracks better. Winston Smith will get an earful for this one.

You try to use propaganda for the current news, what ever you missed you go back and try to re-write it. I thought this is what the Republican party platform is....... www.YouPolls.com help bring out the truth, Check it out - become a member and add your own content.

Thanks for the IP. I'm going to add to my firewall block list :)

Did anybody else catch the Olberman and Franken edits????

Why in the world would Fox News want to ... BWAH HAA HAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Hard to keep a straight snark when dealing with these vermin.

If anyone still needed proof that Fox News is a propaganda operation, that did it.

i like to get a good laugh now and then, which generally means venturing into reichwing-blog land...

and guess what the top story on LGF is? (if you do not know what "LGF" is, consider yourself lucky. i'm not saying. sorry)

Wikipedia EditGate: NYT Vandalism:
Here’s another edit made by a New York Times employee, at the Wikipedia page for Condoleezza Rice: Wikipedia scanner results.

true? untrue? (well, it is LGF, and 99.9% of there "information" is handed down from their corporate master, designed to secure totalitarianism in america, but i'm getting ahead of myself)

either way, wikipedia is to reference as drudge is to news. completely untrustworthy.

What's funny is that the Fox IP address wouldn't have been exposed if they had just taken the time to register at Wikipedia. It would still have become apparent that someone with a pro-Fox bias was at work, but it wouldn't have led directly to their doorstep.

Some low level intern is going to lose their job over this, then Faux News will start pulling this crap from their home internet accounts. Just my $.02.

[...] Crooks and Liars » FOX News Caught Re-Writing Wikipedia History [...]

So if somebody is making selective, advantageous edits in Wiki - why doesn't someone else (who knows what to do that is) go back over the edits and put in the truth or other important and perhaps lesser known facts? Or alert Wiki to what's going on?

JudyLou @ 2:

Those SOBs are really trying to rewrite history. Isn't this illegal?

Two things. First, it's incorrect to say, based on this alone, that Fox News is trying to rewrite history, or rewrite anything for that matter. The most that cna be said is that someone who has access to Fox News computers did this. It can be reasonably inferred that it's probably a Fox News employee, but there's absolutely no proof that Fox News, the entity, had anything to do with this.

Secondly, it's a Wikipedia article. No, there's nothing against the law in changing the article, even to include baldly false information.

pissed off patricia @ 16:

I wonder if Keith Olberman would like to know about this? Betcha he would.

I second that. He'd get a kick out of this story for sure.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Fox is so pathetic. They are outsourcing their Pravdaism to all parts of the internet. Murdoch owning every paper and mag under the sun isn't good enough for them. I'm tired of seeing Norm "free dental work" Coleman on Faux as well

rcm @ 9:

Someone should document all the Fix News Wikipedia edits. It would be really interesting seeing how unfair and unbalanced they have been across the board.

Somebody HAS documented them all! Gotta love tech geeks... (List of Fox News Wiki edits)

DJ in KC @ 30:

Lose their job over this? Hardly. They'll be ridiculed for not hiding their IP via login, and then they'll get right back to completing their assignment.

Exactly. They'll just start using proxy IPs... and if they're clever enough, post bullshit from IPs that are linked to other MSM outlets or liberal/progressive sites.

Anjoe @ 38:

Zenrage @ 8:

That's the problem with Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it for their own purposes - even political ones.

Samson- @ 10:

i'm glad this is being "exposed"

although i still amazes me that people consider wikipedia a "source" or a "reference"

yes, there is a lot of interesting info, but any source that you requires another source to verify its claims is not, well, a good source. it is disinformation intertwined with good information, and it takes an astute person to wade thru that minefield.

remember colbert and the elephants on wikipedia???

What you guys (and a lot of people) don't understand is that Wikipedia is a project still under heavy development. The answer to a lot of your epistemic worries will be the first *stable* edition of Wikipedia, probably coming up in a year or so ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team ).

In reality every liberal should support this project: In time it will provide free and neutral (as neutral as it gets) information to the people, which will be a major weapon against rightwing distortions in the future.

ok, fine.

buuuuut, in the meantime....

(also, i had to giggle--hee hee--that that info came from wikipedia....)

anyhoo, if that is their goal, great. but until then, it is 100% untrustworthy.

i love ip address sleuthing. way to go. i wonder if it's possible to catch people at faux news, etc. posting "hate speech" on message boards. perhaps even false flag comments to use against the "far left" blogs on programs liks say... i don't know...
just a thought. seems like the people over at faux may even have some sort of internet intelligence operation going on. sorry, i mean unintelligence operation.

Not to toot my own horn or anything but I posted a link to the origin of this story yesterday. Check out my post.

Of course they revised the fact that Brit's son committed suicide, because as we all know, conservatives are perfect in every way. They are not weak like us progressives! They don't commit suicide, they don't get arrested for offering blowjobs in a bathroom, and they certainly don't have kids that turn gay (just ask Phyllis Schafley, or Dick Cheney)...

Totally desperate and laughable Rethug. losers.

This was done by some guy who was featured on Digg yesterday. So either this DKos diarist is the same kid, or this DKos diarest just stole the information from someone else who did all the hard work.

I think what irks me is not that the edits were made; it's that they were made by that particular organization, on company time. See, when its a business ordering the IT department to spy on your when writing your emails to family members and stuff, they claim they can do this because you are using THEIR machines, so the information belongs to THEM. But you won't see the business clamoring to take credit for this one. Yet another double standard, yet another business intrusion. And while yes, Wiki is a publicly edited source, it is the principle of the matter. A business should not be editing a personal profile for a personality on a competing organization; not because they don't have the right (technically), but because it is unethical!

What makes this outing a decisive victory to me is not that it will stop, but because it once again wakes people up to the notion that the facts are being willfully distorted. We can't stop them from doing it at home instead of on company time; but for every time we show the public this sort of corruption, delivered to them by a normal citizen instead of ANY sort of politician, we gain a few more people who truly understand that they must wake up to the reality of being lied to constantly and who are now ready to start finding the truth out for themselves. THAT is the victory here.

*does the happy freedom dance again* wooooooooOOOOOO HOOOooooooo! ^_^

"Its all a bunch of tubes, who will know !?? hyuck hyuck. "
The mouthbreathers won't know how to use proxies or even know what an IP address is.

Its not illegal, its just desperate.

Ha.ha.ha..desperate losers using desperate measures. cheatin beeyyotches.

FOX = Ministry of Information

or DISInformation

FAUX "News" is as balanced as WC Field's on a bender.

Samson- @ 10:

nice.

i'm glad this is being "exposed"

although i still amazes me that people consider wikipedia a "source" or a "reference"

yes, there is a lot of interesting info, but any source that you requires another source to verify its claims is not, well, a good source. it is disinformation intertwined with good information, and it takes an astute person to wade thru that minefield.

remember colbert and the elephants on wikipedia???

WTF?? Any good researcher documents his or her statements by citing sources, unless it's from personal knowledge. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is a collection of other people's research.

Biffbolt Says:
I think it would be an error to make too much of this. All you can conclude is that someone with access to the internet from Fox News has done this, not that Fox News itself is behind it. You are falling into the same trap as LGF when they conclude that the NYTimes is behind similar edits. (Personally, I find the Diebold eliminations of criticisms of that firm the most egregious examples of this type of thing.)

It's called plausible deniability. There's another group that operates this way, perhaps you've heard of them, the Mob.

The references to "ip sleuthing" need some amplification. All web requests can be logged. The logged information includes the time and IP number of the computer making the request. An IP number is an identifier provided to a computer by its internet service provider, and there are isp logs which link the IP number to a specific network card. Every network card has a unique identifier burned into the card at the time of manufacture.

Anyone who thinks that internet requests are completely anonymous should be dissuaded. Even if you're self-consciously malicious and want to hide behind a "proxy" machine, that too can be traced by other logs in other places. Long story short: everything leaves evidence. Be good and it won't make a difference.

Says the CIA's code name for Brit Hume was "eggnog" - anyone else just have a little "silly smile" moment, like I did when I read that?

I hope MSNBC and CNN pick this up and make it their top story. (like that would ever happen)

Just think; the right is uber desperate to paint us superior and evolved liberal elite-as fanatical terrorists ourselves. The firepower of the blogs and the literally instant savaging of Rethuglican shenanigans and malfeasance as it materializes is really pissing them off. Isn't it wonderful that the Dem candidates-ALL OF THEM-said FUCK YOU to FOX for any debates?
I'm going to enjoy watching the Republicans get the shit kicked out of them in 08' as well as the omens of their spiralling demise leading up to it. The shit just keeps oozing out their butts even as we speak. And their is lots more egregious criminality that will be surfacing like brown puss from an infected eye socket. May every Republican officeholder lose their seats and rot stinking in the grave as lime is poured in their very caskets.

I really dislike Fox, but that is a weak argument. If someone in a large organization edited Wikipedia. Big deal. Thousands of people work in these large organizations. If some employee used the company computer to edit Wikipedia (instead of say watching porn), that doesn't prove he is speaking for the company or that it's official policy of the company to influence Wikipedia.

Rightwing blogs have made the same arguments about the New York Times and Al Jazeera (example: someone at the New York Times edited Wikipedia's George Bush article with things like 'jerk' and someone at Al Jazeera vandalized Israel article).

The same IP from Al Jazeera that vandalized Israel article (happened 4 times between April 13-16 2006) had some of these edits

"[[Burhanuddin Rabbani|Burhanidin Rabani]], (Tajhik) from [[Badakshan]] (west). Notorious War Lord, killer and rapist. true he has raped the mother and sisters of the person who has written this page. so the writer is giving his eye witness account.?

and another gem:

"you could eat off the streets it was that clean, in fact the communist had turned Afghanistan in to the most beautiful country in the world and Kabul was its example, the communists had cleaned all the villages and cities. But Rabani said “I do not like it” I want to destroy it so "

Anyone with an IQ over 70 can see that this is some employee who is wasting time at work by playing on the computer -- instead of some grand scheme by the company to influence Wikipedia.

I am certain that Mr. Olberman is aware of this and will make Fox and maybe Murdoch Worst Person.

I still like Wiki because even though I know it could be wrong, or lets say "tainted", I can find out what the controversies are on wiki because the editors are passionate about "Truth".

Somethings will never be 100% true because disinterested witnesses are usually not involved.

Damn that Cyrus Nowrasteh!

He's struck again.

What's his batting average?

oneguy @ 77:

I really dislike Fox, but that is a weak argument. If someone in a large organization edited Wikipedia. Big deal. Thousands of people work in these large organizations. If some employee used the company computer to edit Wikipedia (instead of say watching porn), that doesn't prove he is speaking for the company or that it's official policy of the company to influence Wikipedia. . . .

Anyone with an IQ over 70 can see that this is some employee who is wasting time at work by playing on the computer -- instead of some grand scheme by the company to influence Wikipedia.

Gotta call you on your post.

The fact is, no, "anyone with an IQ over 70" CAN'T see that this is some Fox drone goofing off on an office computer.

You are indulging in pure benefit of the doubt.

Fox's surreptitious edits of Wiki articles are suspiciously, slavishly in line with Fox's editorial positions, political biases, and demonstrable tendency to manipulate and misstate facts.

Intentional or not, the alteration without attribution of text published on an independent website, from a Fox computer, is an extremely serious lapse of journalistic ethics. Any ethical media organization, informed of such activity, has a responsibility to clarify whether the edits were intentional, and demonstrate remedial actions to prevent a repeat occurence.

I, for one, will not hold my breath waiting for Fox to do the right thing and fess up.

I've never considered Wikipedia a credible and reliable source of information. I still find it amusing when debating certain issues on various forums and bulletin boards I frequent, how many people use Wikipedia to back their arguments and support their claims, "Here, you can read all about it in this Wiki article", one of them claims. For all I know, he could have just edited that article himself and then provided me with a link to it. I wish Wikipedia were shut down. It's name is misleading and the site is as reliable as Fox Noise when it comes to unbiased, balanced and well researched information, be it information about politics, science or pop culture.

after this i will relent on my wiki-as-resource tirade... (probably)

of interest, i came across this article:
"Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation"

"....Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research."

Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”

http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discoura...

but again, i do like wikipedia as a web site, but not for research purposes

Why haven't any liberals (telling the truth folks) come up with such a smart idea?! It really is smart - but hey I guess truth telling liberals don't have to scrub the truth for lies in order to recruit for their side. Only Fox has to do that - fucking lying idiots at Fox. Don't watch it don't even turn it on.

Once again, FOX takes Orwelle's 1984 as a book of instructions.

I don't need to look at wikipedia to know brit hume is a prolapsed anus.

I thought these right wing morons created Conservapedia in order to make things up. Why are they scrubbing Wikipedia? Whatever happened to the right wing youtube? That probably went the way of the Half Hour News Hour debacle.

Both sides are doing this give me a break.

And as for your "Democrashield’s fantastic sleuthing below…"
They used Wikiscanner. Anybody could have done this.

WikiScanner: What is the Congress doing to use this tool to track non-official use of Presidential-RNC e-mail users? It would be a shame to discover while the WH was blocking Congress from reiewing information, the EOP legal staff was connected with online, non-official conduct. Such a shame it would be for the DC Bar to have to face the evidence that legal counsel working for the President was either online, or not adequately supervising Presidential staff. Is the President going to claim these wiki updates -- and the evidence that they are connected with non-official uses of WH equipment -- going to be protected?

Congress needs to put the screws on the President: Here is the data showing the EOP staff involved with non-official conduct; and it can be determined what they were doing.

Now that Fox has shown it will update information to provide misleading results; and those IP numbers can be traced, is there any plan of the Congress to use open source information to do the same? There are IP numbers for the EOP-OVP-DOJ Staff counsel. How many open source tools is the Congerss ignoring? Want a sample IP Trace into the WH? Here it is: WH Communications. Legal counsel cannot prevent this data from being intercepted.

The C&L example above about Fox shows there is plenty of open source information. What is the plan of the COngress to use this open source information that remains outside the WH-RNC control?

C&L has well pointed to the Fox IP numbers. The same process can be used to trace teh FBI and WH IP numbers. Yet, we're asked to blieve that they don't recall; yet the COngress has the power -- today -- to shut down funding for non-cooperative Executive Branch personnel. How does anyone reconcile the inconsistency: Fox New can be traced; but apparently nobody in the Congress wants to do the same to the EOP-OVP-DOJ staff IP numbers. The memory gap is an illusion, Congress. They cannot explailn why they do not shut down the funding. it only takes the House and Senate Chairs in both Chambers to agree to zero-out the same budgets; and the GOP would be required to pass an Amendment to add money back. Fox news can be traced, but the Congress wants tht epublic to believe the President's e-mail cannot be traced. The RNC e-mail is not secure: It can be interecepted and retained. What is Congress waiting for? It has subpoena power. The fact that the PResident refuses to cooperate -- but hides his information, which has been disclosed -- is meaningless. There are others ways to fill the gap. Fox was traced. The President's gap can be filled.

Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'

The tool detected changes to a page about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.
Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.

Seriously? Changing the title of The Incredibles to "The Stupids?" That's mature. There are some funny edits in here.

Google Sandy Hume Gunshot (Brit Hume's son who died of a self inflected gunshot) and you get three pages of the Clinton's Body Count propaganda. What was that called again? Googlebombing or something like that?

Googling #107...Excellent post!

As for Wikipedia, I have never trusted that site for any information. Whenever I look up information, I want it to be factually credible the first time. Several of my friends mentioned they read something on Wikipedia, but they no longer do! The question I always asked was who is doing the editing and who decides what stays on the site. Depending on what you are using the site for, it may be good for some general information. However, never use Wikipedia as a reputable source of information.

Wikipedia's own founder, Jimmy Wales, publicly cautions students against citing it as an authoritative source. In June 2006, at a conference sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, he said that he gets about 10 e-mails a week saying, "Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia." Wales said those comments make him think to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.”
http://factchecked.bootnetworks.com/SFTS_PolicyWonksDetails.aspx?myId=14

moonsha @ 111:

Googling #107...Excellent post!

I just thought of something: The IP numbers in the Wiki updates can tell us something very important: by looking at the content the WH-EOP-OVP staffers were updating on the wiki, we can get a sense of the "deliberations" that were occurring. Normally, until disclosed, the deliberations are privileged. however, now that the President's legal counsel has disclosed the substance of their "work products" -- the updates to the wikis made using official government resources -- the President loses any legal basis to claim executive privilege. Fox's updates to the wiki have led C&L's John Amato to the very thing which could prove to be the undoing of the President's claim of executive privilege.

Another way to look at the DoJ Staff wiki up dates isn't to look at the content they were updating, but to compare the times they were updating things; and cross reference these with the DoJ Workflows mentioned and disclosed in the DoJ Staff counsel calendars at the DOJ E-mail staff dumps with the Congressional Committee. For example, if there is a given staff dump which includes redacted information for a specific time; yet, that staff counsel's computer is linked with a wiki update, we can have an idea of where they were, what was on their mind, and whether the DoJ and WH Legal counsel have retained/hidden information because its really privileged; or whether the failure to disclose information is linked more with a desire to hide evidence of illegal misconduct, or other informatory which cannot be hidden.

We can also use the C&L outline of the Wiki updates as a template to examine the types of IP numbers connected with the Vice President; and all legal counsel on the list of Libby Commutation letters. By looking up each of these letters disclosed to the court, we can look up each of the firms, cross reference these with the IP numbers; then examine in the wikis the specific information they are commenting on. Using this approach, its possible to connect on of the firms to the WH rendition updates; and also to the law firms affirmative knowledge of the WH IT e-mail and retention policies. Curiously, using this method, the OVP and Addington computers can be linked -- indirectly -- through the DoD General counsel's office.

By using a combination of e-mail communication, and e-mail lists, its possible to create a matrix showing all the RNC e-mail accounts, the DOJ Staff Atty, DoD General Counsel, JAGs, and the WH Counsel e-mails; then cross reference these e-mails with specific times that the EOP was was making updates to various intelligence/DoD-related websites on the wiki; then compare the times that the DoD General counsel was commenting on specific issues in the briefings to the WH General Counsel with similar times and content changes to the wikis.

It's also possible to look at common-links between inside and outside firms. For example, in the DOJ Staff side of the world, it's possible to trace wiki updates to a specific DoJ Staff IP number; then cross reference these with the known data captures of IMs and phone logs between DoJ Staff and their outside spouses working with various lobbyists, contractors, and other personnel which DoJ and the WH are required to log.

You can use your imagination. The bottom line with this FOX update to the Wiki's is that C&L has pointed the entire blogosphere to the very data which the WH probably never imagined would be linked: Specific details about legal counsel conversations, comments, and work products. Now that they've been disclosed, each of these small pieces of information links, eventually, with NSA encryption updates, Geneva requirements, and specific information showing that the legal counsel within the WH-EOP-DoJ-OVP knew of the legal requirements with the Hatch Act, FISA, prisoner treatment, and other standards related to attorney conduct. They've left the needed evidence for war crimes prosecutors to prove that the staff counsel were discussing the very things that they say could not e disclosed: Legal requirements, professional obligations, data retention requirements.

Notably, when Sara Turner was asked about her non-use of the official e-mails -- contrary to official policy -- she stated that she was doing this to ensure "complicate" with the Hatch Act. yet, when someone uses a non-official e-mail, this shows the opposite: Their intention not to comply. Now that C&L has disclosed this wiki-related information attached to the IP numbers for the President, Executive branch, and legal counsel, the Congress will be hard pressed to explain why it continues to pretend noting can be done. The evidence is outside the White House: What staff counsel were working on. Whether those work products are or are not official is irrelevant: Either they were doing something official, or they were not -- but it doesn't matter in that their IP number is no linked with disclosed information that cannot be shielded by any claim of privilege.

Thanks against C&L, you may have found the hidden evidence which the WH legal counsel and civilian legal counsel connected with FISA, AT&T data mining, and other war crimes may have never imagined would link them to specific content, work products, and other information once though to be hidden and forever protected by attorney-client privilege. This C&L information throws all these claims of executive privilege into the air, and gives the Judicial Branch a legal basis to reject the claim of privilege because of it being abused. Thanks again C&L. I hope the world will appreciate the importance of the information you have disclosed in the context of shedding more light into the WH legal counsel deliberations.

It remains to be seen which enterprising people have already developed a product which can automatically

- A. Take the EOP-OVP-DOJ IP data, and organize it to compare the wiki-updates with the DoJ Staff counsel workflows;
- B. Identify which content is or is not related to official or non-official business;
- C. Compare the wiki updates with IP numbers; ten cross index the on-line non-official use of government resources with specific USC Codes violations;
- D. Cross index the online conduct with DC Bar Counsel rules of conduct;
- E. Identify which content has been inappropriately withheld, despite the wiki update disclosing details of what staff counsel were discussing;
- F. Cross index the public claims of various bloggers about FISA violations, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and other information with specific military units known to have been included on the DOD Staff counsel briefings to the WH on intelligence, rendition, and other prisoner of war issues; and
- G. Identify which legal counsel were publicly commenting that the issues could not be discussed; yet privately they were commenting on legal counsel issues which were related to illegal activity, FISA violations, cryptography, classified information, or specific military units included in briefings to the WH Counsel on issues of intelligence, training, and other data management systems through not to have been publicly linked or associated with the White House

Bonus points:

1. Which formerly assigned WH Counsel was publicly commenting on a wiki related to WH IT updates, data retention; and has publicly stated they are experts on the hatch Act; but their clients appear to have a problem complying with the very thing that the law firm was hired to advise them?

2. Can you find the name of the Staff counsel within DoJ Staff who was assigned to the JTTF liaison team, and has been improperly using DoJ Staff resources to review non-official information during duty hours?

3. What is the name of the outside firm-lobbyists which has been linked to funding flows into the Middle East; and whose spouse has a high position within the RNC legal team?

4. Using the wiki updates, can you find the name of the defense contractor who has an important technical role within the NSA surveillance community; and whose products have been linked with domestic illegal FISA violations?

5. Relying on the wiki updates, can you find the name of the CIA-related entity which has been involved with rendition, supplies troops with various equipment in Germany, and is within walking distance of the CIA Headquarters in McClean?

6. What is the name of commander in Charge of the the Army Unit Signals Intelligence Unit located in Germany; and which days did the EOP Staff counsel update the wiki associated with the various military units listed on the briefings given by DOD General Counsel related to rendition and T1 training?

7. Which formerly assigned OLC Staff counsel was linked with making updates to their own wiki page in an apparent effort to conduct a public relations campaign to get them nominated to the Supreme Court?

8. Can you find the home address of at least one of the law clerks assigned to any of the law firms within one-family member of the Supreme Court?

9. Using the wiki update information can you find the home address, telephone number, and other non-released public information of the President's recent hire to his legal team; and who is conducting the legal review of the RNC e-mails?

Double Elimination Round

A. Can you find David Addington's home address; and which metro stration does Addington use when taking public transportation to work?

B. How many miles -- as the crow flies -- is the President's Chief Legal advisor from the White House?

All these answers and more could be waiting for you on the wikis. Did the President even bother to consider that his claim of privilege would be pierced by the disclosures of his own staff counsel?

Great job C&L!

The IP has since been banned for 3 months for vandalizing the related articles, just so everyone knows.

please, before you get all "WTF" on me, consider this: ANY good researcher would never rely on wiki for a source.

It's true that Wiki is not reliable, but that's not to say it isn't useful. Wiki is often a good place to start research, and it often contains useful links to other sources which are reliable. It also contains information on many esoteric subjects that you might have difficulty getting information about otherwise (and no, I don't just mean Paris Hilton's itinerary).

You just have to learn to read it with a critical eye. After a while you can usually easily identify when someone is pushing a barrow, most attempts to promote a particular POV are pretty obvious.

Wikipedia is for wankers! Anyone with a keyboard can revise history. Why would anyone think Faux wouldn't invest resources in doing so? EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is suspect, with or without Faux's input.

Oh goodie, now we'll really get the goods on The Bay City Rollers.