Wired presents: The very best of the wacky Wikipedia edits

How do we confirm, from those links at Reddit, that the people they say edited, in fact edited?

For example, I wouldn’t want to repeat the claim that someone at the UN did the following, unless I can prove they did:

UN editor calls Oriana Fallaci a racist whore
by Liberrocky

An edit from a UN address calls journalist Oriana Fallaci a racist whore.

RightWinged on August 15, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Wow, I’ve looked through a few of those evil righties who edited pages… and I’m underwhelmed after the hype that was put up.

For starters:

Fox News Republicans remove all Fox controversies
by Anonymous

After listing the various controversies from Fox, from the lawsuit where they filed to the court that they had the right to lie the entire Fox article had almost all controversies shoved and hidden away in to a separate article thus leaving a nicely sterilized faux article behind.

This is the only one I’ve clicked so far that doesn’t show “current” and “old/edited” versions, therefore I see no evidence that anyone at Fox edited the pages. The link they provide is as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel

What am I missing? Did some loony lefty totally make up a scandal here, because they couldn’t find one?

Here’s one:

Republicans trying to re-write history of Iraq War?
by Scribe

Republican Party changes the “Post-Saddam” section of the Baath Party article to a different account of the war, changing the language from “US-led occupation” to “US-led liberation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baath%20Party&oldid=25375910#Post-Saddam

Is this really “re-writing history”?

Post-Saddam

In June 2003, after the US-led invasion of Iraq, the occupying or “liberating” forces in Iraq banned the Ba’th party. Some criticize the additional step the US took — of banning all members of the Ba’th party from the new government, as well as from public schools and colleges — as blocking too many skilled people from participation in the new government, as well as being in contravention of basic human rights. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities. Under the previous rule of the Ba’ath party, one could not reach high positions in the government or in the schools without becoming a party member. Now, however, one cannot reach such positions at all if one has previously been a Ba’ath party member.

Post-Saddam

In June 2003, the US-led liberating forces in Iraq banned the Ba’th party. Some criticize the additional step the US took — of banning all members of the Ba’th party from the new government, as well as from public schools and colleges — as blocking too many skilled people from participation in the new government. Several teachers have lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities. Under the previous rule of the Ba’ath party, one could not reach high positions in the government or in the schools without becoming a party member.

It’s barely changed, and what was is almost completely irrelevant!

focus on the family edits
by Anonymous

here they pretty much erase all reference, biased though it might be, to their being part of the christian right.

Is this really a “get”? Some douche write biased opinions on Focus on the Family, someone there removes the comments… and they’re busted somehow? And the biased opinions are put back in!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=14645111

Again, can anyone tell me how folks are determining where IPs originate from? Like if I took an IP and gave it to you, how would you determine where it came from, be it Fox News or the New York Times, whatever?

RightWinged on August 16, 2007 at 5:12 AM