Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by KMAN, Mar 9, 2009.

  1. KMAN
    Offline

    KMAN Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +269
  2. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,258
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,104
    Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility


    Good to know that Wiki information is not only questionable but also biased. Is this some new fangled form of transparency? Guess I missed the memo.
     
  3. Emma
    Offline

    Emma Evil Liberal Leftist™

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,377
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    On the street, acting all loud and tumultuous and
    Ratings:
    +757
    Those issues are on wiki, given their own pages. If you go into history and talk you'll see that separate pages were necessary because of the length of the article, and that the person banned had received many warnings for abusive behaviour toward other members and administration, trolling, setting up sock-puppet accounts, etc. And the links to the pages about controversies are at the bottom of the main bio page.
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Don't bother them with the facts.

    They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,503
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Facts? You mean the FACTS that Bush's entry is FULL of unsupported, unproven comments and claims while a FACTUAL and truthful STATEMENT was deleted from Obama's? Those facts?
     
  6. LiveUninhibited
    Offline

    LiveUninhibited Caffeine Junkie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    Thanks Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +62
    Questionable articles that haven't been edited recently are almost always flagged, regardless of whether the bias is left-wing, right-wing, or other. I would put Wikipedia in general above most online sources, but well below peer-reviewed literature from respected journals (which many articles cite). Wikipedia is a tool without an agenda except that information should be freely available, but people need to know how to use it correctly. When looking at an article, view the history tab to see if it was edited recently, and you can even compare current and previous versions. Look at the sources cited to make sure they are credible. Don't look at Wikipedia as a primary source. It's not supposed to be. It's a tool for organizing information to make it readily accessible. It sure as hell beats using Google.

    The Obama article is flagged. Very early in the biography it says he was born in Hawaii. There is proof that the was. Now where is the evidence that he was not? The SCOTUS wouldn't even hear the case. Are they part of the left-wing conspiracy too? Here's the Wikipedia article on that: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    That article in itself has over a hundred citations, including articles from WorldNetDaily four times.

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

    The Obama article does mention the Wright controversy:
    I would, however, like there to be a link near that statement to the article on the controversy: Jeremiah Wright controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    But that's an issue of ease of use and organization, rather than censorship per se.

    The problem with the Ayers thing is that it’s not important enough to be relevant to this article. There actually were close ties between Obama and Wright. Not so for Ayers. It’d be like having part of Bush’s article dedicated to somebody he served on a corporate board with who turned out to be a jerk. While it’s true that the Ayers issue became relevant during the campaign (even if it should not have), that is an issue for this article: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Though again, it may be appropriate for there to be a link to that article in the main Obama article.

    Looking over the Obama article further, it also has hundreds of citations, not all of which are favorable towards Obama (American Conservative Union cited giving him a score of 7.67%, for example, National Journal saying he's the most liberal of all 100 Senators in 2007).

    None of that sounds like bias. Bush has many critics (including some conservatives) and they say those things. The article doesn’t present it as true as Klein implies. For example one of those quotes starts this way:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush

    The alcohol abuse thing is interesting:
    Many employers in America wouldn’t hire somebody with a DUII, but you can still become President it seems. Quite frankly, Bush’s background isn’t as clean as Obama’s. But this isn't a conservative versus liberal thing. Bush's father's background is also cleaner. H.W. Bush’s article contains few (if any) personal criticisms, but obviously mentions things like signing the bill to raise taxes lowering his approval ratings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_HW_Bush

    Another problem is that Obama hasn’t been in office very long and his executive political career isn’t exactly lengthy, yet Bush was governor of Texas and then served two terms as POTUS. Senators, even national ones, don’t normally get quite the same scrutiny as governors, let alone 2-term presidents. It’s therefore pretty hard to compare the two. We probably wouldn’t be able to compare Obama and Bush in any fair sense for another 8-12 years or so, contingent upon if there's a second term and given some time to appreciate the effects. It’d be more useful to compare articles on Clinton to Reagan, as both were popular Presidents on opposite sides of the aisle. Clinton's article has plenty of dirt about him in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan

    And of course there’s this:
    Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Aaron Klein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2009
  7. LiveUninhibited
    Offline

    LiveUninhibited Caffeine Junkie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    503
    Thanks Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +62
    Example please. I didn't see many uncited assertions.
     
  8. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,318
    Thanks Received:
    12,691
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,746
    Y'all can read Conservapedia. They claim Obama is only the alleged president and that he's most likely the first Muslim president...among other retarded ravings.
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,503
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Provide evidence Bush was shown favoritism in joining the Guard. Funny how that works ehh? No proof but there it is in his Bio. Obama DID serve with Ayers just as the change said, for the times listed. Nothing in the blurb removed says anything but that he SERVED with him on a board. But you keep drinking that kool aid, you may need it when we have to actually PAY for all the money Obama is borrowing while raising taxes on Business in a recession.
     

Share This Page