Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

[KMAN]

Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned


Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.

For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."

The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.

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.

 

[Emma]

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.

 

[Chris]

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.

Don't bother them with the facts.

They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Don't bother them with the facts.

They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.

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?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

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.

Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.

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

The Obama article does mention the Wright controversy:

He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.[198][199] Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[200]

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).

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."
The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.

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:

Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush

The alcohol abuse thing is interesting:

Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple episodes of alcohol abuse.[29] In one instance, on September 4, 1976, he was arrested near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty, was fined $150 and had his Maine driver's license suspended until 1978.[30]

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

 

[LiveUninhibited]

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.

Don't bother them with the facts.

They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.

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?

Example please. I didn't see many uncited assertions.

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't bother them with the facts.

They believe in the Great Wikipedia Conspiracy.

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?

Example please. I didn't see many uncited assertions.

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.