Wikipedia scrubs issues about Obama's eligibility

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. 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.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!

Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.

In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:

"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."

As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage.

When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.

Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.

Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.

Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio

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.

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

[Bobby+Umit 161]

And this is another example why Wiki should not be taken as gospel.

When you get a few people in power (wiki editors) - you get abuse.

[HAL 9000 96]

Wiki entries are supposed to be factual. That's why entries based in falsehoods and obviously incorrect, politically-bent biases, are removed.

Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal.

Link.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

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

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wiki entries are supposed to be factual. That's why entries based in falsehoods and obviously incorrect, politically-bent biases, are removed.

Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal.

Link.

While most articles may be altered by anyone, in practice editing will be performed by a certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor, et cetera) and may, therefore, show some bias. Some topics may not be covered well, while others may be covered in great depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abo...ontent_criteria

Well, that kinda blows a hole in your theory, I would say!

[HAL 9000 96]

Wiki entries are supposed to be factual. That's why entries based in falsehoods and obviously incorrect, politically-bent biases, are removed.

Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal.

Link.

While most articles may be altered by anyone, in practice editing will be performed by a certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor, et cetera) and may, therefore, show some bias. Some topics may not be covered well, while others may be covered in great depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abo...ontent_criteria

Well, that kinda blows a hole in your theory, I would say!

Which theory is that? The writing is pretty clear- making assertions based on idiocy and political sour grapes is what it is.

I'd say that something like Obama's eligibility is not exactly a non-issue you can ascribe to a bias of demographics other than political affiliation. And even within the side that lost the election it is a rather moot point to refute eligibility unless you want to redefine a skew against those making the 'challenge posting' as in itself a bias. Which is nothing further from reality since this topic has been beat beyond dead horse.

Edited March 9, 2009 by HAL 9000

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

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

I meant on Obamas Wikipedia page.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

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

I meant on Obamas Wikipedia page.

Feel free to edit it then. Then again, here's his wikipedia page. Control + F search for Wright.

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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the edits were unfair I would imagine that Wikipedia has a complaints procedure for aggrieved users to seek redress. It is, after all, an open source application.

What's pretty idiotic is that this sort of thing is deemed necessary - as though there are no areas of discourse where the US partisan divide can be imposed.

I think its pretty silly personally.

[I'm Gone 60]

Not the first time Wikipedia has changed something that goes against what the people that run it believe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045251/posts

WIKIPROPAGANDA ON GLOBAL WARMING/Wikipedia offers an Al Gore-style consensus forged by censorship

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no further than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, says Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of "The Deniers."

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon attempted to correct a Wikipedia page on the global warming controversy that contained an untrue statement about British scientist Bennie Peiser. Surprisingly, Solomon's edits were quickly deleted by site managers. Each subsequent time that Solomon tried to make corrections to Wikipedia pages relating to global warming issues, his editions were eliminated. Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others, says Solomon. Wikipedia "administrator," William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming, says Solomon. There is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

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

I meant on Obamas Wikipedia page.

Feel free to edit it then. Then again, here's his wikipedia page. Control + F search for Wright.

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

You don't think it hasn't been tried before? The better question would be why isnt it on there, bad wikipedia!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not the first time Wikipedia has changed something that goes against what the people that run it believe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045251/posts

WIKIPROPAGANDA ON GLOBAL WARMING/Wikipedia offers an Al Gore-style consensus forged by censorship

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no further than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works, says Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of "The Deniers."

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon attempted to correct a Wikipedia page on the global warming controversy that contained an untrue statement about British scientist Bennie Peiser. Surprisingly, Solomon's edits were quickly deleted by site managers. Each subsequent time that Solomon tried to make corrections to Wikipedia pages relating to global warming issues, his editions were eliminated. Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others, says Solomon. Wikipedia "administrator," William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming, says Solomon. There is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

You will?

How so?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is there no mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That seems biased to me.

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

I meant on Obamas Wikipedia page.

Feel free to edit it then. Then again, here's his wikipedia page. Control + F search for Wright.

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

You don't think it hasn't been tried before? The better question would be why isnt it on there, bad wikipedia!

It is on there though...

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]

More interesting - at the top:

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.

This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

They usually do that - because of edit-wars or vandalism. The downside of allowing anyone to edit a page is that you get idiots who write stupid ###### like "he's a c*nt" on entries. That's why they have editors (much the same reason why VJ has mods).

There's also a Talk page for people to see what sort of discussions have been going on. Wiki is pretty transparent if people actually take the time to look at how its editing processes work. Of course its easier to believe in conspiracy theories about intrinsic bias.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you want to believe the world is flat, I think you are entitled to. However, be prepared to be mocked and ridiculed for such a belief.

I don't think the OP believes this particular gem but it's always interesting to see who seeks to promote these conspiracies. I like them to be in the open.