“Wikipedia users have scrubbed all references to homegrown terrorist William Ayers and the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Barack Obama's entry at the online encyclopedia.
Apparently, any information posted about Ayers or Wright in the text of the Obama biography is not only immediately taken down, but the offending user is banned for three days.”
and Read the Rest:
Click here to learn what Wikipedia - like the MSM -
does not want you to know.
4 comments:
Well I've never understood why people use wikianything as a supposed source of credible material since the main flaw is that it depends on users' honesty...
Is there such a creature as a honest liberal?
Yes, there are a few around that I would read such as Mickey Kaus and Camille Paglia...
This is NOT to say that they don't make mistakes or that I agree with what they have to say but compared to some of the other libtards out there whining like spoiled brats, these two are the Diogenes of their world...
1,
In general, I find Wikipedia to be quite useful. However, no source - Wikipedia included - is immune to bias. And, no one source is the be all and end all gold standard. Wikipedia - and the cited references - is often a good place to begin an investigation.
Wikipedia requires users to cite references to substantiate their assertions. That is a good thing. However, in this case, Wikipedia has - in my opinion - betrayed their own standards.
One could - on the margins - MAYBE debate how relevant the relationship is between Ayers and Obama. Personally, I find the relationship to be very relevant. And, I find the radical nature of Obama’s first month in office - as well as what little history he brought with him - to further affirm just how relevant that relationship is.
However, any attempt to whitewash the relevance of Obama’s multi-decade relationship with Reverend Wright would be laughable if it were not so damn SCARY!
"Wikipedia - and the cited references - is often a good place to begin an investigation"...
You know SBVOR I used to think myself until I was far to often mislead on a variety of subjects ranging from economics, to politics, to the global warming hoax... So now when I use a search engine I'm quick to add to the search terms, '- wiki since I don't even want to waste the time scrolling past all the wiki results that always come up...
In the for what its worth (and I'm not sure its worth much considering the subject) we have the following from WND that was linked on the Drudge Report: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
The one thing about the WND article/propaganda that I did find interesting and most damning about wikipedia was the following:
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'...
How did wiki clowns think they were going to get huge numbers of people to forget about the following courtesy of PopModal?
Rev. Wright...
1,
Some Wiki entries are better than others. This entry on Obama is not the first case where I have detected inexcusable bias.
But, would you refuse to read the WSJ Opinion Journal simply because they publish the thoughts of Laura Tyson?
P.S.) Call me PC, but I declined to publish your comment on Cherry Jones. I just didn’t find it relevant. I hope you understand.
Post a Comment