Wikipedia Scrubs Negatives From Obama Entry, Bans Users

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where people can enter items. The items are supposed to be sourced and verifiable but there are often entries that are inaccurate or contain opinion rather than fact. I, as well as a number of people, use Wikipedia as a source for information but I do not accept it as the sole source and often poo poo people who cite it when the information conflicts with more reliable sources.

The Wikipedia people would have you believe that they are concerned with accuracy and that they monitor entries to ensure that only truthful information is added. However, their practice is far from the truth.

Wikipedia is scrubbing the entry on Barack Obama to ensure nothing about him is negative. When a negative entry is made it is scrubbed within minutes even if it is 100% accurate. The person making the entry is banned from entering items for three days. The Obama entry has been scrubbed of any items containing information about the controversy surrounding his birth certificate. One can argue if he is a citizen or not and it would be conjecture or opinion because it has not been proven but mentioning that the controversy exists and that there have been lawsuits over it is factual.

Additionally, there is no mention of Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. One entry with Ayers’ name was deleted and the user banned for three days. This was the entry:

“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.” WND

There is nothing in this entry that is disparaging and it contains completely factual information that was all discussed during the campaign. Obama did not deny any of this and it is a matter of public record.

The problem seems to be that Bill Ayers is mentioned. It seems that the administrators at Wikipedia do not even want that name mentioned so any information, no matter how accurate or relevant, is deleted.

This is a matter of rewriting history. The Wiki folks are presenting a glowing picture of Obama by ignoring the other facts that make the man who he is. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who think Wiki is the be all, end all in information and they will take what is written there as gospel.

Google scrubbed a Googlebomb about The Evil Won (the same Googlebomb about George Bush that it left up for years) and now Wiki is ignoring anything that is now glowingly positive about the Dear Leader. George Soros put up phony websites including one that depicts Obama as pro life. How far will the Obama followers go to hide the truth and to keep the world from knowing the real Obama? In Google’s case, it was not a matter of hiding the truth as it was protecting their guy when they allowed a certain practice for his predecessor.

Wiki asks for donations to keep the site running and, at times, the request is at the top of the page. I would hope that people will think twice before they donate to this group of hacks.

Then again, maybe Obama has already taken care of them…

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Wikipedia Scrubs Negatives From Obama Entry, Bans Users”

  1. Victoria says:

    George Soros put up phony websites including one that depicts Obama as pro life.

    What????!!!!Excuse me???

  2. Victoria says:

    I know what you meant by that Big Dog. I just meant that I know what a liar and phony Obama is and that he is absolutely in no way pro-life, pro-American, pro-troops, or pro-anything but pro-spending-this-country-into-oblivion.

  3. Kris says:

    I’m not surprised by anything anymore. Obama must be left up on the pedestal even as the country is beginning to see the error of its ways in electing him. He’ll be treated with kid gloves for his entire time in office. We’d better just get used to it.

  4. Adam says:

    Google took care of all google bombs a few years ago so removing this one had very little to do with it being about Obama.

    This is exactly why Wikipedia will never have credibility. You simply don’t have the same kind of peer review that other research sources do. Biases make it through all the time both in the content that they allow and the content they remove.

    • Big Dog says:

      It took 4 years for Google to get rid of the Bush GB and a few days for the Obama one…

      • Adam says:

        Four years is not true either way. It took Google 2 years for to decide Google bombs were a bad thing and developed and algorithm to limit them. Now any Google bomb will quickly get removed regardless of what the nature of the phrase is. You’re drawing conclusions that are simply based on your personal perception, not in reality.

  5. Big Dog says:

    The reality is, it took them years to decide they were bad and then redirect them (usually to stories about what they are).

    Google backed the guy and reportedly helped scrub cached pages that were unflattering.

    Why do you suppose Google waited years to decide to stop them? Why did it happen during the time Obama was busy running for president?

    However, if they fixed it why does this article from 1/09 discussing the GB that directs to Obama and why can you click the Yahoo link on miserable failure and get Obama and Bush.

    I mean, if they fixed it then it should not be there.

    Seems that it was still there 2 months ago which means though they are quick to help bam bam out, they were not that quick to help George.

  6. Adam says:

    Once again you reject reality and substitute your own…

  7. Big Dog says:

    No, I substituted what was fact in 1/09.

    There is no doubt that Google helped the guy financially and otherwise. That is all well and good though I think it should have been looked at as a campaign contribution.

    The MSM and the libs are looking out for the guy because he has no experience and it shows. I have more leadership experience than he and could do a better job.