Wikipedia censors Obama entry, removes scandals and controversies

by editor on March 8, 2009

wikipedia logoSo much for Wikipedia’s credibility. According to WorldNetDaily, the online entry for Barack Obama is quickly and continuously censored to make sure the president appears to be scandal-free.

Obama’s current Wikipedia entry paints a remarkably positive picture of the president. The most controversial parts of his life, including Rev. Jeremiah Wright and terrorist pal Bill Ayers aren’t even mentioned. The controversy regarding Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is also ignored.

To make matters even worse, Wikipedia administrators have quickly deleted any negative comments and suspended those who had the temerity to write them.

How ’bout they just quit beating around the bush and put the fully-censored Obama listing under “F” for “Fearless Leader.”

Source: WorldNetDaily

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
SunnStarrAdministratorTim T.sumnihilDavid Smith Recent comment authors
Notify of

Wikipedia is a great concept as a starting point for serious research. However it suffers greatly from what I would call the “American Idol Flaw” of popularity freaks ‘gaming the system’. For example: It is no secret that Obama is currently popular (very popular, if you are prone to exaggeration), and that this popularity is based on a biased and relentless effort brought to us by out-of-touch Hollywood film and television celebrities and a liberal-biased media, brought to us care of a liberal-biased education system that churns out journalists with blinders on like they are going out of style.

Having said all that, it should come as nor surprise that I identify myself as an Independent. As an Independent, I was taken by Obama for a day to two when I first heard him speak. I immediately became suspicious of him when I stumbled upon Raila Odinga and Obama’s support for this Muslim activist and future politician in Kenya while he was still serving as a US Senator. This is something that is difficult, but not impossible to find in Wikipedia.

In any case, the fact is that both Google and Wikipedia are both failing to deliver on their great promise of transparency, inclusivity, free-speech, truthful and accurate information for all. They are instead being used as an extension of a massive brain-washing effort which is contributing to the demise of this great country of ours.

Our media has failed us and continue to defend their decision to back Obama while ignoring stories about natural-born status cases at the Supreme Court, Christian-disguised claims hiding actual Muslim-advocacy allegations, teleprompter reading gaffs and gay scandals to name a few. But that is not nearly as disturbing as the possibility that the Internet is slowly coming under the control of powers unknown intent on imposing censorship and manipulation of the masses, as we have witnessed since Obama was elected.

Wikipedia was supposed to stand for neutrality and consensus – not advocacy and manipulation. Wikipedia was supposed to stand for guidelines instead of hard rules and regulations. Wikipedia was supposed to present a flat landscape of voices, without an elitist and opinionated monopoly of views. Hopefully one day soon, whoever is running the show there will steer if back on course – instead of throwing truth under the bus, as has recently become so popular, thanks to Obama.


The overview on their main page includes the claim that “newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.” So, honestly, is this really news?

Boy, you guys are really slow on the uptake on this. The statement means that until something has been on Wikipedia for a bit of time and reviewed by other users, there could be errors in it. It does not say that the editors will intentionally censor information.

Tim T.

You mean Dear Leader, don’t you?


So an open source, much derided for inaccuracy, non citeable, user generated and maintained information source is biased??? I’m shocked beyond all…wait, no I’m not. Who on earth is going to wikipedia for in depth analysis of any public figure? And Wikipedia makes no claims to being unbiased at all. The overview on their main page includes the claim that “newer articles more frequently contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism.” So, honestly, is this really news?


Come on, you can do better than that. Conservapedia does not say they are neutral and unbiased. Doesn’t the name “conserva”pedia mean set off any alarms? If Wikipedia were named we would not have written the article.

David Smith
David Smith does the same thing but in reverse.

When can we expect an article calling them out?