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

6 Comments on "Wikipedia censors Obama entry, removes scandals and controversies"

Notify of

Guest
David Smith
March 8, 2009 8:49 pm

http://www.conservapedia.com/ does the same thing but in reverse.

When can we expect an article calling them out?

Guest
Administrator
March 8, 2009 9:13 pm

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 Liberapeida.com we would not have written the article.

Guest
sumnihil
March 9, 2009 12:29 am

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?

Guest
March 9, 2009 5:41 am

You mean Dear Leader, don’t you?

Guest
Administrator
March 9, 2009 5:43 am

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.

Guest
SunnStarr
May 2, 2009 10:33 am

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… Read more »

wpDiscuz