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.
Such was revealed by WorldNetDaily moments ago:
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.
A check of Obama's Wikipedia page at 8:30 PM Eastern Time corroborated WND's claim. There was no reference to Ayers, and the only mention of Wright was in the notes section:
^ An Associated Press wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated himself with the UCC. (See "Obama's church choice likely to be scrutinized". Associated Press. msnbc.com. November 17, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757/. Retrieved on 2009-1-20. .)
Amazing.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Truly amazing.
March 8, 2009 - 20:05 ET by BlueCat57The speed of not only Wikipedia's ability to control information, but Newsbusters' and WND's ability to point it out.
Since the first thing that is done when trying to take over a country is to disrupt or control the means of communication, it will be interesting how this plays out in America. The main question is: Will government employees follow orders when commanded to distrupt the Internet, cell phone service and over the air broadcasts?
Talking point: Will they follow orders when (not if) they come?
Seems sort of strange...
March 8, 2009 - 20:16 ET by TheHistorianIf you search the Web for Obama and Ayers or Wright, you get a ton of hits. Taking stuff out of Wikipedia seems rather strange. All it does is devalue the reference to Obama in Wikipedia. Are there possibly other reasons that this is disappearing and users are being barred?
As far as disruption of communications, that is a very probable scenario. However, I would expect a flash device or other means to disrupt satellites, not a bunch of government weenies who can't even get Social Security and Medicare straight, but can disrupt communications.
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
BCat &
March 8, 2009 - 20:39 ET by bigtimerBCat & TheHistorian...
These very issues have been worrisome for me also for some quite some time...glad you both posted here...one thing is for sure TH, I wholly agree with you about the competence of the govt. workers to do anything correctly.
Anyway...much food for thought.
No wonder BO is always
March 8, 2009 - 20:14 ET by d1carterNo wonder BO is always tired. He is moderating every website in the country! Priorities, ya know!
Why Bother
March 8, 2009 - 20:18 ET by richb313Why Bother getting upset. Anyone who uses Wikipedia as source material gets what he or she deserves. OK I got that out of my system.
This is just another symptom of the "Cult of Personality" that surronds Obama. He has carefully crafted his image and the MSM are willing participants. I fear for this great country unless the MSM suddenly comes to thier collective senses they will be the first to feel the eventual and predictable outcome. We already have such restrictions on free speech due to PC run amoke and now we have a scrubbing and rewrite of history in front of our eyes.
This is how great countries begin thier slide towards despotism. I am sure the folks at Wikipedia think they are being constructive by removing the negative references that in thier minds is fodder for Hate Speech. The truth is always more complicated that by removing these references they will actually be complicit in fostering more of the extreme dialog theyare so afraid of. It is the official response from Goverment that concerns me.
We have already seen that this administration has no qualms about starting the Hate Rush mania that now inhabits the MSM and most of the web sites that are not considered Conservative. It is the willingness of this administration to actually foster, while trying at the same time to be seen as above it, to actively attack a private citizen who disagrees with them is worrisome.
It seems as if every 60 years or so we must re-learn lessons we thought could never be repeated. Maybe it is because after that amount of time the Majority do not have either direct memory of those events and are one generation removed from those that do.
Hate Speech. PC.
March 9, 2009 - 15:38 ET by ThisnThatHate Speech. PC. Right-wing. Now we know why this has all been established. These are terms the left intends to use to justify their means.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
I agree
March 9, 2009 - 16:25 ET by NewHampshireWikipedia is not a reliable or truthful source.
This censorship reminds me of when we were kids and heard stories about mind control in the USSR Hitler's Germany, and CUBA... Wow, we are just like them now.
Prophetic
March 8, 2009 - 20:19 ET by iveseenitallYes, amazing. And how prophetic were the writers of the past half century as they predicted this coming. The free press and the truth are dead in America. Big Brother is looking over your shoulder.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Manipulating, orchestrating and dictating the news
March 8, 2009 - 20:23 ET by AndanteGoebbels lives again in the MSM and now, evidentally, in Wikipedia.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
If we wanted, we could go
March 8, 2009 - 20:32 ET by ConservativeRexIf we wanted, we could go right back in the very same wiki and add the crap right back in. Or you used to be able to, I haven't used wiki for anything in a long time.
More importantly, with Obama's house of cards falling all around his big ears, he wants to re-institute embryonic stem cell research.
This fella can't kill babies quick enough can he? He's got to get right at it! Once again, for all liberals to comprehend....embryonic stem cells have never, NEVER, never, cured a single thing. Ever.
Adult stem cells on the other hand have helped some hopeless patients gain a little more time. Why not use more adult stem cells?
Because you libs have never met a baby, or for that matter elderly, that you couldn't kill quick enough. You can hem and haw all you like, but you libs know your history...the history of the left...come on..admit it...eugenics anyone? Yep..started and perfected by the left. "Legal" abortions...yep..you guessed it.. the left again! But putting cold blooded, guilty, murderers to death? THAT the left opposes. Go figure.
Crex... What frosts me
March 8, 2009 - 20:48 ET by bigtimerCrex...
What frosts me the most about his undoing of Preisdent Bush's EO on this issue with embyonic stem cells, is that everyone (the msm) are leaving out the fact that this is paid for by the tax-payers, by force....whether you agree or not.
He is going to have a "Ceremony" doing this tomorrow....
Breaking News Flash Everywhere!
Makes me puke, all of it....and I personally am sickened by the morality of this absolute outrage in my mind.
Snow-flake Babies anyone?
CR,
March 8, 2009 - 21:24 ET by R D Helm"This fella can't kill babies quick enough can he?"
The Third Reich kept the gas chambers and crematoriums running full tilt, right up until just moments before the Allies crashed through the front gates.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Until the liberals stop in
March 8, 2009 - 21:51 ET by dborschjr68Until the liberals stop in their quest to kill babies, it is they who should and shall be seen as the real Nazi Party in America today. All this ridicuous talk of the GOP and/or Conservatives being Nazis or the like is too stupid to believe.
Someone refresh my memory here, but aren't the Conservatives and the Republicans all about NOT killing babies? I think I read that somewhere.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Why does this surprise anyone?
March 8, 2009 - 20:34 ET by ConservativeFLUnder the "Change" regime, any dissent of our Dear Leader Comrade Obama will not be tolerated. Any transgressors will be subject to Rule 13 of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Next comes the “Citizens Military”, AKA the Secret Police and you disappear to a reeducation camp run by Comrade Pelosi and her little dog Keith Olbermann.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15." Ronald Reagan
Well, ConservativeFl, I
March 9, 2009 - 02:21 ET by ConservativeRexWell, ConservativeFl, I agree with you. I want the Obami cadre to consider me for using Allinsky's Rule 13. Fact is, I'm begging 'em to.
I read where a certain blogger was visited by the SS. He was kind enough to let them in to search his premises. They won't find such nice accomodations from a lot of folks.
Obama has already lost the faith of the military, and now he's considering using the ICC on our soldiers? That good people, will be the straw that breaks the camels back. Be prepared, be vigilent. Tyrany is around the corner, with a smiley face shirt on, and wearing Nikes.
yeah
March 9, 2009 - 02:39 ET by RowaneFrom some they'll find a face full of lead.
Scrubbing a commie
March 8, 2009 - 20:33 ET by rbosqueScrubbing a commie politician's past used to be the work of the KGB. Methinks they're still around.
He stinks
March 8, 2009 - 20:41 ET by slickwillie2001The stink of Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is all over Barack Obama, and it can't be washed off or simply deleted.
You can put lipstick on a
March 8, 2009 - 20:48 ET by TN MomYou can put lipstick on a pig...it's still a PIG!
Did anyone check to see if they scrubbed Ayers and Wrights wiki pages for their associations with obama-if they existed?
"Sunshine is the disinfectant"-Barack Obama, 2008
Actually...
March 8, 2009 - 20:54 ET by jackie3Scrubbing wiki is a good idea...from a narcissist POV. You can't scrub the entire internet without looking like a total control freak and getting people "worried." So, you scrub sights that people "assume" are accurate even though wiki isn't worth piss on a flower.
Schools instruct kids to use wiki as a refernce. (Shows how bad the system is) and the kids will take it as truth even when critical info is left out.
Just part of the ongoing brainwash.
Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican government. Real liberty is
never found in the despotism or in the extremes of a Democracy."
You can erase wikipedia
March 8, 2009 - 20:58 ET by 10ksnookerBut you can't erase the economy ...
And it's all his now.
Wikipedia
March 8, 2009 - 21:09 ET by blazermaniacWhat exactly is there to hide? Everyone knows that Wright & Ayers are crooks.
bm... Oh not
March 8, 2009 - 21:14 ET by bigtimerbm...
Oh not everyone...you may want to let the majority of the msm of all venues in on this itty-bitty fact....see what they do with it...like some serious reporting...
<sarc off>
...LMAO!
Well, not really
March 8, 2009 - 21:28 ET by AndanteRE:"...Everyone knows that Wright & Ayers are crooks..."
One is a terrorist (and former buddy of Obama) who likes to bomb the people he hates and the other is Obama's former minister who calls on God to bomb America (with hell's fire and damnation) which he hates.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
Just wait until the "three day suspension" (d)evolves into...
March 8, 2009 - 21:18 ET by R D Helm...something decidedly more ominous, such as a knock at the door in the middle of the night.
That is assuming they will even bother to knock.
The global push for totalitarianism runs very deep. After all, tyranny has been the form of government the bulk of humanity has lived under since the beginning of recorded history.
This nation has been a temporary, and all too rare, exception.
The Organizer represents a form of tyranny that has staunch supporters in every corner of the globe, and who historically have worked to stifle any and all dissent. His benefactor(s) has/have very deep pockets.
Dissent includes anything that exposes the truth about the leaders of this global movement, of which the Organizer is but one of many, as well as anything that causes its leaders to appear less than desirable.
It is most unfortunate that so many Americans are too far behind the curve to recognize what is really happening.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Dave... Have you gone to
March 8, 2009 - 21:38 ET by bigtimerDave...
Have you gone to Ct's site lately..or seen his link with his posts here lately today on NBs.
I just sat back down and caught your post...if you haven't there is a link there that is well worth the time that he has in his posts...really well worth it....and it is NOT boring one iota....it has a lot of what a heck of a lot us here and there in our ways have been trying to say here on NBs for a long time with our own views and links to-boot.
Sorry I'm in a hurry...in-between fixing dinner and such...hope you understood what I was trying to say here.
bt, I have been all over Ct's site for some time now.
March 8, 2009 - 22:02 ET by R D HelmGio and I share the same curse. We have both read and studied way too much history.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Dave...I know you've been
March 8, 2009 - 22:06 ET by bigtimerDave...I know you've been going there, that is why I asked.
For heavens sake you aren't alone, I've posted things here and there that nobody pays attention to either with what all we are seeing now, for me it is just great that some of this info is getting out more and more..the info and the link I am talking about is on his latest one with the interview sent in by jen....listen to it Dave, you, me and others have put various links here and there that all connect to this over time here at NBs in various blog posts...
Anyway, listen when you get the chance, you won't be bored. Plus he put one of my links I have put here before over time quite awhile ago on one of his blog spots yesterday...they all connect as you shall see if you haven't been there the last few days...know what I mean?
*
March 9, 2009 - 22:15 ET by R D Helm*
No Scrubbing, Just Being Succinct
March 8, 2009 - 21:24 ET by SterlingI tend to agree with some of the above posters who said that using Wikipedia as a source is a dumb idea; but really, I do not understand what all the hoopla is about. Does Wikipedia have every person that Andrew Jackson was affiliated with, (IE Aaron Burr)? It is just much ado about nothing- this whole Reverend Wright and the Weathermen story are so last year…. By the way, is not worldnetdaily the same conspiracy theory site that claims Obama is not even a citizen? If you ask me this whole article is a suspect device.
Sterling, you would probably bitch and moan if someone...
March 8, 2009 - 21:53 ET by R D Helm...was to point out that Lenin and Trotsky were once associated.
Honestly, don't you ever tire of being a useful idiot for those who are working 24/7/365 to deprive us of our freedoms?
"By the way, is not worldnetdaily the same conspiracy theory site that claims Obama is not even a citizen?"
I suppose the next thing you are going to tell us is that you have actually seen Obama's authentic, "official" Hawaiian birth certificate yourself, right?
That would make you one person out of one that has actually seen it.
Funny that, to date, the Organizer has spent over $800K of his own money to meticulously cover up many areas of his past. Have you ever asked yourself why?
Of course you haven't. Useful idiots such as yourself never do ask questions, else you would not be a useful idiot.
BTW-Adolf Hitler had the SS totally obliterate his mother's domicile, along with other things, in order to prevent anyone from finding out about his past.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Over the Top
March 8, 2009 - 21:55 ET by SterlingFirstly, I am not a communist; nor have I ever been associated with the communist party. Is that better Senator McCarthy? I love the free-market system and everything that it stands for. I have never once said that I supported Obama’s domestic vision. With that said, we are talking about two websites of ill repute, Wikipedia on the left; Worldnetdaily on the right. You have to be skeptical of anything that these websites have to say.
As for Obama spending vast amounts of money to keep his past from coming to light- if you were in his position would you not do the same? No one is perfect, except for Jesus- let he without sin cast the first stone.
Finally, I have not seen any evidence that Obama is in the same rank as Hitler. You sir sound like D.L. Hughley. I think that I will call you out on this point, I do not wish to single you out; but I have seen this comment from many posters on the site before- you just happen to be the lucky one to explain why Obama is in the same league as Hitler. Please explain this point to a useful idiot. If anything Obama resembles Jimmy Carter, but that just does not have the same rhetorical value- does it? Anyway, I do hope to hear an intelligent reply.
→ Right on Sterling
March 8, 2009 - 22:08 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I know Obama will surpass every fiasco Carter was ever involved in.
He may screw up enough to get the Nobel Prize in his first year for his efforts to re-arm Hamas.
Hide and watch. It's going to be more than the already promised $900 million.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool, speaking of Obama's
March 8, 2009 - 23:05 ET by celatorCool, speaking of Obama's screwups, here's one I heard tonight.
I was listening to the John Batchelor Radio show tonight when Aaron Klein, a reporter, called in from Jerusalem.
They were talking about the recent terrorist atttack with a bulldozer--hit a police car and a bus. Klein noted that both Presidents Clinton and Bush would always send a letter condemning terrorist attacks in Israel. Obama did not do so in this case, and the Israelies wondered why.
So Klein said he ended up calling Gibbs at the White House and asked him if a letter of condemnation of this terrorist attack would be forthcoming.
Gibbs replied, "No. We aren't sending a letter of condemnation." Period. Click.
So, here we go again. Another diplomatic screwup, added to all the others. We already know Old Media won't even come close or are aware of this little episode.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything which the government does not first take from somebody else. Dr. Adrian Rogers
→ That's bad cel
March 8, 2009 - 23:13 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I must admit, surprising. But any condemnation would make Obama look the more foolish for throwing almost a billion bucks to his buddies in Hamas.
I understand his reticence.
Obama is succeeding. Let's not kid ourselves.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool, yes true., He'd have
March 8, 2009 - 23:18 ET by celatorCool, yes true., He'd have to add a PS to his letter of condemnation, "And please still feel free to steal as much money as you can from the $900,000,000 I sent the PA."
The Government cannot give to anybody anything which the government does not first take from somebody else. Dr. Adrian Rogers
celator,
March 8, 2009 - 23:26 ET by R D HelmIt is the intention of the Organizer and Herr Hillary von Ribbentrop to quite unceremoniously throw Israel under the bus in favor of their Persian "friends."
When the Israelis wreck their nuke facilities, just as they did in Iraq and Syria, I fully expect the Organizer's administration to promptly issue statements of protest and condemnation.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Dave, I hadn't thought of
March 8, 2009 - 23:31 ET by celatorDave, I hadn't thought of that angle but you are probably correct. Obama definitely has a pro-Palistinian agenda, and Israel will pay a high price.
People in the Land of Israel are very nervous right now about Obama. I listen to their talk radio shows occasionally and that uncertainty comes through very clearly.
They are also trying to cobble together a new government after their elections, and so they are a little unstable in the interim (I think they have another 30-days or so to get this accomplished). Lots of infighting in the Knesset right now and so they are vulnerable to the kinds of sweeping changes Obama seems to have in mind.
The Government cannot give to anybody anything which the government does not first take from somebody else. Dr. Adrian Rogers
Explanation
March 9, 2009 - 06:38 ET by jdlybrandCould someone, anyone tell me why in God's name do Jews keep voting for Democrats? Do they have a death wish? I just don't understand it.
Your ignorance of history from 1933 on concerns me not at all.
March 8, 2009 - 23:08 ET by R D HelmAnd I am not just referring to German history since that time, but also American history.
You will have to forgive my derision for fence-straddlers such as yourself, as I am not feeling too terribly accommodating toward middle-of-the-roaders these days.
Given my observations over the last 30+ years, as well as the events that have transpired in this nation over the last 24 months, and particularly the last 6 weeks, it is now a 100% "you are with us or against us" proposition, as far as I am concerned.
To date, your comments here at NB have indicated that you are willing to compromise with those who are working full time for our demise.
I now see any and all compromise with the left as nothing less than 100% capitulation.
Life just ain't fair, is it?
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Relax
March 8, 2009 - 23:23 ET by SterlingOkay, I guess you have it in your mind that I am ignorant, an appeaser, and an overall wimp. I am not going to try to change your opinion of me. All I asked was for a simple explanation of the comparison between Hitler and Obama- I got a rant. If you do not want to answer the question just say so.
As for trying to work with democrats what is wrong with that. I work with Democrats every day. They really are not bad people. Believe it or not a lot of Democrats and Republicans share the same values. Remember, Democrats and Progressives are two different groups. I just think that if you go after an ideology you must have relevant important facts and not throw bombs. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
→ Shared values
March 8, 2009 - 23:31 ET by Cool ArrowAnd when a left-wing Democrat puppet like D.L. Hughley compares Republicans to Hitler it's the same thing. I have to agree with you there.
You couldn't possibly be a progressive with a statement like:
Progressives have found sh*t is far more effective.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
RO... POW! Rolling on
March 8, 2009 - 23:35 ET by bigtimerRO...
POW!
Rolling on floor laughing....wow...that was a great zinger!
→ Thanks bt
March 8, 2009 - 23:40 ET by Cool ArrowI always thought that old adage really needed an addendum.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
You did the addendum well...
March 8, 2009 - 23:49 ET by bigtimerPriceless RO...priceless.
Cool...Progressives have found
March 8, 2009 - 23:41 ET by JerProgressives have found sh*t is far more effective.
Haven't you heard? Theirs doesn't stink.
Jer
Cool Arrow, you and I
March 8, 2009 - 23:41 ET by SterlingCool Arrow, you and I probably disagree on a lot of meaningless things. I like to think on the big issues though, that we share a common goal. There is one thing to say that you are standing firm on your principals when it affects your core values, but then there is another thing to be constantly fighting for petty issues. Life is not a zero sum game. When it comes down to it whether you are a liberal or conservative when policies start hurting your pocket book party identification does not matter.
→ I don't totally disagree
March 8, 2009 - 23:51 ET by Cool ArrowBut Liberals fail to admit the Stock Market is a Zero Sum Game, though I suspect they know it.
Those policies have hurt me this year, not because I didn't see it coming, but because I did see it coming and played too long.
I got lulled into believing this President wasn't intent on bringing down certain pillars of the economy even though he promised he would.
Then came his attack on the healthcare sector, which though depressed, wasn't faring as badly as the rest of the economy.
Make no mistake. Obama is succeeding. I don't like his success, but he is succeeding, nonetheless. His actions are purposeful and the results are predictable to those who watch and anticipate. Lots of money being made right now.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
You may have valid points
March 9, 2009 - 00:03 ET by SterlingYou may have valid points there, but first let us stop calling these progressives liberals; for there is nothing liberal about them. These maniacs hijacked that name so that they could be more mainstream. I digress; I am in the camp that says wait and see about Obama. He has only been in office for about two months… I still have hope that he does not go through with his plans- really I cannot imagine congress passing legislation that would turn The Republic into a third-world wasteland.
→ Sittin' on the fence
March 9, 2009 - 00:17 ET by Cool ArrowAren't those pickets a little sharp?
One must conclude Obama and his advisors are either,
I've chosen to believe #2 because he said he would "spread the wealth" I'll buy off on Nancy and Harry being stupid, raving loons, but not Obama.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Somebody stop me
March 8, 2009 - 22:56 ET by AndanteRe: "...As for Obama spending vast amounts of money to keep his past from coming to light- if you were in his position would you not do the same? ..."
Wow, where do I begin with this one?
The only reason for O to hide his past is because he is scared to death that he will be forced out of office if the facts come out. What is he so afraid of?
To answer your question, NO! I would not to the same thing. I have nothing to hide. If I did have something to hide I would not have run for POTUS.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
→ Andante
March 8, 2009 - 23:00 ET by Cool ArrowIt doesn't surprise me.
Heck! The Easter Bunny hides eggs every year trying to cover up his trysts with chickens.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
I always wondered how that worked
March 8, 2009 - 23:03 ET by Andantelol
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
No one is perfect, except
March 8, 2009 - 23:07 ET by Dan The Man 2No one is perfect, except for Jesus- let he without sin cast the first stone. No but u are an idiot who does not know what the scripture means. This was made to a bunch of people who were trying to set Jesus up and He knew it and they knew it; hence His "cast the first stone".
Jesus wants us to compare people in high office to scripture and they have a higher standard to live up to.
Obama has an obligation as President to come clean and comply and the MSM as a "special" construct to shine a light on Obama and his actions and life.
Troll on dude.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan I again will have to
March 8, 2009 - 23:16 ET by SterlingDan I again will have to disagree, call me an idiot but I do know how to read. That passage had nothing to do with public office holders; it was about an angry mob who tried to stone a prostitute to death and Jesus intervened.
I am not going to challenge your reading of the gospel; but I do want to put it in proper context.
"if you were in his
March 11, 2009 - 23:06 ET by R D Helm"if you were in his position would you not do the same?"
No.
"Finally, I have not seen any evidence that Obama is in the same rank as Hitler."
Then go back and study German history, and do it more carefully this time.
The parallels will surprise you.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Wikipedia as a source
March 8, 2009 - 21:41 ET by BlueCat57Come on folks. What's with all the prejudice against Wikipedia? Do you actually trust Newsbusters without verifying the information it provides? Do you trust any source unquestioningly? Wikipedia does a good job for what it is - a user generated source of information. Isn't that what Newsbusters is? Or at least the comments section? I question and verify everything I can, but when my kid needs a quick bit of information I go to the quick, easy and free source - Wikipedia. If it is a vital piece of information or doesn't pass the smell test, I search deeper. So lighten up on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is
March 8, 2009 - 22:22 ET by NL207Wikipedia is non-authoritative. No one accepts responsibility for its content.
Our local University does not accept Wikipedia as a reference for any paper submitted for credit and I know of no faculty member, even leftist faculty member, who deviates from this policy.
Wikipedia is a waste of perfectly good storage space and computing resources.
"...Do you actually trust
March 8, 2009 - 22:30 ET by Andante"...Do you actually trust Newsbusters without verifying the information it provides?"
One of the things I like about NB is that the liberal lurkers will pounce on anything questionable and that help's keep us honest. The difference is that NB does not delete factual or debatable posts even if someone at NB thinks the post is unimportant. Let the readers decide that. To erase facts because they are inconvenient to Obama is not just rewriting history, it is frightening when you consider its implications.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
Sterling... WND is one of
March 8, 2009 - 21:51 ET by bigtimerSterling...
WND is one of the best for information...in more ways than one.
Respectfully disagree
March 8, 2009 - 22:04 ET by SterlingI am sorry, but I have tried to read Worldnetdaily many times; but I have found it to be more conspiracy than fact. We may disagree on this but I get so frustrated with all the sophistry that is on the Internet. It really is not all that hard to go to the bookstore or library and page thru a reputable source. There are many good historians most happened to be dead but you can still find their works- even cheaply at used bookstores. As for current events, take whatever you see with a grain of salt- with a firm grasp on history and common sense you can judge what is BS.
Sterling ... I go to many
March 8, 2009 - 22:15 ET by bigtimerSterling ...
I go to many different venues for information, always have, always will.
You make your judgements...I'll make mine.
It may be true
March 8, 2009 - 23:19 ET by CaligulaIt is true that Wikipedia as a valid source is a dumb idea. But I do have a couple of questions regarding the president's standing as a natural born citizen. It really makes no difference to me that WND is taking the point on this one. I would submit that this is just a tad different than "show us all of your tax returns". I really wouldn't question it, except for the glaring fact that the question has been asked, not answered, and it is one of only 2 requirements to be the president. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers questions and associations are problematic at best on the campaign trail, but where in the hell is that single piece of paper? Illegals can have a fake one manufactured, I would suspect the leader of the free world could have a really great one made... if he needed to. Does he need to? This to me is an incredibly simple concept. Part of the rules of the game he wanted to play. Produce the birth certificate, or no driver license, registration to vote, etc. Being president is somewhat more important, so follow the rules. We have questions about where he was born. Assuage those concerns instantly by pulling out a real, valid birth certificate. How hard is that?
Actually, what made it
March 9, 2009 - 04:33 ET by thebutlerdiditActually, what made it suspect is the fact that there were several people who tried to post innoculous info on Wiki, and they were banned for 3 days. It wasn't bomb throwing type stuff, and was linked to so-called credible sources, such as the Chicago newspapers, the Boston papers, the LA Times, etc. It really isn't the fact that the info is so important, it isn't in the grand scheme of things. It is the way WIKI handled it.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Sterling you are correct
March 9, 2009 - 14:53 ET by justathotIt is just much ado about nothing- this whole Reverend Wright and the Weathermen story are so last year…
And the reason they are "so last year" is because the Obamedia wouldn't persue them last year. Except for their "boo hoo", guilt by association, poor maligned Barack, pieces. And now Wikipedia continues the cover-up. This new age of information is wonderful, isn't it?
Succinctness
March 10, 2009 - 02:06 ET by ilikemugglesI highly doubt that whoever altered Obama's page had succinctness in mind. Consider that there is an article on Wikipedia solely devoted criticism of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia....), much of it apparently disputed, yet still allowed to remain.
How in the hell did such a
March 8, 2009 - 21:29 ET by mostlymoderateHow in the hell did such a mysterious man that nobody had even heard of 3 years ago become our Commander in Chief? Doesn't that ever boggle your mind? Then, to do stuff like this, to cover things up and mute opposing viewpoints. Maybe a majority of American's really are the stupidest people on Earth.
Nah
March 9, 2009 - 13:38 ET by AndanteRe: "Maybe a majority of American's really are the stupidest people on Earth."
On the contrary, the left, the media and our liberal education system have produced a majority of willfully ignorant "victims " who didn't win life's lottery (hmm, where did I hear that one before?) and now they want your money because you don't deserve to have more than anyone else and Obama is going to make that happen.
-------------------------------------
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
Anyone looking at the Talk
March 8, 2009 - 21:29 ET by LighthouseJAnyone looking at the Talk pages for BO's wikipedia page too?
Even the Talk page, meant to provide a back channel for discussing edits, is being scrubbed. Someone was pointing out WND and Drudge were bringing the sanitization to light, and about 2 minutes later they are gone.
I bet they wish there wasn't even a history for us to view past changes to hear dissent, alternate points of view and doubt over Dear Leader.
"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote
Maybe they are afraid of Obama's goons
March 8, 2009 - 21:33 ET by The Smokin FrogMaybe they are afraid of Obama's goons, like dead fish Rahm Emanuel, coming after them. I wouldn't be surprised if people suddenly disappeared.
TSF Protests!
→ Scrubbin' Obammy
March 8, 2009 - 21:42 ET by Cool ArrowThe guy gets cleaner and articulater by the minute.
Al Sharpton must be livid, knowing Joe Biden made a racist joke of him and Jackson.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Scrubbed pages or enlarged articles?
March 8, 2009 - 21:54 ET by nicholas nicklebyAhem:
Here is an article on the Bill Ayers controversy: http://en.wikipedia....
Here is an article on the Jeremiah Wright controversy: http://en.wikipedia....
(As a bonus, here is an article on the Citizenship conspiracy theory: http://en.wikipedia.....)
You may be right that the page has been scrubbed, and you may have a point that this is a bad thing to happen to an online encyclopedia. But you should also notice that there are three lengthy articles on these controversies.
addendum
March 8, 2009 - 21:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyIn fact, if you go to the Barack Obama page (http://en.wikipedia....) there is a section at the bottom for Public Image, which, when opened, has a number of news articles--and the three articles about these controversies can be found there.
nicholas, perhaps you and Sterling should become domestic...
March 8, 2009 - 22:16 ET by R D Helm...partners.
Assuming you two aren't already joined at the hip, I mean.
Wikipinheads placing those links way down at the bottom is totally meaningless. The whole point of Noel's article is that very relevant facts concerning Ayers and Wright were removed from the main body of the Wiki reference concerning the Organizer, which is the only thing that most people are going to bother to read.
Removing information about Ayers and Wright is like removing references to Mutt from articles concerning Jeff, ommitting Tom when discussing Jerry, leaving out the Tweety when talking about Sylvester, or removing references to Chong when providing information about Cheech.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
relevancy
March 8, 2009 - 22:20 ET by katainkentdowngrade to 'distraction'.
A valid point
March 8, 2009 - 22:26 ET by SterlingI just love the name Nicholas Nickleby, Dickens is my favorite author- but that is as far as I will go. As we can see Nicholas has touched upon a valid point- I commend the poster for having the patience to go thru the footnotes that the author of the article failed to do, obviously.
NN
March 8, 2009 - 22:13 ET by Noel SheppardAhem,
This article is about Barack Obama's biography page, correct? As such, can you show the class where in the text of this biography Ayers AND Wright are mentioned?
Please cut-and-paste such references along with the section they're included.
We'll wait. ns
Step-by-step
March 9, 2009 - 04:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Noel,
I can't figure out how to easily cut-and-paste images here, so I'm going to give step-by-step instructions.
The link at WDN is to Obama's main page (http://en.wikipedia....). (1) Go to this page.
At the bottom of the page, there are these collapsible windows (called templates)--you can recognize them because they have a light blue background and there's usually the word "show" (if the template is collapsed) or "hide" (if the template is expanded). (2) Scroll down to the templates at the bottom.
[Now, templates are used when there're a lot of articles on some topic that can be broken down easily. For an example which I hope you'll enjoy, at the bottom of this article on the Marx Bros., they include links to articles for all of the family members, and a list of the movies broken down by who is in them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx_Brothers.]
Now, if you're following along this step-by-step process, you should see one of the templates titled "Public Image of Barack Obama." (3) Click "show" to expand this template.
You'll notice that the first section under this template is "News and
political events"; in that category you can find links to articles on Oprah Winfrey's endorsement, as well as to Ayers, Wright, and the Citizenship conspiracy theories. (4) Click on the article you wish to read.
(Now, just so we're all on the same page, here's the one image I decided to cut-and-paste as it seems like the most important piece of evidence--what you're looking at should look something like this: http://www.freeimage...)
So, has Wikipedia erased all mention of Obama-Ayers and Obama-Wright? Hardly--they've actually made two whole separate articles about those issues.
Have they hidden these articles? Again, hardly--they may have removed those mentions from the body-text of the article, but the links to those articles are there. (This isn't rocket science; if you really think those links are too difficult to find, I suggest you write Wikipedia an email about changing their templates. But I should tell you, the template system for further links is pretty common, cf. the Marx Bros.'s page.)
But let's say you didn't know to look at templates--well, that's what the Wikipedia search engine is for. If you were to search some combination of these words, even if there's no article with that exact name, the Wikipedia search engine will usually give you a pretty strong push in the right direction; so, when I search "obama controversy," there's no article with that name, but in the top 4 hits there's Ayers (1), Wright (2), and the Citizenship conspiracy theories (4).
I hope this demonstrates that Wikipedia is not squelching this information, and I look forward to your correction. I'll wait.
NN
March 9, 2009 - 08:46 ET by Noel SheppardNN,
I asked you to show me where Ayers and Wright are referred to in the text of this biography. What you cite IS NOT in the text. A link at the bottom of this page, entitled "Public Image," under "Notes," "References," and "External Links," that sends readers to another page IS NOT a specific reference to Ayers and Wright and IS NOT in the text. Nice try.
Now, please show me where Ayers and Wright are referred to IN THE TEXT of this biography or apologize. Failing both and you can consider yourself persona non grata with me from this point forward.
Are you a troll NN, or do you have the intestinal fortitude to admit you're wrong?
We'll wait. ns
what we agree on--and what we disagree on
March 9, 2009 - 10:39 ET by nicholas nicklebyNoel,
I agreed with you that the scrubbing of the body-text
might be worth mentioning, but if you ignore links to--and whole
articles on the subject--then you're not really getting all you can out of Wikipedia. This is what we disagree on, not whether Ayers/Wright are mentioned in the body-text.
Now, am I wrong that Ayes/Wright are not mentioned in the body-text? Well, since I never claimed that they were mentioned there, I'm not wrong. You and I agree on that much, as I said: they are not in the body-text. So I can't apologize for something that I didn't say.
[Actually, now that I look again, there is a mention of Wright in the text: http://www.freeimage... -- look near the footnote "200"; I don't remember that being there last night, and there have been a lot of alterations recently, so I'm guessing that might be a new addition as of today.]
Where we disagree is that I think the links count as part of the page (though not of the body-text). We may disagree on this, but I think the links are a valid form of spreading / accessing information (as is the search function). (Also, the links are not external links--they are internal links to other articles. That might seem like a niggling correction, but it's important to my argument: that this information is still on wikipedia.)
Perhaps I should have articulated my position more carefully when I said I was waiting for a correction. I meant that you should distinguish make it clear to your readers that this information isn't disappearing. It's there, it's accessible.
Now, since I'm unable to apologize for something that I didn't do, if you still wish to consider me persona non grata, that's ok.
NN
March 9, 2009 - 09:06 ET by Noel SheppardNN,
I find it further interesting that you began your defense with "I can't figure out how to easily cut-and-paste images here," but know how to create an image at "FreeImageHosting" as well as a link. Now THAT's entertainment.
Furthermore, the image you created is NOT from Obama's bio page, but from his "Public Image" page.
You've been exposed. Adios! ns
Noel Busted!
March 9, 2009 - 09:19 ET by BlondeLOL...and a good day to you! Thanks for the laugh.
I hope he fails, too.
noticed my edits?
March 9, 2009 - 11:02 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Noel,
Please follow my step by step instructions to see that the image I created was from Barack Obama's main page--the page linked to from the WND story.
[Here, by the way, is a larger image, which shows more clearly that the Public Image
section is part of the main page:
http://www.freeimage... . Or you could follow my instructions to see for yourself.]
As for my sudden amazing ability to include images, when I started writing, I didn't know how to include images. But while I was writing I thought there must be some way to take a screen shot and there must be free image hosting sites. So, I did some quick research and found out how to take/where to post images.
So, having done a little quick research to discover how to post images, I still couldn't figure out how to post an image of the page scrolling down. (I suppose I could figure out how to take a video and post it to youtube, but taking video is not something I'm familiar with, and I thought--wrongly--that a screenshot accompanied by instructions would be enough to show what I meant.)
I decided to content myself with the final picture (and I don't even have a Paint program, so I can't draw the arrows and circles I wanted to). After I posted, I decided to go back and edit my post a little so that it would make sense why I only posted that image; but that first line no longer makes so much sense. So, yes, I did figure out how to easily capture a screenshot and how to host it for free.
I rehearse that whole story mostly to mark the difference between you and me: I still screw up occasionally, but I tend to do a little more research before I post--you, on the other hand, seem to have been taken by the conservative hysteric paranoia that is going around post-election, and post things that support that view before you get the whole story. (Remember your "oh noes, Google is marking conservative sites as dangerous!" posts when really Google was marking all sites as dangerous. Really, it takes 5 seconds to check information like this.)
(I know there's a joke here to be made about your name Sheppard, and the Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I can't quite find it.)
Once again, we're back at the original impasse--are links on the Obama page enough to count? This is going to be where conservatives probably disagree with other people--probably because conservative discourse so focused on those issues. All I can say is that the information is there on Wikipedia still, it's easy to find--and if you don't like Wikipedia, you can always use the Conservapedia page for Obama, which includes not only mention of Ayers and Wright, but also the fact that Obama might be our first Muslim president. Gosh, the things you learn on the internet!
(Okay, sarcasm off: it may be interesting that the Obama page text does not mention Ayers/Wright, but your post gives the impression that Wikipedia is whitewashing Obama's past when all the information on these controversies is still there and is linked from the main page.)
It is a history book written by mob rule
March 8, 2009 - 22:06 ET by ApacheI don't know of any college that let's you use Wiki as a source. It's not just Obama. There are lots of pages on Wiki where radical fanboys just spend their days protecting their little corner of internet space and as a result wiki is a joke.
Radicals
March 8, 2009 - 22:20 ET by iveseenitallObama, Wright, and Ayers are all cut from the same cloth. Radicals and Chicago thugs. Keep talking to your kids. Unfortunately, you now must do what the schools refuse to do. Tell them the truth and point out what is happening to the nation. Teach them to think for themselves. Ignorance is bliss and that is what bums like these three depend upon.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
What really upsets me is a
March 8, 2009 - 22:15 ET by steviep831What really upsets me is a quick scan of GW's wiki page has tons of heresay and controversial items. It comments about the whole National Guard incident, his DUI, handling of Katina... and on and on and on. So why aren't those entries being moderated? Oh wait, liberals are running the show at wikipedia... what was I thinking?
It's the coverup, not the alteration!
March 8, 2009 - 22:33 ET by slickwillie2001It may be reasonable to debate whether Ayers and Wright belong on Obammy's main bio page, but how to justify erasing any record of the repeated put-up and take-down of changes to the bio relevant to Ayers and Wright? Doesn't the erasing of the tracks represent a deviation from Wikipedia's own established procedures?
The erasing of tracks is black and white, a discrete act, and should not be debatable.
In general, why the trimming of valid information? Wright and Ayers were HUGE controversies. If Hillary's crew had stumbled onto the Wright rant-tapes, she would be President today.
To those that point out the fallibility of Wikipedia, that's a given, and a diversion. This website post is not about accuracy, it's about systemic bias at Wikipedia. The fallibility diversion can be used to deflect identification of bias at CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC etc.
Systematic Bias on Wikipedia
March 8, 2009 - 22:39 ET by TIRMThat the info is scrubbed should be on no suprise to anyone familiar with WP. People that are viewed even slightly conservative often have minor controversies associated with them on their bio, often coming from websites like media matters under the premise that you cannot leave out controversial material while liberal personalities often have any controversy removed or diluted severely.
If you think about the nature of WP this should be all the more apparent. A large number of the power users are college students with an abundance of free time and an overly high view of their own importance. Most conservative people in general are more likely to be employed and have less free time or interest to promote their own ideology. WP is probably as biased as the general MSM.
Also if you want to search other examples try to find any connection of george soros to MM or look at the attempt to un-connect Obama's relationship with Project Vote and ACORN by trying to prove that PV was not a part of ACORN.
Systematic Left Wing Bias
March 8, 2009 - 23:17 ET by ReaverIt runs through more than the political pages. The moderators on the global warming pages do the same thing whenever anyone puts skeptic information up, even when they are the scientists who did the research. The wikiheads tell them they are "uninformed".
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
fabulist Wikipedia
March 8, 2009 - 22:35 ET by RousseWhat an amazing and disappointing experiment in "information." Let me advise all who read here: Wikipedia is fraud, pure and simple. Do not use it, do not trust it. If you are a teacher, and one of your students cites Wikipedia as a source, you must give that paper a failing grade. The only way to kill Wikipedia is to starve it.
True, but all internet
March 8, 2009 - 23:28 ET by RR GOPTrue, but all internet sources are pretty much suspect. However, I'm learning that many so-called fact checked books aren't always accurate, either.
Multiple, independent sources that aren't simply regurgitating each other seems is the key for serious research.
There's a lot of good information on Wikipedia, and is an excellent source for graphics. It's also often a good source for stuff I've never heard of before that I can go there, and/or elsewhere and read up on.
The most interesting parts are under the discussions tab!
LOL...I was reading one time about Canadian currency and all of a sudden I came upon "f^^* Canada" in the middle of a sentence. I still wonder if Wikipedia has caught it yet.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
This Shrubber's philosophy
March 9, 2009 - 08:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberThis Shrubber's philosophy on Wikipedia is this: use it for geography, ancient/military history, birthdays, pop culture, etc.
Neve use it for political information, unless it may be, say, election results, etc...
Wikipedia goes straight to the lie that is Obama.
March 8, 2009 - 23:35 ET by CTA lie in plain sight.
It is a lie, but it's more "their truth" which results in...
March 9, 2009 - 07:33 ET by ThalpyIt is a lie, but it's more "their truth" resulting in the desired outcome. The European Union has employees who work feverishly to re-write their text books so they will not offend EU members for their past transgressions. We are manipulated by perceptions of what is and what was, so those who have control of information, present or past, have helped bring us to this . We should be used to this by now. Mr. Obama is the man who never was.
My Talk on the Talk Page Censored
March 9, 2009 - 00:03 ET by RightWiredI guess the truth hurts. I wrote this, and it was delted by an Admin named ' Baseball Bugs' without explanation; a clear violation of Wikipedia rules:
'There is nothing factually incorrect with the story. It is a true
representation of the events on this page. The fact remains is this: It
takes 3 Admins, working in unison, to squelch any/all changes to any
article on Wikipedia. You make up any excuse you want, then have your
buddies swoop in to agree with you; claim a 'consensus", then ban, ban,
ban. The word is out. We know you're liberally biased. We are not stupid.64.53.138.18 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)"
RightWired.
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reaga
Righton-RightWired
March 9, 2009 - 01:56 ET by mountainman08Righton-RightWired,
It's a true American shame that the truth is being censored right before our very own eyes. I suppose a legal challenge in a court of law would be too expensive and fruitless.
Thank You for Your couragous act.
Hey RRW... I'm with MM08
March 9, 2009 - 02:03 ET by bigtimerHey RRW...
I'm with MM08 here with his same sentiments...
Hear! Hear! ...and Amen to both of you.
Wikiscrubbing
March 9, 2009 - 00:43 ET by NorthCoasterThis isn't the only Wikipedia story scrubbed of critical information. I have seen a Global warming site scrubbed to match the IPCC AGW party line and read the comments of scientists who have attempted to add additional information discuss their frustration.
The bottom line is that you have to be aware of this aspect and be prepared to look to other sources. It is very unfortunate that a supposedly neutral "historical" site is biased.
The problem is
March 9, 2009 - 03:09 ET by RowaneThat this is just a small symptom of the sickness foisted upon the American people.
This communist ass is trying his level best to ruin our country and the fence-straddlers and libs are aiding and abetting it. I think its time to break out the rails, the tar, and the feathers and march on DC.
If I hear ONE more stupid fool say the word "inherited" I may be moved to vomit. When are they going to realise that it only makes them look foolish?
How the Left is Responding
March 9, 2009 - 07:55 ET by BondPlainBondThis is the response of a lefty to the posting of the WorldNetDaily article at a predominantly leftist community I visit:
Granted, this person has ignored the fact that Wikipedia has appointed themselves the judge and jury regarding what is and what is not relevant to Obama and his presidency.
The birth certificate issue has not been resolved and there are questions looming. Medical records, too. And a college thesis.
Not to mention overlooking the deletions of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright; individuals the left relegated to "Status: Unimportant" the moment the media said these individuals were unimportant.
The hypocrisy and delusion of the left is outrageous and frightening.
The direct result of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America ? It's sure looking that way.
White House Staff
March 9, 2009 - 08:02 ET by BondPlainBondThe White House employed two (very) young men to a 'new' department. Their only job is to read newspapers and scour the web for Obama-related articles. They were shown in a photograph, and named, in a "this is the team" kind of article published by one of the major liberal-leaning magazines or newspapers. They were pictured in front of the White House, leaning on a car, reading newspapers. I am unable to find my bookmark to provide a quick look-see, but, these are the two that pop into my mind whenever an arbitrary deletion/non-specified revision occurs at the White House website or at Wikipedia.
Nice work, Bond
March 9, 2009 - 08:22 ET by BlondeIt would be great if you could find a link for that.
I hope he fails, too.
Hey, Blonde! I Finally Found That Link!
March 11, 2009 - 02:55 ET by BondPlainBondTHE NEWS-TRACKING TEAM
From left: TIM SKOCZEK, JORDAN MISHKIN, JESSE LEWIN, and CONOR WHELAN, media monitors.
“We almost never sleep. From three a.m. to three a.m., we’re constantly finding news and updates, keeping everyone aware of what’s going on, and being ready to respond.” —Jesse Lewin
The History clean-up has started
March 9, 2009 - 09:14 ET by szampLike any socialist regime does, negative information will be removed from records and critics will be silenced.
Rewriting History
March 9, 2009 - 10:05 ET by slickwillie2001In the days of Stalin and Lenin, revising history was a lot of work. Many photographs had to be reworked extensively to remove figures later deemed to be no longer supportive of the leadership. This was in the days when retouching was basically done with a paintbrush on a negative. There are many examples of their rework to see. Some of them are quite good, some not so good.
Today, revising history is just a matter of a few keystrokes. So much easier.
Without looking at other comments...
March 9, 2009 - 10:33 ET by jawebster1I bet someone has already mentioned that this administration is starting to look more and more like Stalin's USSR everyday. Now I'll take a look. Jim Webster
Just getting started
March 9, 2009 - 10:54 ET by general companyI imagine all of Obama's freinds and associates pages are well on there way to being scrubed of all refrances of Obama as well
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ministry of truth
March 9, 2009 - 11:46 ET by tpmintxHow long before there is a "Czar of Truth" hired by the administration? Maybe the admins at Wiki are applying for the job...
They don't need to hire anyone,....
March 9, 2009 - 14:34 ET by Prester John....Emmanuel or some other aparatchik in the WH just needs to pick up the phone and call the appropriate person at Wikipedia, CNN, the AP, MSNBC.......
What they also left out...
March 9, 2009 - 16:27 ET by NewHampshireThey forgot to say he ran on the socialist party platform as recently as 1996 under the "New Party"... as their candidate, or that he was supported by the CPUSA and other socialist and communist parties.
One thing his bio does show is the gross lack of accomplishment or experience.... you can't make that stuff up.
Wikipedia is committed to a 'neutral point of view'...NOT!
March 9, 2009 - 17:23 ET by SasquatchI found the following quote on Wikipedia's home page...
"The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view."
Nice to see that they're living up to their own standards...
Anyone interested in viewing this can look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F
Let them hang themselves
March 10, 2009 - 10:57 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby It's simple. Don't use wikipedia. Let them "fail". We don't need any more of the B.S. from the socialists.