Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wikipedia’s “Barack Obama” article violates Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy
wordpress ^ | April 7, 2015 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on 04/07/2015 7:29:47 AM PDT by grundle

Wikipedia’s “Barack Obama” article violates Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy

Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy states:

“All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”


Wikipedia’s “Barack Obama” article includes a section called “Cultural and political image.” According to Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy, this section should contain both positive and negative things. However, almost everything in the section is positive. This is what the section said as of March 29, 2015:

Obama’s family history, upbringing, and Ivy League education differ markedly from those of African-American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement. Expressing puzzlement over questions about whether he is “black enough,” Obama told an August 2007 meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists that “we’re still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong.” Obama acknowledged his youthful image in an October 2007 campaign speech, saying: “I wouldn’t be here if, time and again, the torch had not been passed to a new generation.”

Obama is frequently referred to as an exceptional orator. During his pre-inauguration transition period and continuing into his presidency, Obama has delivered a series of weekly Internet video addresses.

According to the Gallup Organization, Obama began his presidency with a 68% approval rating before gradually declining for the rest of the year, and eventually bottoming out at 41% in August 2010, a trend similar to Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s first years in office. He experienced a small poll bounce shortly after Osama bin Laden’s death on May 2, 2011. This bounce lasted until around June 2011, when his approval numbers dropped back to where they were previously. His approval ratings rebounded around the same time as his reelection in 2012, with polls showing an average job approval of 52% shortly after his second inauguration. Despite him dropping to 39% in his approval ratings in late-2013 due to the ACA roll-out, he has climbed to 50% in late January 2015 according to the Gallup Organization. Polls show strong support for Obama in other countries, and before being elected President he met with prominent foreign figures including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italy’s Democratic Party leader and Mayor of Rome Walter Veltroni, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In a February 2009 poll conducted in Western Europe and the U.S. by Harris Interactive for France 24 and the International Herald Tribune, Obama was rated as the most respected world leader, as well as the most powerful. In a similar poll conducted by Harris in May 2009, Obama was rated as the most popular world leader, as well as the one figure most people would pin their hopes on for pulling the world out of the economic downturn.

Obama won Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards for abridged audiobook versions of Dreams from My Father in February 2006 and for The Audacity of Hope in February 2008. His concession speech after the New Hampshire primary was set to music by independent artists as the music video “Yes We Can”, which was viewed 10 million times on YouTube in its first month and received a Daytime Emmy Award. In December 2008 and in 2012, Time magazine named Obama as its Person of the Year. The 2008 awarding was for his historic candidacy and election, which Time described as “the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments”. On May 25, 2011, Obama became the first President of the United States to address both houses of the UK Parliament in Westminster Hall, London. This was only the 5th occurrence since the start of the 20th century, of a head of state being extended this invitation, following Charles de Gaulle in 1960, Nelson Mandela in 1996, Queen Elizabeth II in 2002 and Pope Benedict XVI in 2010.

On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Obama accepted this award in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2009, with “deep gratitude and great humility.” The award drew a mixture of praise and criticism from world leaders and media figures. Obama’s peace prize was called a “stunning surprise” by The New York Times. Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and the third to become a Nobel laureate while in office.

The section’s almost complete lack of negative content is a violation of Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy.

So, in order to make the section comply with Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy, a crazy person who lives in my apartment building added the following reliably sourced content to that section on April 2, 2015:

In March 2015, Associated Press wrote, “The Obama administration set a new record again for more often than ever censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.”

In February 2013, ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who covered Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama, said “The president’s day-to-day policy development… is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.” In October 2013, Compton said that Obama was the “least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.”

In May 2013, the New York Times wrote, “With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.” In May 2013, the Washington Post wrote “To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based.”

In October 2013, New York Times reporter David Sanger said, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

In August 2013, the Obama administration illegally seized documents from the home of Audrey Hudson, a reporter who lived in Shady Side, Maryland.

Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at Associated Press, said, “the Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention.”

In February 2014, the Obama administration announced that it planned to put government employees inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities.

In March 2014, New York Times reporter James Risen said Obama was, “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

During one year of Obama’s presidency, from 2013 to 2014, the U.S. ranking on the World Press Freedom Index fell by 14 places, dropping from #32 to #46.

In November 2013, 38 major news organizations sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency. The letter was singed by all the major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the McClatchy Co., which owns 30 daily newspapers across the country. In July 2014, 38 media organizations (not necessarily the same ones) sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency. That letter can be read here.

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas said, “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and have controlled… Nixon didn’t try to do that… They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Unfortunately, that content was deleted, and the account of the user who added it was banned.

Soon afterward, that same content was again added, deleted, added, deleted, added, and deleted. All three of those other accounts that added the information were banned.



TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Conspiracy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: academicbias; barackobama; blogpimp; cultureofcorruption; mediabias; obama; obamascandals; obamunism; orwelliannightmare; revisionisthistory; stalinisttactics; wikibias; wikipedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: grundle
The page is probably being controlled by a consortium of members of NAMBOLA (North American Media-Barack Obama Love Association).

NAMBOLA - the love that dares not speak its name.

motto - "We're not as bad as NAMBLA, as far as YOU know!"

21 posted on 04/07/2015 8:46:42 AM PDT by kiryandil (Egging the battleship USS Sarah Palin from their little Progressive rowboats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

No. And that has never been verified by reliable sources.


22 posted on 04/07/2015 9:43:05 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears; kennedy
...TV episodes, movie spoilers and biographies of comic book characters...

It's a good place to start for the above, and for current music.

You should point your students to the article "Wikipedia's climate doctor"
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

This is about "climate change trolls" on Wikipedia, and how they operate their little scam. One of the major players was Greenie whacko William M. Connolley, who has been since banned from editing climate articles on Wikipedia.

23 posted on 04/07/2015 9:43:14 AM PDT by kiryandil (Egging the battleship USS Sarah Palin from their little Progressive rowboats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

Well, if you want to know the mass of an electron, it’s a pretty good source.


24 posted on 04/07/2015 9:44:07 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
25 posted on 04/07/2015 9:45:27 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Heh heh. I know the history of the original source of that picture.


26 posted on 04/07/2015 9:46:22 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

Wikipedia does cite legitimate news articles, which your students can use as sources.


27 posted on 04/07/2015 9:48:12 AM PDT by grundle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grundle
This is one of the reasons that I take EVERYTHING in Wikipedia with a big grain of salt, and why I automatically REJECT Wikipedia as a legitimate source of info. If I see Wikipedia as a link or a citation, I ignore that information and find what I need about a topic elsewhere.

ANYBODY who trusts or relies on Wikipedia as the sole or main source of information on ANY topic, is making a wrong choice. Wikipedia is FILLED with biased and flat-out WRONG information, yet too many people, including a vast number of FReepers, assume that if it's in Wikipedia, it's not wrong. Such people set themselves up to be manipulated in a very extreme way.

SKIP WIKIPEDIA if you have any brains.

28 posted on 04/07/2015 9:55:43 AM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears
My students get upset when I tell them they can’t use Wikipedia as a source. When they ask why I tell them Wikipedia is garbage. Then they get even more upset.

It is absolutely shocking how many people, including so many FReepers, are gullible enough to give Wikipedia the same credibility they'd give a REAL encyclopedia. Just mind-boggling.

29 posted on 04/07/2015 10:00:52 AM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: grundle
Well, if you want to know the mass of an electron, it’s a pretty good source.

There are other sources that are better. Relying on Wikipedia is the lazy way out and those who get stung because Wikipedia misinformed them, DESERVE IT.

30 posted on 04/07/2015 10:04:06 AM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grundle; Arm_Bears
Wikipedia does cite legitimate news articles, which your students can use as sources.

The students would be better off and learn more if they discovered the legitimate news articles by doing their own digging. If the articles are legitimate, the students can find them some other way and learn MORE by doing their own work.

Wikipedia is for lazy folks too willing to be led by the nose under the guise of a shortcut. A great fiend of mine who is also a screaming communist leftist (yes, he is a dear friend in spite of all that) has Wikipedia as his home page and he implicitly trusts every word in it.

I wasn't surprised when I learned it about him.

I AM surprised when I see so many FReepers who don't get how much better off they are by seeking other sources of info than Wikipedia.

31 posted on 04/07/2015 10:12:02 AM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

> Greenie whacko William M. Connolley, who has been since banned from editing climate articles on Wikipedia

Partially correct, due to later amendment; they let Connolley back into the climate change topic, broadly, he is restricted from editing the biographies of people involved in the topic. So the “global warming” article is ok, but “Christopher Monckton” is not.


32 posted on 04/07/2015 11:02:35 AM PDT by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Finny

“...give Wikipedia the same credibility they’d give a REAL encyclopedia.”

It pays to be careful with the “real” encyclopedias! My parents bought a set when I was in grade school and I was amazed to find information on our home state which I KNEW, even at that age, to be incorrect.


33 posted on 04/07/2015 12:41:34 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Racism is racism, regardless of the race of the racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

Too true!!


34 posted on 04/07/2015 5:26:25 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Wikipedia is a known leftist biased site. It’s fine if you want to look up rock bands, not to be trusted for anything political or social.


35 posted on 04/07/2015 7:45:52 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grundle

Those quotes were sourced so unbelievably neutrally, from the Obama favorite media sources. And yet they weren’t allowed in.

I remember learning about Pravda in the Soviet Union and just getting shivers at not having a free press. Ha, didn’t think we would be worse in my own lifetime.

This would be a question I would want a free media to ask. Just to ask the thin air, just to talk about it. Why can’t this be written about? Why won’t wikipedia allow it? I imagine everyone with access to airwaves is shushed by their bosses, but why are their bosses, why are these news corporations, not shouting it to the rooftops? If they all joined together for a day of discussion (using their talking points a la “gravitas” et al) on the air of this least transparent admin, then obama can’t ban them ALL from access to the WH. That is their ace in the hole. Obama can’t kill them all. They got together for the letter; they need to get together and get this discussed by the American People, who are supposed to own the government.


36 posted on 04/07/2015 8:02:54 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson