Posted on 03/08/2009 4:53:35 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
WingNutDaily article. Nuff said.
“WingNutDaily article. Nuff said.”
I am sure you prefer the New York Slimes.
The act of publishing the article is of itself, enough of an error. It's birther lunacy.
Are they wrong?
What? Are you a obama supporter that thinks that his questionable citizenship shouldn't be an issue?
That is your defense of what you said.
That's it?
Really?
You blather and shoot the messenger, and when called on it, you jump and down and say that website cannot publish anything because you said so?
I think you missed your calling. You should have been an editor for the People's Daily Pyongyang Journal.
The details of the article may or may not be accurate.
Publishing such an article is ridiculous. It just feeds the birther frenzy.
If I was running an online encyclopedia, I would delete birther propaganda too. And I’m well on the right side of the political spectrum.
Birthers are our version of truthers. It’s irresponsible to feed them.
His eligibility to be president is a serious issue with those of us who believe the Constitution to be the law of the land.
He could have avoided this whole controversy by providing a valid birth certificate. He didn’t.
That leaves him open to suspicion that he’s not a natural born citizen, not an insignificant issue for someone who wants to be president. If he had nothing to hide, he would have produced it,
That's the whole thing. A lack of information is a lack of information. It creates doubt. When the information is known or said to exist and easily produced but instead is kept hidden the doubt becomes suspicion. That suspicion is not at all unreasonable under the circumstances.
Wikipedia deserves no credibility. Its structure is counter to any serious notion of scholarship. It is an encyclopedia for boob tube boobs. The ultimate manifestation of GIGO.
Don’t worry!
Don’t sweat current events.
A century from now the most downloaded image from the net will be Obama with a necklace of skulls.
/just joking...or not.
Wow, google has be cleansed of that statement.
From clusty.com
http://obamaspeeches.com/031-Confirmation-of-Judge-John-Roberts-Obama-Speech.htm
he can run, be he can’t hide...and Hussein’s birth certificate question will just not fade away as much as the Lefties would like it to...and sooner or later it’s gonna bite him right in the ass. LOL
They are accurate. Even Wikipedia acknowledged they are doing this.
You haven't disputed that, because you cannot. Well, you can try, but you will just dig yourself a deeper hole.
Publishing such an article is ridiculous. It just feeds the birther frenzy.
You sure like that "birther" word.
What exactly is it about World Net Daily you don't like? I find their articles on what is happening in Israel to be without parallel. Are they accurate 100% of the time? No. But this site runs pieces by Ann Coulter, Pat Buchannan, Chuck Norris, Roger Hedgecock, Alan Keyes, and other prominent conservatives.
I have seen many articles where they were dead on, and the only media that took the lead.
Is it their pro-Israel stance that has you out of sorts?
If not, what? Specific criticism please, and provide links to the articles you want to question. No more hand waving.
Thanks.
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.