Posted on 09/02/2018 6:49:31 PM PDT by grundle
Wikipedia has a policy called “Neutral point of view,” which states the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
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 editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
I agree with this policy.
Wikipedia has an article called “Presidency of Barack Obama.” The most recent version of the article is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama
That article has a section called “Transparency.”
The section includes Obama’s claim that he had the “most transparent” administration in U.S. history. I’m glad the article includes that claim.
Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy requires that section to include all points of view, as reported by reliable sources.
However, Wikipedia violates its own policy by repeatedly censoring criticism of Obama’s so-called “transparency” in that section.
A crazy person who lives in my apartment building recently added the following content to that section:
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.”[Citation] 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.”[Citation]
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.”[Citation] 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.”[Citation]
In October 2013, New York Times reporter David Sanger said, “This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”[Citation]
In August 2013, the Obama administration illegally seized documents from the home of Audrey Hudson, a reporter who lived in Shady Side, Maryland.[Citation] Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at Associated Press, said, “the Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention.”[Citation]
In February 2014, the Obama administration announced that it planned to put government employees inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities.[Citation][Citation]
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.”[Citation]
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.[Citation]
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.[Citation] In July 2014, 38 media organizations (not necessarily the same ones) sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency.[Citation] 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.”[Citation]
All of that content was deleted from the article just 13 minutes after it was added. Here is the diff showing the deletion.
This is not nearly the first time that that content was censored from that article.
Other instances of that content (or similar content that criticized Obama’s lack of transparency) being censored from that article can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
bttt
Perhaps if your neighbor was more concise and used the citations in footnotes.
“This is not nearly the first time that that content was censored from that article.”
Why would anyone use Wikipedia and why would anyone be concerned about the editorial actions of something as irrelevant and Wikipedia?
Wow,that crazy “neighbor’ is not so crazy after all.
.
There is nothing neutral about Wiki. Never has been and sadly because of how they are set up in regards to content control—posting and deletion—never will.
I agree. I use Wikipedia only to look for specific things like a date something occurred, etc. Anything beyond that is likely corrupt to the Left of truth.
Wicked-pedia is atheist/communist.
Such leftists are never neutral.
Most transparently racist.
Most transparently communist.
Most transparently corrupt.
Most transparently unconcerned with following or enforcing the law.
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.