• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
See now there is the thing with quoting Wikipedia Reader, it is censored, and inaccurate, due to the way the info. is accumulated.

Liberals caught lying and censoring again!


Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned

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.

In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:

"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."

As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
WIKIPEDIA EVEN CENSORED ODINGA's SITE BEFORE THE ELECTION
Posted by xinunus on Mar 09, 2009 00:06

I am glad you wrote this article about Wikipedia. Back before the election I was banned from Wikipedia multiple times for trying to post a picture of Obama and Odinga in Kenya on Odinga’s Wikipedia site. These admins that they say are volunteers can track users using special software. That is how they are able to remove information so quick. Wikipedia admins can track Wikipedia sites and the IP addresses of users. To me this is an invasion of privacy. I have been harassed by administrators on Wikipedia for only wanting to post real information even though it was backed with valid sources. I had one admin ban me for an entire month for just wanting to post the picture I mentioned earlier on Odinga’s Wikipedia page. The Wikipedia Admins are not monitored and Wikipedia management will not hear your complaints if you complain about Wikipedia Admins. They only do something about the most serious complaints. What I also find very sad is the fact that in order to become a Wikipedia admin you have to be voted in by other Wikipedia admins. What is even more ironic is most of the Wikipedia admins that remove information from American Democrat Wikipedia pages that they don’t find to their liking are living in places like England and South America. They allow people to be Wikipedia admins on the American Wikipedia website that aren’t even American. Very sad. Thanks again for the article. Very good and it’s about time someone exposes Wikipedia for liberal biased postings.

http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=354
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
More and more it is coming to light, that it is Obama backers, providing the smears, and cover-ups. note: George Soros connection in this post

The liberals probably didn't like the fact that this was a WND article. I thought I'd fill in some additional facts that have come to light., that they don't want to hear either!

A WND journalist, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief broke the story.

First, a fulltime anti-WND blogger named Terry Krepel, who also works for George Soros-backed Media Matters, put his spin on Klein's scoop – claiming falsely that Klein himself was the Wikipedia user dubbed Jerusalem21. In fact, Klein's Jerusalem bureau research assistant is Jerusalem21.

Oooooooh. Big scandal, right?

To verify allegations that Wikipedia quickly censors anti-Obama edits, Klein had his researcher do test postings – and sure enough, he confirmed the allegations. This is what investigative reporters do all the time. As I said, big scandal, right?

But the Obama media amen chorus pretended it was one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91373

George Soros and Obama
"Soros is Obama's principal patron," said Richard Lawrence Poe, co-author with David Horowitz of "The Shadow Party," a critical look at the network of left-wing tax-exempt groups the investor sponsors. The groups in turn doled out money to liberal candidates such as Obama.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29359

Now it seems the UK papers have started to report the truth.

Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims

President Barack Obama was at the centre of an ethics debate last night after it was claimed he has received favourable treatment from the website Wikipedia.


By Mark Coleman in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:44AM GMT 10 Mar 2009
Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Wikipedia', report claims WorldNetDaily.com alleged that any negativity surrounding Barack Obama has been deliberately deleted by Wikipedia Photo: AP

An in-depth report by the online publication WorldNetDaily.com alleged that any negativity surrounding Mr Obama has been deliberately deleted by the online encyclopedia.

Topics routinely "scrubbed", it was claimed, include Mr Obama's alleged ties with such controversial figures as the so-called Weatherman terrorist, Bill Ayers, as well as the religious leader, Rev Jeremiah Wright, even though users had complied with Wikipedia rules requiring them to link additions to credible reports from news outlets.

"The current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Rev Jeremiah Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign," the report said.

In the report, which could provide new ammunition for Mr Obama's critics, journalist Aaron Klein wrote: "A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the president.

"Some of Obama's most controversial affiliations are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year."

It was also claimed that Wikipedia has forcibly prevented any criticism of Mr Obama's alleged inability to serve as Commander in Chief.

"Multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from posting any material on the website for three days," Mr Klein claimed.

In one example of allegedly biased coverage, a user was said to have attempted to add reports over recent controversies surrounding Mr Obama's birth certificate.

But the entry was said to have been removed by a Wikipedia staff member on the basis that the website prohibits "fringe" material, according to WorldNetDaily.com.

By contrast, the study found that coverage pertaining to Mr Obama's predecessor George W. Bush is far from favourable.

For instance, issues such as Mr Bush's alleged battle with substance abuse, along with criticism of his handling of Hurricane Katrina, were easy to find on his entry.

Angela Starling, a spokesperson for Wikipedia, denied that the US president had received preferential treatment.

Mrs Starling said that administrators "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/wikipedia/4965132/Barack-Obama-receives-preferential-treatment-on-Wikipedia-report-claims.html
 
Top