Lunes, 09 de marzo de 2009
 
Home » Activism, Eligibility, Headline, POTUS, WorldNetDaily

Wikipedia Censoring and Banning for the President

Submitted by Phil on Mon, Mar 9, 200915 Comments
Wikipedia Censoring and Banning for the President

WorldNetDaily is reporting – and Drudge is also noting — that certain administrators at Wikipedia are censoring and banning those individuals who have edited the President’s wiki entry with the fact that his eligibility has been questioned:

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.

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.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a “fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.”

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain’s Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND’s coverage.

When the user “Jerusalem21″ tried to repost the entry about Obama’s eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.

Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website’s rules.

Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama’s Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website’s encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

“Administrators,” Starling said, “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.”

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words “Barack Obama” brings up the president’s Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama’s official websites.

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.

It is a known fact that this President has been questioned over his citizenship;

It is a known fact that this President’s online certification of live birth is likely not substantial enough to be conclusive either way to establish his eligibility to be President;

It is a known fact that many federal officeholders have never claimed to have taken the time to investigate public records depositories to determine this President’s eligibility;

It is a known fact that while there are many who believe that folks who question the President’s eligibility for the presidency are “nuts,” “birthers,” “birfers,” and various other pejoratives, this issue still continues to receive coverage in the press, simply for the fact that nobody really knows who this President is;

It is a known fact that the following documentation concerning this President’s past has never been available for public perusal since at least the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign:

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certificate of Live Birth — Released – 
Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released – 
Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

And yet, even when couched in quite reasonably neutral language, Wikipedia believes that it needs to censor and ban users who dare state the obvious?

Allow me to demonstrate:

  • Going to this link shows President Obama’s actual page as it’s seen by anyone who visits the Internet’s seventh most popular site;
  • Going to this link shows an historical entry with an eligibility section in the article containing verbiage that could hardly be construed as “fringe;”
  • Going to this link shows an historical entry with a Citizenship section that simply points to a Conspiracy page notating that Mr. Obama’s citizenship has been questioned;
  • Going to this link shows the actual page of the “conspiracy theories” — as WikiPedia has allowed them to be termed (how gracious of them!) — yet will not link this page to the President’s page.

So, for some reason, Wikipedia has taken it upon itself to allow for the questioning of the President to be posted, but refuses to allow — and subsequently bans – users who dare make mention of such questioning directly on the President’s page.

Some may say, “Well, Phil, they are a private organization and they can do whatever they please with the content that’s posted on their site.” To which I shall reply, “Really? Shall I begin deleting and banning commenters on my site who disagree with what I post? After all, some have already approached me suggesting to me that I’m somehow obligated to make certain disclaimers about what’s found on my site, and yet I’m nowhere near the same Internet ranking as Wikipedia is, nor do I in any way claim to be unbiased in my content.”

At the very least, I can certainly claim to be a better steward of information than can Wikipedia; I allow all to comment with their respective views regardless of whether or not I agree with them. It’s too bad that Wikipedia is not allowing themselves to be a better example.

-Phil


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios