Eligibility issue sparks 'edit war'
Wikipedia blocks users from
posting criticism of Obama
Posted: March 09, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
A WND article reporting yesterday that Wikipedia had been scrubbing President Obama's biography of criticism has resulted in an "edit war" on the website in which a large number of users were barred from posting on key issues, including any mention of challenges to Obama's eligibility.
Ultimately, administrators at Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited by its users, entirely locked Obama's page so that only top editors could make changes to the entry – and only if a change is supported by a consensus of editors.
A perusal through Obama's Wikipedia entry yesterday found 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, were not once mentioned, even though the associations received significant media attention and became themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Following WND's report on Obama's Wikipedia page, the news outlet monitored the page as scores of users attempted to add entries about eligibility concerns, and the president's past associations with Ayers and Wright. All attempts to post on Ayers or Obama's birth certificate were removed within minutes by the site's volunteer administrators.
Read the whole article here...
GR4U - Of course no one should be shocked by this. The Left has a long tradition of re-writting history or news to suit its own view of things. Just remember that "some are more equal than others".
Wikipedia blocks users from
posting criticism of Obama
Posted: March 09, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
A WND article reporting yesterday that Wikipedia had been scrubbing President Obama's biography of criticism has resulted in an "edit war" on the website in which a large number of users were barred from posting on key issues, including any mention of challenges to Obama's eligibility.
Ultimately, administrators at Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited by its users, entirely locked Obama's page so that only top editors could make changes to the entry – and only if a change is supported by a consensus of editors.
A perusal through Obama's Wikipedia entry yesterday found 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, were not once mentioned, even though the associations received significant media attention and became themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
Following WND's report on Obama's Wikipedia page, the news outlet monitored the page as scores of users attempted to add entries about eligibility concerns, and the president's past associations with Ayers and Wright. All attempts to post on Ayers or Obama's birth certificate were removed within minutes by the site's volunteer administrators.
Read the whole article here...
GR4U - Of course no one should be shocked by this. The Left has a long tradition of re-writting history or news to suit its own view of things. Just remember that "some are more equal than others".
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
3 comments:
LOL...I love that picture. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why the hell he was elected. His name is a marketing NIGHTMARE after 911...even if there were no VALID reason not to vote for him...I am surprised all the little red flags of religion, socialism, etc. didn't prevent his election.
I am growing more and more certain that the election process is a sham to provide the sheeple with the illusion of a choice.
What really irritated me is the statement that Robert's "flubbed" the oath. It seemed to me that Obama flubbed it first and then Roberts followed suit, but to read the Wiki entry you'd think it was all Roberts' fault and Obama was perfect.
RKL
Post a Comment