It may be more truthiness than truth, but Wikipedia still has some standards. The free, user-generated encyclopedia makes sure any mention of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president is deleted from his page within minutes. The argument that Obama is not a natural US citizen has been rejected by the Supreme Court and Wikipedia it seems.
But some fear the lookout against offensive content goes too far. Neither Jeremiah Wright or former domestic terrorist William Ayers show up on Obama's page, even though his connection with the two men gained a lot of attention during the campaign.
Wikipedia, a site that embodies and perhaps produces conventional wisdom, is monitored by trusted community members who have access to extra tools that allow them to delete certain entries. Do you trust them?
John Lewis
Ajc
3.1 Phillip Lim
Does anyone really take Wikipedia seriously?
1I don't trust Wikipedia, but I like them a wee bit better knowing they have some standards.
2I don't trust Wikipedia but it's good they're fighting the rumors that they know are going to be spread as fact.
3The birth certificate thing I agree with. But keeping off Ayers and Wright is just messing with history.
4well if you are using wikipedia for history or facts then you are plumb out of luck, i mean none of my professors will let you use it as a source in a paper.......
5yea no one should use it but lets be honest, most people probably do.
6There are a couple of people im in class with who have used it. I am not sure if they were spoken to about it or not. But I am amazed they used it to begin with.
7I know people who live and breathe Wikipedia as the truth. I'm glad to hear there are professors and teachers who won't allow it as a source.
8"The birth certificate thing I agree with. But keeping off Ayers and Wright is just messing with history. "
I totally agree. As long as the information is factual, it should be included. I don't consider anything I find on wikipedia gospel, but it's a good place to get your bearing on lots of topics.
9And to find real sources, of course, through their citations.
10I think they stopped allowing people to add that stuff in just because of the sheer length of his page. I just went there for fun and his page is almost as long as George Washington! That's just overkill.
11As long as they don't allow any changes to any other President's page, I don't have a problem with it.
12wikipedia is full of misinformation. Unfortunately too many people think everything they read there is 100% true, and it's just not. If you're using WIKI for news, then you deserve what you get.
13Wikipedia has never been a reliable source of information. It is a private entity that answers to no one except for the people or companies who choose to "donate" to their page. Look the Africian Elephant's page is locked because of Stephen Colbert's request that the Colbert Nation edit the page. The PeTA page is locked because many people tried to edit the page to reflect the true activities, links to ALF terrorism and true anti domestic animal agenda of that organization so PeTA paid Wiki to lock the page. Many questionable organizations and companies pay Wikipedia to basically run a glowing press release for them and to lock the pages.
Most controversial or senior politician's and ex-President's Wiki pages are locked - Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Al Gore, GEORGE WASHINGTON and Abraham Lincoln's page are all locked to the general public. Some how I don't think Washington or Lincoln's people are writing letters to Wiki requesting their pages be locked, it's just Wiki's non-objective approach to information.
So locking Obama's page is just par for Wiki selective information course.
14Does every public figure have the same "safeguards", if so fine, if not why not?
15Thirded that it seems way more weird for them to keep Ayers and Wright off. As to fairness, well, it's a private company, so they can put up whatever they want on their website, just like I could make a website with ONLY stuff about Wright and Ayers. If they keep up the censoring they will lose readers/users so it's a risk they take.
16I dont trust the Wiki, but i agree that if they are keeping his page clean, then they better sweep everyone elses too.
17why not mention it and later have a sentence that reiterates that it's been shot down by the Supreme Court? either way, Obama's sitting in the White House.
18The people behind Wikipedia are obviously Democrats or Obama-fanatics.
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.