Quote:

---

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, one Wikipedia user 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 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.

Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio

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.

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."

The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.

---

Quote:

---

Chuck, so what you're saying is that you don't believe there has been any media bias towards BO at all, and that any one believes otherwise is a conspiracy nut?

---

Quote:

---

I believe that President Obama got slightly better media treatment during the primaries with Hillary Clinton. But after winning the nomination, things evened out and became more critical. Remember, the amount of media coverage is not the issue. You have to actually analyze what is being said. And with that measure, there were as many (or more) negative stories as there were positive ones.

The birth certificate stuff just boils down to racism. Some people just cannot deal with having black president so they hold tight to these wild conspiracies instead of facing reality.

---

Quote:

---

Chuck, so what you're saying is that you don't believe there has been any media bias towards BO at all, and that any one believes otherwise is a conspiracy nut?

---

Quote:

---

It's like when they tried to accuse the Clinton's of murder not once but twice. They know that 10-20% of the far right wing will believe everything they say.

Or on the other side, which accused Bush of planning or ignoring the warning signs of 9/11 so he could start invading oil rich countries. Of course it's not true, but 10-20% of the far left will believe it because they hated Bush.

---

To all of you who claim media bias towards Obama, where were you when the media and the Congress gave the Bushies free reign to wipe their asses with the Constitution after 9/11? As a civil libertarian, I was outraged.

Where was the outrage when we invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, killed the Head of State's two sons, and put the dead bodies on display in the media for all to see, against all traditions of warfare?

How responsible was the media in informing the public, when such a large percentage of people thought Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks?

*******

Let's face it, "news" has become business, and the business does better when it entertains. How does Limbaugh do so well? He is obviously biased. So are Olberman, Maddow, etc. This is the new media, striving for ratings by catering to their audience. This is the new politics, very partisan. Obama wants to change that, well, I wish him well, but it will be an uphill fight.

Remember some of the things McCain had to put up with from his crowds on the campaign trail? To his credit, he told one woman that Obama was not a Muslum, etc. Well, I think Fox News, etc. had a bias against Obama, and MSNBC had a bias towards him. Duh.

That's all fine and well, as far as I am concerned. But when untruths that are from far left field begin to be believed by double digit percentages of the country, the media has failed in their responsibility. And when people in power blatantly abuse that power, break laws, and nothing is said, the media has failed in their responsibility.

Many journalists now admit they were asleep at the switch before the Iraq invasion. Were they also asleep when the seeds of this financial crisis were being sown? Interesting dig, for someone more talented and connected than me.

I did think it was a funny picture. Here's another.



-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

Quote:

---

Aaron Klein, the WorldNetDaily writer who invented a scandal about Wikipedia censoring an article about Barack Obama, demanded we retract that claim because, in fact, he had someone else do the work for him. According to Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for the extreme-right-wing website, he is not "Jerusalem21," the Wikipedia user whose rejected edits to the Obama article formed the centerpiece of Klein's reporting. Wired and other publications raised questions about Jerusalem21's identity when a blogger noted that Jerusalem21's sole contributions to the free online compendium were edits to the Obama page and Klein's own Wikipedia article. "I am not 'Jerusalem21,' but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story," Klein writes, adding that he "personally" oversaw "Jerusalem21"'s edits. In other words, Klein masterminded the creation of the supposed scandal he wrote about. Klein doesn't see things quite that way. He claims our article was "defamatory." But the truth cannot defame. Klein himself freely admits that he was intimately involved in the creation of the supposed news event he wrote about. Here's Klein having his say:


Mr. Thomas ? I demand an immediate retraction of your Gawker article today, which is defamatory. (http://gawker.com/5167585/right+wing-writer-invents-his-own-obama-wikipedia-scandal) Your headline states as fact, "Right-Wing Writer Invents His Own Obama Wikipedia Scandal." You then quote from Wired.com, which, you relate, stated that one Wikipedia user cited in my article is "almost certainly Klein himself." "Almost certainly" is not enough to justify your very certain, defamatory title.

First, I am not "Jerusalem21," but I do know the Wikipedia user (he works with me and does research for me), and I worked with him on this story, which focused on investigating allegations I had received from others of Wikipedia scrubbing Obama's page. I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. For your information, often investigative journalists engage in exactly this kind of testing ? like seeing if they can bypass mandatory disclosures while donating to a candidate (several newspapers did this prior to the November election), or if they can register a dog to vote in Illinois. Thus, even if I had personally edited Obama's page as a test to investigate allegations of scrubbing, this is entirely legitimate journalistic practice.

Second and more importantly, your article is entirely misleading; it paints a picture that my piece from yesterday was reliant simply upon "Jerusalem21" being barred from entering information on Wikipedia that is critical of Obama, suggesting the controversy was both "invented" and based on that one account. But my article from yesterday notes that "multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately." The article further notes that WND monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc) was scrubbed. This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references. Further, WND published a follow-up today noting many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, backed-up criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page. My article from yesterday noted what is clearly a major trend at Wikipedia and is a very legitimate piece. I demand your Gawker article be immediately corrected. The title must be changed, the false accusations about "Jerusalem21" must be updated and the article should note the wider trend on Wikipedia outlined above, instead of wrongly claiming the controversy is limited to one user. Do not simply and misleadingly update your article just by stating that I know "Jerusalem21" and leaving in the defamatory portrayal that I somehow invented a controversy, when indeed there is indisputably a much wider, documented trend.

Sincerely,
Aaron Klein
Jerusalem bureau chief, WorldNetDaily.com

---

Quote:

---

To all of you who claim media bias towards Obama, where were you when the media and the Congress gave the Bushies free reign to wipe their asses with the Constitution after 9/11? As a civil libertarian, I was outraged.

---

Quote:

---

Where was the outrage when we invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, killed the Head of State's two sons, and put the dead bodies on display in the media for all to see, against all traditions of warfare?

How responsible was the media in informing the public, when such a large percentage of people thought Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks?

---

Quote:

---

Let's face it, "news" has become business, and the business does better when it entertains. How does Limbaugh do so well? He is obviously biased. So are Olberman, Maddow, etc. This is the new media, striving for ratings by catering to their audience. This is the new politics, very partisan. Obama wants to change that, well, I wish him well, but it will be an uphill fight.

---

Quote:

---

Remember some of the things McCain had to put up with from his crowds on the campaign trail? To his credit, he told one woman that Obama was not a Muslum, etc. Well, I think Fox News, etc. had a bias against Obama, and MSNBC had a bias towards him. Duh.

---

Quote:

---

That's all fine and well, as far as I am concerned. But when untruths that are from far left field begin to be believed by double digit percentages of the country, the media has failed in their responsibility. And when people in power blatantly abuse that power, break laws, and nothing is said, the media has failed in their responsibility.

---

Quote:

---

Many journalists now admit they were asleep at the switch before the Iraq invasion. Were they also asleep when the seeds of this financial crisis were being sown? Interesting dig, for someone more talented and connected than me.

---

Quote:

---

I did think it was a funny picture. Here's another.

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea why the media decided to show the bodies. My thought at seeing them was one of relief, because I knew they would never torture or murder anyone else in their personal prison again.

---

Quote:

---

It always fascinates me how some people can excuse wrongs committed by such horrendous human beings, just to further their own political belief system.

---

Quote:

---

The media was under the same delusions the rest of the public was. All the intelligence said that he was indeed attempting to build weapons of mass destruction.

---

Quote:

---

I remember very vividly mowing my lawn after seeing the pictures, and how ashamed I was to have been a part of the U.S. Army for 7 years. And how that used to be something I took great pride in. And how the Bushies made me ashamed of most things I used to take pride in.

---

Quote:

---

I agree, if you are talking about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. as well as the criminals on the other side. So, off with their heads. You do believe two wrongs make a right, since you are trying to dismiss our misconduct by saying our enemy is worse.

---

Quote:

---

Bullshit. At the very least, that is opinion. We were lied into this mess.

---

Quote:

---

I was not addressing Wiki, I try to ignore it, partly because they publish real names of porn folk. Sorry I followed the trail off the OP's point.

---

Quote:

---

As far as wishing Bush to fail, we didn't need to, he was so terrible folks like me just kinda shuddered and hoped the country would pull its collective head out of its ass. And anyone who thinks he could pull off any competent part of the 9-11 attacks, is nuts. Needs a tin foil hat. His laziness and inattention helped a whole lot, but I don't think Osama would want his kind of help.

---

Quote:

---

As far as war in general, it comes with a price. The men and women who have been forever scarred, physically mangled, or killed have purchased, I hope, a period of relative sanity and peace, like the Vietnam vets did. Invading the whole Afghanistan country was also a mistake, just like it was a mistake to give massive military aid to the Taliban against the Russians. I hope we will lose the nationalism (flag-waving ass-sitters) rampant now, and usher in a long period where people will say, "We don't want another Vietnam."

---

Quote:

---

And I salute then Lieutenant George W. Bush for his service in the Guard. A commission, pilot wings, and honorable discharge, in time of war. Well done.

---

Quote:

---

The media was under the same delusions the rest of the public was. All the intelligence said that he was indeed attempting to build weapons of mass destruction.

---

Quote:

---

That’s the problem the peace for the sake of peace people aren’t ever going to sanction any military action even if an overwhelming majority of Americans do deem it necessary.

---

Quote:

---

With that being said I’ll suggest that the current shame you feel over your military service has less to do with Bush and more to do with a change in your political ideology over time.

---

Quote:

---

Our military had control over whether the images would be shown.

---

Quote:

---

This is not about what Hussein did. Again, two wrongs don't make a right, and saying we shouldn't investigate what happened because Saddam was a monster, is wrong. We have tarnished our image and terrorized an entire country for several years, tortured, etc. and we must address this.

---

Quote:

---

Many of us believe Bush Co. wanted to go into Iraq from the start, 9-11 gave them the excuse, and they cooked the intel. I believe it.

---

Quote:

---

Damn right. Do you think democracy means if we can get a big enough mob together, we can attack? Or that thoughtful people should follow the herd when we see a better way? That's the type of massive group think that got us into this bed of quicksand. And I don't follow it wishing ill for our country because we dislike the leaders. I wanted Bush to pull his head out of his ass and let our country succeed, but he did almost everything wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Horseshit. You don't know me, or my history. I was proud of my service and a liberal before Bush, and I'm proud now. But there was a point when in Army Intelligence and working for the NSA were being raked through a mud puddle by the Bush administration. Ideally, you would not hear a peep about these things.

---

Quote:

---

And how the Bushies made me ashamed of most things I used to take pride in.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah McCain is a hero, I always said that. So is John Kerry. I still can't understand how the Republicans threw mud on someone with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.

---

Quote:

---

I about fell out of my chair when Orin Hatch told the world we were listening to Osama's cell phone!! Day after 9-11. Holy Mother Fucking Shit! We could have had Osama and the biggest portion of his organization if the Bushies would have been competent. But they wanted to spread democracy, or some such bullshit. Jesus holy fucking Christ on a Christmas Tree, no wonder I felt ashamed at what happened.

---