I suppose it is similar to spitting into the wind, but after reading this posting I deleted Wikipedia from my search windows list of usable search engines. Wikipedia should always be read with the caution that entries are often "agendized" without recourse by correcting influences.

I cannot help but think it will be Wikipedia's downfall at some point. The "Internet Age" is still relatively young. Over time this type of propagandizing will be seen for what it is. Or, so goes my hope.

"Don't look at the man behind the curtain!"

I checked Obama's entry

"This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved"

Wright is mentioned but Ayers is not.

Funny, Bush's page, McCain's page, Palin's page, Biden's page are not protected.

So Wikipedia is preventing a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing wingnuts from publishing lies about Barack Obama's citizenship on the Internet.

Wake me up when there's a real story.

George Orwell would be so proud!

No, GarandFan, you are wrong.

1984 involved censorship for the government.

This story, reported by the not entirely credible World Net Daily, involves Wikipedia's determination that unsupported allegations believed only by the insane don't belong in an encylopedia.

Funny, Bush's page, McCain's page, Palin's page, Biden's page are not protected.

Why would anyone waste their time editing the Wikipedia biographies of the three least important people in America today ?

This should be a surprise to nobody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

I'd read some time back that during the campaign Wikipedia jealously guarded the Obama page and any critical material was immediately excised, so this is not new.

Perhaps the best choice as an alternate name for the Wiki-P folks would be: Wikiwashapedia.org (and for you domain name squatters, that one IS AVAILABLE!).

The headline should read: Wikipedia scrubs credibility from its website.

I admit to being sympathetic to certain WND memes, such as the anti-NAU one. But WND's insistence that quack advertisements be integrated with the "headlines" (check for yourself) always bugged me.

Is this a right-wing *fag* site, I would ask myself?

Sure enough, a petition regarding the validity of the election of The Maroon was soon promulgated at WND...BUT!...(but!:)at the cost (to the reader!) of around $10 (for the privilege).

My conclusion: Yes, WND is a *fag* site.

**and by *fag*, I mean political whore; Hitlerite, Clintonite, $$$, Bushite. Whatever pays the rent.

Checked on Wiki: "Mosquito Hawk" (crane fly).

Despite my first-hand, eye-witness testimony(!)
(SUBMITTED!...to the Wiki editors...a year ago) that "mosquito hawks" DO (indeed) feed on mosquitoes, Wikipedia insists that "mosquito hawks" (crane flies) lick fruit (exclusively?) and DON'T eat mosquitoes (AT ALL).

Fucking egg-heads!

Winston Smith is a busy man.

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

Only a dolt is not aware that these right wing wacko hit jobs over his eligibility have been discredited.

Waaaaah waaaaaah waaaaaah. WikiPedia wont let us spread false rumors about Obamas eligibility. Waaaaahhhhhh waaaaaah no fair waaaaah waaaah.

Wiki WHAT ? Wikipedia is a joke.

This is nothing new at Wiki. They are fast being found out to be little more than an extension of the NYT Op Ed section. There's a good deal of zealotry going on in regards to not only people, but issues, such as scrubbing any information that doesn't comport with an almost religious belief in a number of subjects. This one was just as bad.

Do you wingnuts also think Bush's wikipedia page should talk about he planned the 9/11 attacks?

I love you Birthers--you're a weight around the neck of what few sane Republicans are left.

Never been to the site and never will. ww

"Do you wingnuts also think Bush's wikipedia page should talk about he planned the 9/11 attacks?"-geek

George and Marvin Bush definitely had inside information regarding the 9/11 conspiracy. No doubt, whatsoever.

Also missing from Obama's Wikipedia entry is his ride on a space ship to a distant planet where he unconditionally met with talking unicorns about their plot to make us all their slaves.

This whole story is just World Nut Daily's attempt to sell a few more copies of their book about Obama's Fake Birth Certificate.

Still holding on to the Fake Birth Certificate story. Sad.

Questions about his citizenship aside (which I think are bogus), any objective observer can see the bias contained within the bios.

I've never heard of World Net Daily, and they may be a nutty rag, but they make a good point.

Truth is truth.

Using wikipedia for political subjects is just plain nuts - because too many people have too many axes to grind when it comes to 'facts'. They WILL change how things are presented (if they can) to reflect their views.

When it come to history - use it as a starting point, but verify the important points (and such details as you think need verification) before basing arguments on it.

When it comes to the sciences, it's not bad - but make sure, again, you verify what is important. (Global warming would seem to fall under politics - the science is far from settled, and anyone trying to tell you so is selling you a pile of bovine feces masquerading as chocolate.) And watch out for political tinges, especially in energy-related subjects.

It's like everything else you find on the web - make up your own mind about relevance and accuracy, and verify whatever's important to you, especially if it doesn't match up to what you already think you know.

I notice the trolls are very carefully ignoring the scrubbing of other information in order to whine about an issue that was apparently worth a court's time to investigate (I don't recall the McCain Panama Canal thing going to a court and that's on his page). Do you guys take a class on how to troll? You're acting rather organized. Is Obama's relationship with Ayers a 'conspiracy theory'? Was his relationship set up with Ayers by a "right wing wacko hit job" team? Pretty lame, Milhouse.

Oh, I also noticed at least one grammatical error in Shawn's post...why don't you declare the conservative movement dead because Shawn has a grammar mistake in his post. C'mon, entertain us.

Also missing from Obama's Wikipedia entry is the fact that mathematically Hillary can still win the primary and the superdelegates will undemocratically just give her the nomination.

Also missing from Obama's Wikipedia entry is story of when he attacked a young woman and carved a backwards "B" into her face just because she had a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.

This is not news. It took extraordinary proof for me to correct an entry on John Kerry's page several years ago. I was finally able to correct it using John Kerry's OWN website and some of the documents posted there. the second error on JK's website was never corrected.

Wikipedia is controled by liberal administrators, and there was even a expose proving that some of them wer enot nearly as qualified as they claim to be.

Thanks for bringing this to light! I didn't know about it.

Oyster: Thanks for the link, too!

C'mon Brownie, that's not distracting enough...I said entertain us. You've already done the 'ignore the Ayers' thing, give us something new. Explain to us why the McCain story about eligibility (equally ridiculous) IS ok by their standards, but the Obama one IS NOT. Clear double standard here, even if it is about a 'conspiracy theory'. Tell us why one conspiracy theory is okeydokey, but the other is forbidden. Educate us or entertain us, but stop boring us.

"Wikipedia is controled by liberal administrators"-mycroft

Wiki is controlled by nerds, that's all.
Imagine "Comic Book Guy" swearing to himself to save the hypothetical honor of the fictional 2-dimensional "Wonder Woman" from being ogled by the disgusting leering eyeballs of a hypothetical you or me.
That's how the Wiki admin view their domain, basically.
There is no logic. Because they're nerds.
It's Spock versus Data in their world, which traverses the real world only incidentally.

Wiki insists mosquito hawks don't eat mosquitos.
If only mosquito hawks figured in SciFi fan fiction, I would get satisfaction for sure!
Hulk vs the Thing!

Falze, you're an idiot.

I don't recall the McCain Panama Canal thing going to a court and that's on his page

Well, if you don't recall it I guess it didn't happen, did it? Dumbass:

Plaintiffs seeking to derail Sen. John McCain's presidential bid by claiming that the decorated Vietnam War veteran is not a natural born U.S. citizen are being stymied in their quest by four Washington, D.C.-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher associates.

...

The first case to challenge McCain's presidential eligibility was filed in New Hampshire on March 14 by a pro se voter named Fred Hollander. The case was dismissed on the grounds that Hollander lacked standing, but not before Olson and a fellow constitutional scholar -- Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe -- co-authored a memorandum that concluded McCain was indeed a U.S. citizen. Several other such cases were subsequently dismissed in various jurisdictions.

Oh look, dismissed just like all the Obama birther cases have been.

an issue that was apparently worth a court's time to investigate

Are you fucking serious? Do you have any clue how our legal system works? Stay away from the computer. You're embarrassing yourself.

Anyway, wikipedia. Linked from Obama's bio are the the presidential campaign entry and the Democratic primary entry, both of which have info on Ayers and Wright. There are also pages dealing exclusively with the "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" and the "Jeremiah Wright controversy".

When will the coverup at Wikipedia stop?

<>xpln t s wh th McCn str bt lgblt (qll rdcls) S k b thr stndrds, bt th bm n S NT.

Bcs, dpsht, McCn <>ws brn tsd ths cntr, nlk bm, nd t's cnstttnl qstn tht lng pr-dts McCn's cmpgn fr th prsdnc. t's th dffrnc btwn lgtmt cnstttnl qstn tht pprtnstc twrps sd t tr t mpd cmpgn, nd ntjb cnsprc thr bsd n bsltl nthng. bm's brth crtfct s lnkd n hs Wkpd pg. H ws brn n Hw. Thr s n cnstttnl qstn.
You have become very tiresome.

Cue indignant, ignorant diatribe from Falze regarding his perceived cluelessness of the majority of the American people in 5...4...3...2...

When reality is so biased against a small, cloistered minority--such as the tattered remnants of movement conservativism--is it really so surprising that they would take issue with what is perhaps the world's most popular source of information when it strikes them as unfair?

<> hv bcm vr trsm.

ndrstnd tht dltng vwls cn b qt trng. Prhps thr's bttr w t spnd r tm. Snc sm t b ffctng smn's dlct snsblts, 'll rpt wht wrt wtht n nght bd wrds.

<>xpln t s wh th McCn str bt lgblt (qll rdcls) S k b thr stndrds, bt th bm n S NT.

Bcs McCn <>ws brn tsd ths cntr, nlk bm, nd t's cnstttnl qstn tht lng prdts McCn's cmpgn fr th prsdnc (Rmn, Gldwtr, tc.). t's th dffrnc btwn lgtmt cnstttnl qstn tht pprtnstc tps sd t tr t mpd hs cmpgn, nd ntjb cnsprc thr bsd n bsltl nthng. bm's brth crtfct s lnkd n hs Wkpd pg. H ws brn n Hw. Thr s n cnstttnl qstn.
Short list and thin ice Mantis.

Explain to us why the McCain story about eligibility (equally ridiculous) IS ok by their standards, but the Obama one IS NOT.

Because McCain was born outside this country, unlike Obama, and it's a constitutional question that long redates McCain's campaign for the presidency (see Romney, Goldwater, etc.). It's the difference between a legitimate constitional question that opportunists used to try to impede his candidacy, and a nutjob conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing. Obama's birth certificate is linked on his Wikipedia page. He was born in Hawaii. There is no constitutional issue.

Somebody doesn't like the cut of your jib. You should probably take it as a compliment.

S th rsdnt cnsr s gng t dlt m cmmnts, nt gv n rsn s t wh, nd whn sk wht th prblm s, dlt m qstn. s tht prtt mch th scr?
That's the score, deal with it or leave.

So no standards anymore? Just deleting comments because you don't like them? And without even signing your name, whoever you are?

This place certainly has gone downhill.

Mantis,
If you don't like the way Wizbang is run, let
me be the first to encourage you to MoveOn.org.
I've been reading your comments, and along with
quite a few others, they have deteriorated.
If for no other reason you cannot show just a
bit of civility, when posting on some
one elses site, then you should think of progressing elsewhere.
My way, or the highway.
Maggie

GarandFan is correct. George Orwell would not be surprised by the self-censoring thought police mentality that pervades Wikipedia.

Just remember, every subject receives equal treatment at Wikipedia, just some are more equal than others.

Hey, an actual answer from what may actually be a human being! Progress.

I've been reading your comments, and along with quite a few others, they have deteriorated.

I know, the vowels keep disappearing!

If for no other reason you cannot show just a bit of civility

Define civility. I'll bet a good number of commenters who have never had their comments deleted don't fit your description.

I've taken far more than I've ever dished out on this site in terms of name-calling, insults, and incivility. Not that it bothers me or anything, that's the game. But Wizbang has always been a site that understood that, that didn't require registration and adherence to a party line or ideology, but rather let people duke it out openly (within some limits, of course). If that is no longer the case just say so, and you won't see me again.

Mantis,
I keep reading the same thing from trolls,
yours is the only comments deleted. You are
making an assumption. As to you being
disemvoweled, it's been a rarity.
Your call to stay and participate, or
MoveOn.org.

I keep reading the same thing from trolls, yours is the only comments deleted.

I didn't say that. But I did ask you to define civility as you see it as a standard to adhere to. If you can't define your standards, how will anyone follow them? I am making an assumption that you won't bother to define your standards because you know full well that there are plenty of commenters who do not live up to them, but who direct their uncivil behavior at your preferred target and are thus not the subject of your ire.

Btw, did you think the Moveon.org joke would get more laughs the second time around?

Who said I was joking when I posted MoveOn.org.

Find a modicum of politeness Mantis, and use it.
That is basically it.

Second time around? She's been using that line for a long time. Along with attempts at Schwarzeneggerisms that fall flat. And invitations for people to stop reading Wizbang.

BrianD,
If you don't like it, you can not read or
post at Wizbang.
Next time it won't be an invitation.

Oh, and never being able to get my name right.

Who said I was joking when I posted MoveOn.org.

Well, otherwise you were using a website url literally as a verb, but whatever.

Find a modicum of politeness Mantis, and use it.

Ok, I'll try to be nice. Thanks for materializing from the vowel snatching shadows for a moment.

mantis - "Stay away from the computer. You're embarrassing yourself."

And you didn't by addressing someone as an "idiot" and a "dumbass" over something not remembered as opposed to stating it as fact?

A simple reminder would have sufficed, but Noooo not The Exalted Mantis (in her own mind) she had to utilize childish invective with ZERO provocation whatsoever.

Then whines and stoops her feet for being disemboweled.

Surely someone must have marketed an Obama branded Pacifier at this point to keep you quiet. Try Wal-Mart.

Falze gets what he/she asks for.

If I may circle back around to the topic of the post, some may find it interesting to compare and contrast the Obama Wikipedia entry with the Obama Conservapedia entry. It's a laff riot.

Funny, didn't see your name in that link anywhere.

Did I miss it?

I notice the trolls are very carefully ignoring the scrubbing of other information...
...
Explain to us why the McCain story about eligibility (equally ridiculous) IS ok by their standards, but the Obama one IS NOT. Clear double standard here, even if it is about a 'conspiracy theory'. Tell us why one conspiracy theory is okeydokey, but the other is forbidden. Educate us or entertain us, but stop boring us.

And I notice that you are very carefully ignoring the comment that pointed out that the supposedly "scrubbed", "forbidden", "conspiracy theory" had an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to it. Even before mantis gave you a drubbing.

Are you educated yet?

Did I miss it?

No, but you did miss the point. I'm shocked.

Brian,

That link is not about the bio page.

mantis - "No, but you did miss the point. I'm shocked."

Oh I got it alright, you used a discussion not directed at, or inclusive of you (and a month old I might add) to excuse your behavior.

Got the point of your "conservapedia" link also.

Shiny object noted. And rejected as a lame attempt to distract, and or justify wikipedia's lunacy.

Actually, you missed the point of both, maintaining your perfect record of obliviousness.

That link is not about the bio page.

It wasn't supposed to be. It's about the "eligibility" "conspiracy theory" that Falze wrote extensively about, and which I extensively excerpted in my response to him. I'll do so again:

Explain to us why the McCain story about eligibility (equally ridiculous) IS ok by their standards, but the Obama one IS NOT. Clear double standard here, even if it is about a 'conspiracy theory'. Tell us why one conspiracy theory is okeydokey, but the other is forbidden. Educate us or entertain us, but stop boring us.

Wht's wth ths rmvng th vwls frm cmmnts. t's sll nd stpd nd dsrpts th thrd. Thn ths mgg scld srfcs fr rsns nknwn snc wht sh s rctng t hs bn rndrd nrdbl bcs ll th fckng vwls hv bn rmvd. Gz, pls, mk t stp.

D chck t th Cnsrvpd ntr n Brck Hssn bm. Pr, ndltd wngntt. hwl mnt.
You mean like this, Rolf?

Um Rolf... that would be "Comment Section Editor Maggie Whitton" who obviously would hold the power to do what she did.

A perusal of the sidebar would have show you that.

Gosh marc, I guess you responded to me before all the fucking vowels were removed from my comment rendering it unreadable. Apparently by "Comment Section Editor Maggie Whitton" who is wtht a dbt a clsslss scld.

W0rldcl@ss m@ggie. W0rldcl@ss.

Maggie, Looks like it's time to turn off the comments for a few days and fumigate the place, Degenerate trolls have infested this blog worse than when I quit reading and commenting on Wizbang a couple of years ago. Only started reading again a few months ago, but now that The One® has started to tank, they're desparate to try to demoralize regular readers, Got news for teh trolls, we will crush you. When the battle starts, what are you liberal %^$$!3$ gonna fight back with, spitballs?!?

wave man--are you threatening to physically harm people because the Republican Party is the political laughingstock of the 21st century? Take your meds and have some more Cheetos, fella.

If reading things that you disagree with upsets you to the point of barking insanity, then perhaps you should stick to Family Circus comics.

Oh, and while I have your attention, your President's middle name is Hussein and he is your Commander-in-Chief. (Always fun to remind asshole wingnuts about that.)

the Republican Party is the political laughingstock of the 21st century?

I can't disagree. However, anybody who doesn't think that the Democrats are appearing equally as keystone cops must be wearin an eyepatch. It appears that the one party is playing Hardy to the other one's Laurel. I don't understand how any thinking individual could defend either one with a straight face.

You people defending the Republicans these days should wake the hell up. But, you folks defending the Democrats also need to rise and shine. Both parties need to do something about their collective ignorance.

Oh, and while I have your attention, your President's middle name is Hussein and he is your Commander-in-Chief.

Uhm. Okay. Did you also know that we landed on the moon? We did. Really.

Sorry, Clay, I was rubbing an idiot's face in what is undoubtedly a great source of shame for his redneck self.

And ridiculing the Republican Party is not equivalent to endorsing the Democratic Party--you know that.

I was rubbing an idiot's face in what is undoubtedly a great source of shame for his redneck self.

Making yourself look kinda silly in the process. Just saying.

And ridiculing the Republican Party is not equivalent to endorsing the Democratic Party

I never said so. But, you knew that. However, you do give the appearance of being a bit biased. Just saying again. But, I suppose I do too, although I'm seeking to understand. I really am.

I do enjoy most of your comments. I don't agree with some of them, but I actually think that you and I agree much more than we disagree. We got off to a rough start which I truly regret, but I think we found a place of mutual respect. I wish that could happen more here (and I'm as guilty as anyone).

I like it when you offer well-reasoned opinions, and I've come to expect that from you. I'm disappointed when you don't. I don't mean that condescendingly, I'm just saying that I don't think you do yourself justice. Having said that I also recognize how frustrating these conversations can be. But, I think we could make a greater impact by adjusting our approach. I'm trying, but I still fail.

You still drinking beer with pandy-assed orange slices? Sheesh.

Ha, I know, I shouldn't stoop to a crazy person's level, and I shouldn't take so much pleasure out of pointing out how crazy they are...

I should hope that I come across as biased. I have pretty strong convictions, as do you, and (like you) mine run deeper than partisan two-party politics. I try to be civilized, especially to people I respect, but sometimes the only way to respond to some of the comments and/or posts is "Pfft, seriously?"

I do think we have more in common than our earlier exchanges would have suggested. Not sure what the point is in classifying people's politics really is, but I'd say that my views are the bastard child of a social democrat and libertarian and would line up with much of your Lockean convictions (taxation and public education/health care being strong exceptions).

I've been off the white beers for awhile, but will give this season's offerings a sampling once the patios open--orange slices and all. (It's really an outdoors-in-the-sunshine type of beer.) For the time being, it's still cold enough for nice porters and over-hopped India pale ales. And as a Cormac McCarthy fan, I'm pretty stoked for The Road with Vigo Mortensen. Do you have any expectations for that film? I think it might be easily adopted for the screen compared to, say, The Watchmen.