Is Wikipedia Neutral?

[Aramike]

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?

[Enigma]

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?
Well, at the end of the day it relies heavily on the users to both submit neutral information, and editors to make sure it is so. Wether or not a specific entry is neutral is relevant to the day you look at it, as it's always open to update.

Given the example you post here, I think the items in question have been pretty much debunked. You could perhaps include a passage that states that these things did garnish some absurd amount of attention from our so called liberal media, but I think you'd find that if the President's wiki page included entries that he is good friends with terrorists (debunked) that he is not an American citizen (debunked) you would find an article that would garnish unwanted attention for being bias the other way! I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

[Aramike]

I have to say, I do love the very concept of Wikipedia and find it to be a wonderful resource for casual researchers. That being said, instances outlined in the article linked above shows what I see to be a terrible bias which will ultimately undermine Wiki's credibility as a source of unfettered knowledge.

Any thoughts?
Well, at the end of the day it relies heavily on the users to both submit neutral information, and editors to make sure it is so. Wether or not a specific entry is neutral is relevant to the day you look at it, as it's always open to update.

Given the example you post here, I think the items in question have been pretty much debunked. You could perhaps include a passage that states that these things did garnish some absurd amount of attention from our so called liberal media, but I think you'd find that if the President's wiki page included entries that he is good friends with terrorists (debunked) that he is not an American citizen (debunked) you would find an article that would garnish unwanted attention for being bias the other way! I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

[Zachstar]

Birthers causing controversy? Say it aint so!

Besides anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind!

(Note: A birther is a flaming idiot who goes around posting on media and forums some new rumor every week that the President of the United States is not eligible because he was supposedly really given X certificate in X country)

Wiki has the right and made the best call. I am not going to read the rest because its pointless.

[Enigma]

So much conspiracy abound, they got their on Wiki page it seems...

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

[Enigma]

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. However, I'd suggest that listing every person that is linked in any simple way to another that is deemed unsavory would have the Wiki page of every politician be a list of of unchecked facts and meaningless, irrelevant information. For example, without reading the entire thing, I wouldn't imagine George W. Bush's wiki page mentions anything about his families business connection with the Bin Laden family, although this was alleged and reported on, as well.

[Zachstar]

Guess who picked up on the story faster than you can say "I WANT him to fail!"

Fox News!

[Freiwillige]

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

[Enigma]

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

Don't you think if there was anything to this story we'd know it? Obama is only the most famous man in the world right now. You don't think the Republicans, or anyone for that matter, would have made sure the world knew it if any of it were true?

Oh, and proof of his American birth has been put out in the open. Google it. Your wishes will come true. :doh:

[Aramike]

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. However, I'd suggest that listing every person that is linked in any simple way to another that is deemed unsavory would have the Wiki page of every politician be a list of of unchecked facts and meaningless, irrelevant information. For example, without reading the entire thing, I wouldn't imagine George W. Bush's wiki page mentions anything about his families business connection with the Bin Laden family, although this was alleged and reported on, as well.True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Like I said, I agree with the Birth Certificate issue not being mentioned on a biographical page of Obama. But his admitted connections to such players as Ayers and Wright do seem relevant.

[Aramike]

I would still like to see proof of his American birth. This is America and if somethings questionable, it should be put out in the open! Only people who have something to hide will take the time to block any fact finding into the truth. My 2 cents.

Don't you think if there was anything to this story we'd know it? Obama is only the most famous man in the world right now. You don't think the Republicans, or anyone for that matter, would have made sure the world knew it if any of it were true?

Oh, and proof of his American birth has been put out in the open. Google it. Your wishes will come true. :doh:Heh, who do you think would be the FIRST person to push the issue if there really was one?

I'm betting Joe Biden.

[Enigma]

True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Well, same with Bush.


Bush attended an investment meeting on Sept 10th, 2001 with Shafiq bin Laden, for the Carlyle and Binladin groups. It's public knowledge that in the the following October, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family severed business ties, for obvious reasons.

Keep in mind, I don't care. I don't think it should be on Bush's wiki page. I don't think it's a dark and deceptive thing. But I feel the same way about Obama's page.

[Enigma]

Heh, who do you think would be the FIRST person to push the issue if there really was one?

I'm betting Joe Biden.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Subman, Steamwake....:03::haha:

[AkbarGulag]

Besides anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind!

Wiki is far from neutral. In fact, pages I have read relating to my own country are a litany of lies and selective information, designed to create division and move political power to a favoured minority at the expense of the national identity.

It's like one of my Estonian friends once told me "Never read a history book". Always view multiple sources, and try and determine the underlying facts in all of them.

[XabbaRus]

Wikipedia is great for reference as a starting point. For WWII battles etc where there is a lot of factual reference material to back it up it is good too.

It is when you get into personalities and organisations that it gets dodgy.

[Aramike]

True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Well, same with Bush.


Bush attended an investment meeting on Sept 10th, 2001 with Shafiq bin Laden, for the Carlyle and Binladin groups. It's public knowledge that in the the following October, the Bush family and the Bin Laden family severed business ties, for obvious reasons.

Keep in mind, I don't care. I don't think it should be on Bush's wiki page. I don't think it's a dark and deceptive thing. But I feel the same way about Obama's page.See, here's where I think we differ. In the instance you're bringing up, an investment meeting doesn't seem "biographical" to me. In a recount of the presidency, sure - but not in a biographical paper of the president.

Whereas I think ties to Ayers and Wright seem more centralized around the person himself, rather than the event.

[Aramike]

Wikipedia is great for reference as a starting point. For WWII battles etc where there is a lot of factual reference material to back it up it is good too.

It is when you get into personalities and organisations that it gets dodgy.I agree with this. I just wish the slant wasn't so one-sided, from what I've seen.

[Tribesman]

If you don't like the "neutrality" of Wiki you can always get the "truth" at.....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[Aramike]

If you don't like the "neutrality" of Wiki you can always get the "truth" at.....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_PageUmm, all I want are the FACTS ... ALL of the FACTS.

I'll use those to make up my own mind, thank you.

[Freiwillige]

Taitz explained the issue isn't resolved as many Obama supporters claim.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet actually doesn't confirm a birth location, she said.
"[Hawaii] statute 138 allows foreign born children of HI residents to get HI [Certificates of Live Birth] and get them based on a statement of one relative only," she said.
She also said Hawaiian officials, while they confirmed a birth certificate exists, did not exclude the possibility it was "one obtained for a foreign born child."
She also cited Obama's immigration to Indonesia at age 5, when he was considered an Indonesian citizen.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/) has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90447#) filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83041)
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83299) by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, (http://www.usjf.net/) that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support. (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83161)
Chicago attorney (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90447#) Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.From the webpage at top

[joegrundman]

If you don't like the "neutrality" of Wiki you can always get the "truth" at.....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

:haha: for Conservative forms of truth! Please tell me it's a spoof site.

[Tribesman]

Please tell me it's a spoof site.
Sorry , its real .
You can find it on nice well thought out sites like Republicans for Life and Eagle Forums .

[Sailor Steve]

Heh, who do you think would be the FIRST person to push the issue if there really was one?

I'm betting Joe Biden.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Subman, Steamwake....:03::haha:
Me.

If there was one.

I find it interesting that the thread starts with the idea of questioning Wiki for cleaning up the Obama page, but indeed they do give this argument its own page.

@ Freiwillige: Your post is the most informative of the proponent side of this discussion. I'm still interested to see where this goes.

[August]

...anyone relying on Wiki for anything political is out of their flipping mind!

Extend that to anything remotely controversial and I'd agree with you.

[Fish]

I agree that the Birth Certificate issue was a non-starter for some extremists. The part I disagree with is that Obama's relationship with William Ayers and "Reverend" Wright has not been debunked. What those relationships mean is up for the reader to conclude. But to not allow the inclusion of the FACTS surrounding his relationship with those high-profile, controversial individuals is evidence of bias, I believe.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. However, I'd suggest that listing every person that is linked in any simple way to another that is deemed unsavory would have the Wiki page of every politician be a list of of unchecked facts and meaningless, irrelevant information. For example, without reading the entire thing, I wouldn't imagine George W. Bush's wiki page mentions anything about his families business connection with the Bin Laden family, although this was alleged and reported on, as well.True enough. However, the difference is that Obama himself had connections with these figures, and these connections aren't merely alleged.

Like I said, I agree with the Birth Certificate issue not being mentioned on a biographical page of Obama. But his admitted connections to such players as Ayers and Wright do seem relevant.

Wright is on obama's Wiki, and you find Obama on Professor Ayers Wiki.


Obama-Ayers Controversy

Main article: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy)
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008), a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-Boston-50) After being raised by the British press[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-51)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-Boston-50)[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-52) the connection was picked up by blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a campaign debate by moderator George Stephanopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos), and later became an issue for the John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) presidential campaign. Investigations by The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times), CNN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN), and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-nytoa-53)[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-cnnfc-54)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-55) In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association) tactics.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-real-34) In a new edition of his memoirs, Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist, he added a new afterword describing their relationship as "neighbors and family friends".[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-56) But in an interview with Good Morning America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Morning_America), Ayers said the afterword was "describing there how the blogosphere characterized the relationship."[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#cite_note-57)