Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > News today: Obama's wikipedia page continuously scrubbed and censored....
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

Yeah, pretty sure George Orwell didn't invent revisionist history.

But by all means, police state, oppression, etc.


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:17 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2003
Location:

Lol. Page locked due to controversy. The ongoing discussions are amusing.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:21  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Shakka Click here to Send Shakka a Private Message Add Shakka to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
You've been waiting for 2 months for a chance to call me "retarded," haven't you Josh? I just cried a tear of unfathomable sadness.

Actually I didn't call you anything - I asked a question. So there.
quote:

I never said there was a conspiracy. I said information that meets the standards that Wikipedia puts forth appears to be getting removed. The article may postulate that there's a conspiracy to maintain a positive image of BO, but I don't know that they went quite that far.

I think the unwritten rules have so far been it's okay to assume people share the opinions of the articles spam they post.
quote:

Out of curiosity, what makes Reagan and FDR relevant to the same scrutiny, and why isn't Bush #43 under that veil when it is clear that his page has been tarred with some questionable marks. I'd think his page would be at least as relevant as Mariah Carey, no? Also, how do you know those specific topics are receiving the same scrutiny? Or did you pull that out of your ass?

This is Wikipedia, if you're looking for some sort of structure or order you're in the wrong place. The whole site is just a mass of chaos with very fluid regulations and varying degrees of enforcement depending on each specific circumstance.

When an article reaches a certain level of completeness it is submitted for featured article status. There is some sort of process it goes through to achieve this status. The relative importance of any particular entry that achieves this status is of no consequence. It is simply a matter of which articles Wikipedia users spend more time on and which ones are submitted for featured status. Controversial entries (Bush #43) are going to have a high level of debate so those entries will be constantly changing and naturally reach this level of completeness later than others - if ever.

I don't know any specific topic is receiving scrutiny. I can assume that anything involving Bush #43 or Obama are going to be receiving this debate because they are hot topics. See the link I posted to the debate about Obama's citizenship status.
quote:

p.s. I've created a wikipedia entry before. I don't think they spent months debating the worthiness of my contribution.

There are millions of articles and no set measure for what receives attention. Wikipedia users are just going to want to spend more time on issues surrounding the POTUS and Mariah Carey than your entry on penis enlargement.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:27  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

Uh-oh, it's the authorities!


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:27 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Because I even mentioned Orwell your gaydar went off


Is that really the analogy you'd like to make? That my gaydar goes off when you post?


___________________

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:30  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for Lebezniatnikov Click here to Send Lebezniatnikov a Private Message Add Lebezniatnikov to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Halcyon+On+On
Liebchen



Registered: Sep 2004
Location: midcoast

Whether he wants to or not, it's already out on the table.


___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:33 
Click Here to See the Profile for Halcyon+On+On Click here to Send Halcyon+On+On a Private Message Add Halcyon+On+On to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2003
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Is that really the analogy you'd like to make? That my gaydar goes off when you post?



It was tongue-in-cheek. But it was more that the word Orwell sets off your gaydar since you clearly have spent many more hours of your time doting over him than the rest of us. And I couldn't come up with anything more catchy like Orwelldar, so I ran with it.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:39  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Shakka Click here to Send Shakka a Private Message Add Shakka to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2003
Location:

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
Actually I didn't call you anything - I asked a question. So there.


Oh. Then in that case, the answer is no.

quote:
I think the unwritten rules have so far been it's okay to assume people share the opinions of the articles spam they post.


Nah, not necessarily. Certainly not to a T. That would be a stretch. A person can surely agree with parts of an article and disagree with other parts (As I rather clearly and specifically did with the very first sentence of this thread).

quote:
This is Wikipedia, if you're looking for some sort of structure or order you're in the wrong place. The whole site is just a mass of chaos with very fluid regulations and varying degrees of enforcement depending on each specific circumstance.

When an article reaches a certain level of completeness it is submitted for featured article status. There is some sort of process it goes through to achieve this status. The relative importance of any particular entry that achieves this status is of no consequence. It is simply a matter of which articles Wikipedia users spend more time on and which ones are submitted for featured status. Controversial entries (Bush #43) are going to have a high level of debate so those entries will be constantly changing and naturally reach this level of completeness later than others - if ever.

I don't know any specific topic is receiving scrutiny. I can assume that anything involving Bush #43 or Obama are going to be receiving this debate because they are hot topics. See the link I posted to the debate about Obama's citizenship status.


Well then I'm honestly glad we have such an authority on all things Wiki. You're my new designated go-to fact checker dude.

quote:
There are millions of articles and no set measure for what receives attention. Wikipedia users are just going to want to spend more time on issues surrounding the POTUS and Mariah Carey than your entry on penis enlargement.


It was actually douchebaggery, but you're full of zingers as usual! Kudos!

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:45  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Shakka Click here to Send Shakka a Private Message Add Shakka to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
You're my new designated go-to fact checker dude.

Pretty sure I've already fallen into that slot by default whether either of us likes it or not.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 18:57  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Clovis
techno jungle shit



Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Los Angeles

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
I never said there was a conspiracy. I said information that meets the standards that Wikipedia puts forth appears to be getting removed. The article may postulate that there's a conspiracy to maintain a positive image of BO, but I don't know that they went quite that far.


I have a slight hunch that the people who own and operate wikipedia actually like the current president of the United States.


___________________
quote:
Originally posted by ********
Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

Old Post Mar-10-2009 20:06  France
Click Here to See the Profile for Clovis Click here to Send Clovis a Private Message Visit Clovis's homepage! Add Clovis to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart



Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City

The fact that this came from World Net Daily was interesting in of itself. But this deserves a little "uh oh" moment, and fuck is it funny:

quote:
Fox Claims Wikipedia Whitewashes Obama's Past — Update

Barack Obama's Wikipedia entry completely omits the president's "links" to former '60s radical William Ayers, Fox News reports. And it claims the entry contains only a fleeting reference to his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

This epic coverup was first reported by WorldNetDaily reporter Aaron Klein, who noticed that edits adding references to Ayers and Wright, among other things, were quickly being undone by Wikipedia volunteers.

Klein found it particularly alarming that a Wikipedia user called "Jerusalem21" was recently hit with a three-day wiki-suspension after twice posting the neutral and encyclopedic fact that there are "some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. "

That was Sunday. Fox picked up Klein's explosive scoop today, noting in the first paragraph that -- in contrast to Obama's entry -- the Wikipedia "pages for Ayers and Wright are heavily peppered with references to the president."

That's meant as evidence that Obama's real and supposed links to the men are newsworthy enough to include in his bio. Fame relationships aren't symmetric, though. If Obama had cut me off in traffic in 1997, the incident would occupy half my Wikipedia entry, while I wouldn't get a footnote in his.

Of more interest is the identity of the mysterious Jerusalem21, whose courageous disregard of Wikipedia's ban on fringe material provided WND's Aaron Klein with his smoking gun in the first place, spawning what will soon be a national wiki-scandal.

Curiously, it turns out that Jerusalem21, whoever he or she might be, has only worked on one other Wikipedia entry since the account was created, notes ConWebWatch. That's Aaron Klein's entry, which Jerusalem21 created in 2006, and has edited 37 times.

Klein, who serves as WND's Jerusalem bureau chief, did not immediate respond to an e-mail Monday.

Update: March 10, 2009 | 1:40:00 PM

This morning the WorldNetDaily story, which is headlined "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility," was scrubbed clean of the name Jerusalem21, who's now referred to only as "one Wikipedia user." Fortunately, Google cache never forgets.

Second update: March 10, 2009 | 7:20:00 PM

Aaron Klein has answered my e-mail. Klein says that there's an "undeniable trend" of Ayers and Wright references being scrubbed from Obama's entry— as he wrote in his article. But he now admits that he's responsible for the Jerusalem21 edits that he reported on, and says he's updated his WorldNetDaily story to reflect that.

[QUOTE] 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.


What's missing from this treatise on investigative journalism is the reporter's obligation to disclose when he's engineered events on which he's reporting. In a follow-up e-mail, Klein acknowledges that he should have made that disclosure, but suggests he's guilty of nothing more than an accidental omission in a hastily written story.

"It just slipped my mind," he writes.

Interesting. Let's look at some of the original text.

quote:
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, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" 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.

[...]

When the user "Jerusalem21" 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.


That's a lot of mind-slippage. You'd think at some point in the writing, Klein would have a revelation, slap his head and say, "Silly me! Here I am writing about my researcher following my instructions, and I'm making it sound like I don't even know the guy! Glad I caught that."

The only other example in Klein's article of a user being suspended from Wikipedia also traces back to a Jerusalem21 edit — this time about William Ayers. That example found its way into the Fox News report. But, similarly, Klein forgot to mention that it was the same user — his unnamed researcher — and the same ban: i.e., the one that followed two successive edits accusing Obama of falsifying his birth.

If he'd disclosed all that, it might have been a different article. "Man Fails to Get Crazy Conspiracy Theory Into Obama's Wikipedia Entry" is a story not even Fox would pick up.


___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Old Post Mar-11-2009 03:47  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MisterOpus1 Click here to Send MisterOpus1 a Private Message Add MisterOpus1 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
josh4
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Dec 2003
Location: New York City

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1

Do you have your PhD yet?

Old Post Mar-11-2009 05:11  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for josh4 Click here to Send josh4 a Private Message Add josh4 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > News today: Obama's wikipedia page continuously scrubbed and censored....
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackHelp ID this [2006] [1]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackMillsart - "Step to Enchantment" [2003]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!