Wikipedia trying to rewrite History concerning Obama

[GarfieldJL]

That argument doesn't fly because the information the person in this case posted was factual and provided sources to back it up.

 

That's a big difference from vandalizing the article, and the person was banned.

[Darth Avlectus]

Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.

Hahaaa. Yup. Not to mention the humiliation you suffer in serious circles of higher education. It may be nice as a general idea/direction pointer...but not as any real source.

 

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

 

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.

 

Which most people don't even care enough to try to find and just simply accept it.

 

Few people that take academia serious consider Wikipedia an a priori truth, god-given or otherwise.

 

Like for example: how for the longest time in laser history it talks about Theodore Maiman and Charles Hard Townes for "inventing" the laser. True, they did build the very first one to work, however Gordon Gould is the one who coined the term LASER based off of prior research of its microwave predecessor the MASER. Later in 1977 courts ruled in Gould's favor. This was not acknowledged at first by anyone. In fact, I still do not see it sometimes when checking academic sources.

 

I would never cite Wikipedia unless I were using a Creative Commons photo or graphic -nor would I recommend anyone cite Wikipedia since its a tertiary source. Primary and secondary sources are preferable in any research or academic writings.

Most prof.'s I've ever met, regarding research, say it is okay for creative commons or as a "pointer". Just not as a legit source.

 

There doesn't seem to be, however, any support for the OP which alleges with much hyperbole that "Wikipedia is rewriting history."

Maybe not on the premise of people that know better like us, regardless of political leanings. To those who don't know better, it could be until those naive enough to believe it at first see the light about wikipedia.

 

What people? How many people honestly take wikipedia as pure fact?

 

That seems like a problem with the ignorance of the people instead of the bias of wikipedia. You aren't helping, however, by pinning this solely on democrats.

 

Again, it is not their ethical, moral, political, etc responsibility to be unbiased. Wikipedia is by definition a biased source and should be treated as such.

 

Maybe what Garfield is getting at is the disturbing level of influence upon the young and impressionable who may indefinitely remain such until learning better.

 

@ Garf: I'd agree at least that it would be tragic if this inherently and unreasonably biased source were to be acceptible. While I cannot really say it is rewriting history yet, I can say that if it ever became acceptable as passably legit, that it would be a major step in that direction.

 

Admins are still real people. And real people are still biased.

Amen.

 

Well, It's not really that 'black and white'. Most of the articles I've read on Wikipedia (and trust me, I've read quite a lot) are extremely neutral.

You mean muddying the waters? OR unbiased?

I see a bit of both.

 

Most articles' subjects also don't really warrant polarization of extremes, generally.

 

I never bash Wikipedia for this reason, the "anyone can edit" policy is an overly simplified explanation of how the website actually works, you can't just edit any article to your pleasing and not have it reverted to It's original form if you don't use proper citations and sources.

Just a slight clarification/correction: THAT is a recently incorporated change to its standard operating procedures from how it used to be. While it is better than it used to be, it still has a loooooong way to go.

 

I remember seeing some very slanderous offensive stuff completely out of place on the article about Kasumi from DOA...it was a simple matter to enter as a guest and remove it and neaten up the article back then.

 

Can't do that now. I bet the change made by a guest from a public computer probably is still recorded on the archive from some time back in 2004-2006.

[GarfieldJL]

Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.

 

And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.

 

Well to correct you, Fox News is a lot more legitimate than most media outlets these days (and a heck of a lot better at sourcing things), which is a seperate topic:

 

http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=196208

 

Anyways, True_Avery in my experience academia is actually some of the worst people when it comes to not sourcing materials or sourcing materials they know are blatently false.

 

 

 

Back to topic, wikipedia used to have some credibility but like MSNBC, the Associated Press, and other media outlets they have lost credibility.

[True_Avery]

Back to topic, wikipedia used to have some credibility but like MSNBC, the Associated Press, and other media outlets they have lost credibility.

With whom exactly?

[Vikinor]

I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!

 

As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.

 

And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?

[GarfieldJL]

With whom exactly?

 

Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.

 

I don't want to hijack this or anything, but someone please, please, please tell me that that Conservapedia site is a joke. Please!

 

I have no clue, I hadn't heard of them till today.

 

As for the wikipedia issue. It's not a matter of big importance to me. I mean sure it's a little odd and if it is the staff removing the information(which is supposedly true information) then it is unprofessional. But it is their site and they are allowed to do with it what they like.

 

They are supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a propaganda pulpit for the DNC.

 

And, I don't want to be mean or flame you like "everyone else" but could you try and include links to news sources other than Fox?

 

Because the "mainstream media" is refusing to cover anything that makes the 'annointed one' look bad. Furthermore, a lot of the reporters in the mainstream media want to have Obama's babies. Last but not least, as I pointed out in another thread many reporters have spouses that work for the Obama Administration which is another conflict of interest.

 

With whom exactly?

 

So let me get this straight you consider attacking a child of a candidate that happens to be a toddler to be remotely legitimate?

[True_Avery]

Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.

Sources.

 

So let me get this straight you consider attacking a child of a candidate that happens to be a toddler to be remotely legitimate?

Fox News has never attacked anyone ever?

[GarfieldJL]

Sources.

 

See: http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=196208

 

Fox News has never attacked anyone ever?

 

Have they been critical of people, yes? Have they targetted children of political candidates that are under 2 years of age, no. That would be MSNBC.

[SkinWalker]

Well considering they want to have Obama's babies and have spouses working in the Obama administration, that's a pretty blatent conflict of interest.

 

WTF are you talking about? "Having Obama's babies?"

 

[True_Avery]

See: http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=196208

You posted an article about a journalist complimenting Michelle Obama, not the President. Michelle has nothing to do with the government, and simply has the title of first lady. What do you expect them to do? Mock her? Just because they compliment his wife doesn't mean they want to get in bed with either of them.

 

Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.

 

I honestly thought you had pulled up some little article about a journalist who had a crush on Obama. What I find is a blog page by one of CNN's journalist complimenting his WIFE on her style, grace, etc. I seriously can't believe how low you will go to skew facts.

 

I suggest you don't mention this baseless red herring again.

 

Have they been critical of people, yes? Have they targetted children of political candidates that are under 2 years of age, no. That would be MSNBC.

Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?

 

Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.

 

I also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

[GarfieldJL]

WTF are you talking about? "Having Obama's babies?"

 

I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.

 

 

Good job pulling a bull example out of the air to present a bull argument, not only missing the message of the article but completely mixing up who they were talking about.

 

I can tell you didn't read what all I posted:

 

The newly named head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, is married to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle. The marriage was mentioned in the Times article on Mrs. DeParle’s appointment, but will the editor or the Public Editor of the Times explain how they’ll avoid a conflict?

 

Time magazine saluted Mrs. DeParle’s resume, including running Medicare at the end of the Clinton administration, but like the Times, they were more concerned with her private-sector conflicts: "Since then she has become a highly sought-after corporate, academic and foundation consultant, earning enough money with her husband, New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, to buy a $3 million house in the Washington suburbs in 2007."

 

This theme emerged earlier: United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is married to Ian Cameron, who was named last fall to be the executive producer of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. It might seem obvious that ABC’s less interested in the appearance problems of any conflicts, with Stephanopoulos the Clinton operative as its top political analyst (and a Cuomo as a news anchor).

-- http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/03/04/how-will-media-handle-journalists-spouses-team-obama

 

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

 

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sometimes-a-president-is-just-a-president/

 

 

I'll try to find some other links as well on that.

 

 

I suggest you don't mention this baseless red herring again.

 

Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

 

Not attacking children doesn't save them from the blatant bias and attacks the have done over the years themselves. I seem to remember them calling out Obama on not being an American Citizen and cheating his way in?

 

Sean Hannity pointed out Obama's ties to ACORN which is well-known for voter fraud, but the not being an American Citizen garbage was from the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the only thing Fox News brought up about it was that it wasn't the Republicans that came up with that.

 

Fox is as low as MSNBC is. They just happen to be on different ladders on their way down.

 

Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

 

also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

 

Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

 

We see this kind of stuff with wikipedia as well.

[jrrtoken]

Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Ann Coulter is a fascist white supremacist; she has no credibility whatsoever.

[GarfieldJL]

Ann Coulter is a fascist white supremacist; she has no credibility whatsoever.

 

I will agree she has no credibility, but can it with calling people racists, because it used way too often.

 

Anyways to explain, I'm saying Ann Coulter whom I agree with you has next to no credibility, has more credibility than MSNBC.

 

Can we get back to topic...

[jrrtoken]

I will agree she has no credibility, but can it with calling people racists, because it used way too often.

She believes that Jews need to be "perfected" to Christianity.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

[Jae Onasi]

I'm talking about reporters admitting and swooning that they want to sleep with Obama.

 

Well, who wouldn't swoon over his glistening pectorals? I somehow suspect that Mrs. Obama would kick some butt if anyone tried to get close to sleeping with him.

 

Wikipedia is a good starting point for finding real history sources, but as far as legitimate history, it's a tertiary source at best and should not be relied on as anything other than that for any historical topic. As long as the Obama wiki entry is subject to editing, it's going to be suspect because people can do malicious edits and comments from both liberal and conservative sources. Wiki has never been a good historical source for anything, even if it's useful for some facts and basic information, so I'm not sure what all the excitement is that the entry changes.

 

Edit: Sorry Skinwalker--didn't see that you'd posted essentially the same thing.

[GarfieldJL]

She believes that Jews need to be "perfected" to Christianity.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301216,00.html

 

Okay... I'm not sure if she was just being an idiot, was drunk, or you may be right. Though on the flipside she could be doing another one of her stunts to get attention for her books...

 

I generally don't consider her having much in the way of credibility, I'd argue MSNBC is just as bad though, if not worse.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Their solution? Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is a blast. I should visit it more often as it's an excellent source of entertainment. Kinda like FSTDT, may it rest in peace.

[True_Avery]

-- http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/03/04/how-will-media-handle-journalists-spouses-team-obama

So, because they are married that makes them unfit to do their job?

 

I'm sorry, but if they worked to get where they were and are qualified, they should have the right to have those jobs. Don't post speculation that they "wont do their job" as fact.

 

Thanks for pointing out the thing on Michelle, I had forgotten about her being swooned over too. And before you try to smear Newsbusters as usual, the article actually sources the news agencies they are accusing of conflict of interest. If you'll note I said "crush on the Obamas," or are you saying Michelle isn't married to Barack?

... T-thanks for pointing out?

 

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSTED IT.

 

Thank you yet again for proving that you don't even read your own sources. And you wonder why people get angry at you...

 

And as far as the Obama's go, what you posted was a damn blog. Stop it with the damn blogs, or I will report you for spam. Its even better that you are posting this in a thread about credibility in wikipedia.

 

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/sometimes-a-president-is-just-a-president/

I'm sorry to open this door up for you, but women have erotic thoughts as well. The media has little control over what gets to a woman, and if that happens to be Barack for some of them then I wont judge. There are worse people they could be swooning over anyway, like some drugged out celebrity singer.

 

And, considering that is a blog, I could care less what she says. Most of the people she quotes are people who wrote to her due to the e-mail inquiry she sent out.

 

Because it shows your sources have no credibility at all it's a red herring... You have a strange definition of what a red herring is.

Do you even know what a Red Herring is? Because you make an awful lot of them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring

 

This is a thread on Wikipedia and you find it necessary to bring in a topic of random women having fantasies about Obama to distract from the fact you don't have any other argument but smears.

 

You present blogs from journalists, not even actual articles, as evidence of this. That is a Red Herring. If you don't like it, stop making them or learn the fallacies.

 

Oh so now you finally, admit MSNBC isn't a credible source, okay so next I'm going to have to find enough sourcing and stuff that maybe you'll also admit Fox News is a credible source. Seriously though, Ann Coulter is more credible than some of the people at MSNBC.

Haha

 

This is the exact reason I left Kavars when you were posting. You completely fail to read posts. Completely and utterly fail. I have mentioned that I think MSNBC is a biased source for months.

 

Fox News is on the same level as MSNBC, as I said if you had read my entire post. Fox is biased towards its own opinions, and many of its pundits are down right jackasses like they are on MSNBC.

 

And no, Ann Coulter has no credibility. At all. She is a racist sexist and has an admitted biased. Nice try though.

 

 

 

Well you know someone got sued for making a phony video and releasing it to try to make it look like John Gibson from Fox News was a racist? That kind of smear campaign is relatively common by the left, but the reason this resulted in a lawsuit is because it was a reporter from an MSNBC subsidiary.

Again with the MSNBC... Why do you think they represent the entire left?

 

Does everything every Fox News pundit has ever said represent the entire right? No, it doesn't.

 

And the best part is, you just proved the VERY THING YOU RESPONDED TO.

also find it interesting that whenever someone calls you on Fox News, you throw MSNBC out as a strawman, never actually taking on the Fox News part of the argument. MSNBC is biased and we can both agree on that, so I don't need you continuously pointlessly pointing it out when it doesn't need to be.

I mean, seriously...

 

Does the fact MSNBC guy did that important? In some thread, yes. In this thread, however, it is another one of your Strawmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring

[RoxStar]

Well considering they want to have Obama's babies

 

 

Classy.

 

Fact is, wikipedia is slightly leftist in general. Is it because the majority of users are under 30, a crowd that has proven to the the largest supporters of both Barack Obama and the DNC in general, or is it just the general atmosphere surrounding the resource?

 

Also I agree with you that MSNBC has totally gone left over the course of the last year. Save for these two:

 

 

 

HOWEVER Fox News is still way

 

way

WAY

WAYYYYY worse.

[Vikinor]

^ I agree. It almost seems hypocritical that someone can say MSNBC is not credible due to its bias, but Fox is?

 

I don't watch Fox intentionally, but since one side of my family is a bunch of Conservatives, I see more than I want to. I find Fox News annoyingly conservative. I can't stand many of their talking heads either. O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity...that one chick.

 

I don't watch MSNBC much either.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay the problem with both your arguments is that Obama in his own words wants to redistribute wealth. I've heard the radio conversation, he has made similar comments over the course of his life so some of the examples your News Hounds site are listing, Fox News can actually back up what they are saying and it kinda makes News Hounds look like a bunch of idiots. Reason I know about those things is because of the fact I'm the one that brought up these issues on Kavars in the past.

 

Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.

[RoxStar]

Also two of the people you're giving as examples are commentators and one could argue entertainers, not news anchors.

 

Not to sound like a jerk, but please argue that. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman and Pat Buchanan is a former senior adviser to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and has run for President numerous times.

 

Not to get off topic here, but you said President Obama said in his own words that he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". I agree that the President's statement completely suggests a redistribution of wealth, I just do not see how this play's into our debate surrounding wikipedia? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's staff has deleted these arguments to "clean up" their image of Obama. While it is very shady that they did this, I would argue that this has been a rallying cry against Mr. Obama by conservatives since the hard iron days of the 2008 campaign and that the Wikipedia staff is deleting it because it is deemed too far right for their sense of "balance".

 

Similarly, if it was written about John McCain his involvement with the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, I sincerely believe that such a repeated and brash additions or insertions would be removed by wikipedia because it would tip the balance too far left.

 

Also you failed to address my original points before my lovely photos

[GarfieldJL]

Not to sound like a jerk, but please argue that. Joe Scarborough is a former republican congressman and Pat Buchanan is a former senior adviser to Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and has run for President numerous times.

 

I generally don't care I boycott MSNBC with a passion.

 

Not to get off topic here, but you said President Obama said in his own words that he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth around". I agree that the President's statement completely suggests a redistribution of wealth, I just do not see how this play's into our debate surrounding wikipedia? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia's staff has deleted these arguments to "clean up" their image of Obama. While it is very shady that they did this, I would argue that this has been a rallying cry against Mr. Obama by conservatives since the hard iron days of the 2008 campaign and that the Wikipedia staff is deleting it because it is deemed too far right for their sense of "balance".

 

First on the income redistribution, which time are referring to, the one with Joe the Plumber, the one in the radio tape (which if I remember correctly was from 2003), what?

 

Second, that excuse for wikipedia removing stuff in this case doesn't fly because even the sources were left wing and they deleted it anyways. See my Newsbusters article link.

 

Similarly, if it was written about John McCain his involvement with the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, I sincerely believe that such a repeated and brash additions or insertions would be removed by wikipedia because it would tip the balance too far left.

 

Well if you bet me money on that you should start paying because it would take the media embarassing them on it for them to do that.

 

Also you failed to address my original points before my lovely photos

 

You mean:

 

Fact is, wikipedia is slightly leftist in general. Is it because the majority of users are under 30, a crowd that has proven to the the largest supporters of both Barack Obama and the DNC in general, or is it just the general atmosphere surrounding the resource?

 

Which brings us back to why I believe that the education system is out to indoctrinate the youth into the Democrat party and the far left agenda. Again though the general members don't matter one bit, we're talking the administrative staff because they banned the individual whom made the correction and put stuff back in (the irony is that individual used msnbc (which you also agree is hard left) as one of their sources and they still banned the individual).

[jrrtoken]

Which brings us back to why I believe that the education system is out to indoctrinate the youth into the Democrat party and the far left agenda.

BS; young adults have always been usually liberal. When the 26th Amendment was proposed to lower the voting age limit it was criticized, because of the fact that most young people were liberals, and therefore, a there would be a supposed inbalance of voting power. That was over 35 years ago, when Nixon, a Republican, was president, and he signed into law.

 

The notion isn't new, but you're taking it to sensationalist boundaries that mirror McCarthyism.

[GarfieldJL]

BS; young adults have always been usually liberal. When the 26th Amendment was proposed to lower the voting age limit it was criticized, because of the fact that most young people were liberals, and therefore, a there would be a supposed inbalance of voting power. That was over 35 years ago, when Nixon, a Republican, was president, and he signed into law.

 

The notion isn't new, but you're taking it to sensationalist boundaries that mirror McCarthyism.

 

It's called I've actually seen the literary materials that are required reading for people being taught to become teachers.