Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility

Oh come on. It's not a conspiracy... they're removing EVERYTHING related to his eligibility, for AND against.


Wikipedia is just making sure their user edited content doesn't turn into a political battle ground.

One poster might claim he's not a citizen of the US... the next poster to enter will destroy that post and claim he is a citizen... the next will destroy that one... and so on and so forth.

Wikipedia isn't a forum. It's not a political battleground.
It's not some playground for a bunch of politically driven children who want to argue over something that hasn't been settled yet.


Imagine if Encyclopedia Britannica allowed that kind of thing.
A single word would occupy several volumes of bickering about what it means to certain people.

Not happening.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by skeptic1
The article is referring to anything that is posted on the Barack Obama page.

Oh, for Christ's sake! I didn't even read the article. Thanks for explaining that. It makes total sense that a conspiracy theory about our president wouldn't be listed on his official page.

Bush is the same way. He has his page, then other wiki pages for the conspiracies surrounding him.

People need to get a life, I think.

Getting agitated about conspiracies within conspiracies IS their life......sad I know....

For those who do not seem to understand Wikpedia demands established sources for ANY claim cited as fact. Since there are no primary sources indicating that BHO is anything but a American citizen any discussion to the contrary to known primary sources is being deleted. That is how wikipedia has always worked and that's how it's still working. .........

I have considered moving my efforts to Wikipedia but frankly i don't have the energy for the Bureocratic nightmare that you can get into when you try to upset relatively well established applecarts. Whether we like it or not wikpedia IS a good source primarly becuase it so strictly enforces such basic rules.

Stellar

[edit on 10-3-2009 by StellarX]

What did the Wiki say before it was repressed?

reply to post by StellarX


Lots of wikipedia pages I've read have "stubs" that, it says, need citations.

Wouldn't court documents be considered citations? I mean for the obama eligibility issue. It's an interesting situation.

reply to post by earlywatcher


From the horses mouth ( some would say some other part):

The "citation needed" link you just followed was placed there because somebody feels that the preceding statement needs an inline citation. If you cannot find a source for the claim, exercise extra caution when using the flagged information.

How to improve a passage that has a "citation needed" flag
If the statement violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, delete the statement immediately.
If you can provide a source to back up the statement, please be bold and add it. You can then remove the tag which generated the "citation needed" message.
To learn how to change or discuss articles, visit Wikipedia's editing tutorial.

en.wikipedia.org...:Citation_needed

So basically i can see someone putting that next to the statement ( of fact in my opinion) that BHO is American citizen and a rather large mess resulting from it. Perhaps a citation is required but apparently the guys at wiki feels that it was purely a political/reactionary editing. As a earlier poster pointed out there is a wiki page to discuss all the claims relating to this ellegibility.

Stellar

[edit on 11-3-2009 by StellarX]

[edit on 11-3-2009 by StellarX]