Postscript To World Net Daily/Wikipedia Editorial

Maybe I was a little rough on World Net Daily

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:

[ Social Media]

I wasn’t as objective as I could have been in this piece, which is an editorial, not, technically, an article. I’ve decided Wikipedia editors probably were too aggressive in blocking edits regarding Barack Obama controversies, but I still hold my other opinions firm. And as always, my views do not always reflect the views of WebProNews or iEntry, Inc. itself.

My personal belief is that objectivity is a lofty, admirable, optimistic, and impossible concept, and that some come closer to achieving it than others—Brian Williams stakes his entire persona on the idea that objectivity is possible, and that’s fine by me.

But I do believe everyone is biased, even when they’re trying not to be. It can’t be helped. No one can really, truly step outside of their own way of seeing the world. I also think that a differing opinion is not tantamount to slant, though many like to point to differences as a way to discredit immediately, and to their own holistic view detriment. I tend to think philosophies are prisons robbing of us any great view of reality. 

That’s a rather erudite point we don’t need to get into here, my bias against true objectivity which underlies my refusal to compromise how I truly feel. While I don’t believe in objectivity, I do believe in honesty, and I do feel I owe my readership honesty at all times. In this case, I told you how I really feel about World Net Daily (yick) and Barack Obama (whom I admire) and threw in some political commentary free of charge. You’re welcome and I’m sorry. For the record, I’m not a liberal; I’m ¾ utilitarianist and ¼ libertarian, which you might think is worse.

The point of this postscript is to acknowledge, in the name of transparency, that I could have been fairer to World Net Daily in examining their call to the carpet of Wikipedia editors. It’s not absurd to imagine that, like is understood about the majority of Digg users or popular California-based companies like Google or Web 2.0 digi-liberal crowd-sourcing true-believers, those dedicated to editing the information on Wikipedia are very interested in protecting the legacy of the sitting President.

In fact, it seems very likely, even outside of any “liberal media” mythologies. The editors in question have tossed out fairly presented, factual information about controversies surrounding Barack Obama. Entries on George W. Bush’s article are not devoid of controversial explorations, and we should call for goose-and-gander type good faith efforts. Mentioning Ayers, Wright, and birth certificate controversies are fair game when chronicling a Presidential legacy.

Instead of the goose-and-gander route, I went the pot-and-kettle route, which was to be appalled that one of the absolute least objective of sources (my opinion) was calling out Wikipedia for being biased. My opinion of the Obama article is that it is fair and incomplete, a viewpoint at odds with WND’s Aaron Klein, who thought it was “glowing” while Bush’s was “highly critical.” Bush’s could be much, much worse (especially if I had written it), and Obama’s could be much worse in either direction. I found Klein’s argument specious and inapt, but he was correct in identifying overly aggressive editing and banning.

It must be difficult to be the official arbiter of supposed objectivity and the guardian of a collective information source. Likely the editor didn’t want any mention of William Ayers because, and rightly so, guilt-by-association spurious, irrelevant claims shouldn’t be entertained in a perfect world, and neither should unsupported claims of improper documentation. But this isn’t an objective, perfect world, and if birth certificates and Ayers and Jeremiah Wright become legitimate enough that a certain amount of people become concerned, then they belong in the historical record, even if never proven. Case closed, a faint stain on an otherwise admirable legacy.

We’ve heard stories of a certain Russian queen and horses, how Mary Magdalene was a whore, and how we never really landed on the moon. That these things were ever seriously considered by a wide range of people justifies at least a mention.

And as for you humble writer, you can always count on him to shoot you straight, even if not to be completely objective, which to him is like asking him to be a tennis shoe or a bottle rocket.


Postscript To World Net Daily/Wikipedia Editorial
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.committeesofsafety.org prsmith

    Sure didn’t sound like one to me.

    On Wikipedia there are. . .

    NO comments re. Obama’s mentors, friends, sponsors, etc.
    NO comments re. Obama’s visit, at age 19, to Pakistan when it was illegal for an American CITIZEN to do so.
    NO comments re. Obama’s adoption and Indonesian citizenship.
    NO comments re. about the fact that Obama has hired several law firms and spent upwards of a million dollars trying to hide a $15 birth certificate and his passport history.
    etc., etc., etc.

    There is no question that 1st Amendment rights are being infringed. End of story!

    • Guest

      Your 1st amendment rights extend to wikipedia? That is a novel reading of the constitution, a type of reading that only a wingnut who thinks Obama is not an American citizen would do.

      As for the article here, why did you not mention that the “user” who the WND article talks about Jerusalem21 only other edits besides the Obama article are to Aaron Klein’s wikipedia entry, which has a history of Aaron Klein editing it himself. Aaron never mentions in his WND article how he was Jerusalem21, but it takes about 2 seconds of looking to figure out Aaron and Jerusalem21 are one in the same, and Aaron drummed up this “controversy” all by himself.

      • Mr. Cash

        I would urge you to look past the fog of spin and see reality. In reality 0bama never released his birth certificate or claimed that the one posted on the web was his. He has never released the information regarding his trip to Pakistan, never released his records from college which would indicate what the circumstances were that allowed him to get such special treatment in admitting him.
        I would urge you and others like you to try to find out why it is that he’s refusing to release his records. We know all about Gore and flunking divinity school and “W” and his grades. We know exactly where all of our previous presidents were born and many of thos places are now monuments and part of history.
        After 0bama leaves DC and the history books are written there will always be an * by his birthplace unless he comes forth and clears the issue up.

    • Guest

      No comments about his birth certificate? You have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories haven’t you?

  • Guest

    LOL, Jason, that’s what you get for your half-assed backtracking!

    I thought the original article was right on the money.

    But I also understand job security.

    • Rich Ord

      It’s not about job security, it’s about being fair to both sides of an issue. That’s why Jason clarified that his first article was basically an editoral. In my opinion, the Wikipedia deletions are a legitimate concern and should not be dismissed out of hand.

      At WebProNews we will not delete or edit any topical comments whether this publisher agrees with them or not.

      Rich Ord
      CEO, iEntry, Inc.
      Publisher of WebProNews

  • http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/ Guest

    There are more idiots posting unsubstantiated claims than I have time to correct. However, someone who cares about being fair and honest deserves my thumbs up.

    I belong to MENSA. I belong to the Association For Intelligence Officers. I have several decades of law enforcement undercover experience. I know good evidence when I see it. Obama has not provided adequate evidence that he is a natural born citizen.

    The fact that he fights the release of his medical, educational, passport and birth records makes him a prime suspect for the biggest scam in the history of mankind.

    I congratulate you for being open minded enough to actually look at the evidence, or lack of it, before making a pronouncement.

    Aristotle the Hun

    • Guest

      Did Bush release his air national guard records? Obama released a copy of his birth certificate, what more could the whacko fringe want?

      • Rusty

        Obama has not only never released his birth certificate, he has challenged in court attempts to get it released. Why? Anyone? Why would he fight something so hard that’s so harmless?

      • Mr. Cash

        Isn’t it funny that you would use Bush as your excuse for 0bama refusing to prove he’s Constitutionally qualified? I thought 0bama was supposed to be different, but you and the left wing “whackos” seem to prove he’s no different than the last prez. Thanks for clearing that up.
        0bama has never released his birth certificate, has never claimed that the certificate posted on the web was his, was accurate, or came from his files and yet you and others believe somehow that it has happened.

      • Mark

        Did Bush release his Guard records? Yes, he did. Payroll records and medical records. They, along with an eyewitness, proved he was where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there. That doesn’t make him a great, or even GOOD President (he was neither), but it does prove that leftists who continue to accuse him of being AWOL are willingly ignorant at best, or outright lying at worst.

  • Whipsnard Q. Bimblemann, III, Esq.

    Face it, Wikipedia is crap and unacceptable for use as a reference when writing a paper for a grade in most worthwhile schools of education. Admiring someone is no reason to defend aggressive banning on an open-source site. As a matter of fact, BHO is the tool that’s driving this country into oblivion.

    • Guest

      Why would anyone trust wikipedia for writing a paper? You don’t go to wikipedia to find out information on contentious subjects, you go to find obscure information. For example, I was driving in DC past the mormon temple, I wanted more info so I went on wikipedia and found some great facts.

      If you right wing nutjobs want to “inform” us about Obama then start your own tin-foil-hat-ipedia.

      • William

        So, you are advocating for “separate but equal”? Seems like a very old Democrat tactic from the Jim Crow days.

      • Mr. Cash

        I was amused at your reply, almost laughing as I read the last line.
        Wikipedia is clearly trying to present the new prez as a prize and worthy of admiration. You seem to be caugfht up in an “us vs them” mentality. We are all Americans and deserve leaders who are both qualified and capable. From the evidence I have seen the new prez is neither.The hospital he now claims he was born in has never billed anyone for his delivery. His medical records are sealed(as if there were any there) but the billing records are not and nobody named Obama or Dunham was ever billed for delivery of a baby, boy or girl, in 1961. I do not pretend to be a hospital administrator but believe that any competent administrator would bill for those services and paid people to deliver babies.
        No doctor has ever come forward to claim they delivered the new prez. The new prez went to Hawaii after the election and never once visited the place he claims it all began. The Hawaiian officials never once claimed that the new prez was born in Hawaii, only that a record of his birth exists.
        To me it matters little whether he was born in Hawaii or not. In the big picture he is presiding over a country on the brink of chaos and an economy that Warren Buffet says has fallen off of a cliff. Nothing the Congress or the last two occupants of the White House has done will stop the free fall of the economy and Obama is

  • Guest

    Whatever one thinks of Obama, Wikipedia should have allowed the content to give a more clear and complete picture of the history, associations, controversies and such that have surrounded the man. This is after all the man elected to lead our nation for at least the next four years (much longer if he gets his way). It certainly makes one wonder what else they have edited in their biased views. When we stamp out, rewrite history and past associations (however much one wants to pretend they are no big deal—can one imagine if this had been Bush with this sort of background??) we are crossing dangerous terrain. It appears to be a growing epidemic from those who are suppose to report the news, etc. God help you if you dare criticize the “Chosen One” no matter how appalling or destructive the people, history, policies or disturbing the questions that surround him. If they, these “guardians of truth,” do not like it, they wipe it out and shut down/attack the people who would say otherwise. Any of this sound familiar to past patterns of tyranny?

    And for the record, Obama never released an OFFICIAL birth certificate, a matter he could easily rectify if there existed one. Just another pile added to the long list of things not known of Obama or mostly ignored by all too many sources of “information.” I’ve never seen anything like it surrounding the President of the United States. It is insane.

    In school we were forbidden by our instructors to use Wikipedia as a source due to the many inaccuracies and abuses it was vulnerable to. Here we have a prime example of it.

  • Dave Jones

    Why would someone spend over $2 Million to stop people from looking at his Birth, Educational and passport records, unless there was something to hide?

    That certificate that was posted wasn’t a Birth Certificate, it was a Certificate of Live Birth, something that is issued when someone is born overseas.

    But look at it anyway. It shows that Barack (Barry) race was “Black”. Back in 1961 there weren’t any blacks!!! There were Negros, Negroids and in a few southern counties, the “N” word, but no Blacks. There term Black didn’t start to appear until about a decade later.

  • Mark

    “I tend to think philosophies are prisons robbing of us any great view of reality.


  • BHO Supporter

    BHO said he was born in Hawaii and we should believe him. He is a man of high integrity. We, BHO supporters should ask BHO to disclose the original verifiable vault-certificate, showing the place of birth and the hospital. It will cost him $12, and the GOP will shot up.

    It is hard to argue against his political enemies who claim he and our party spent nearly $1,000,000 to keep it secret. Even if the actual amount is less, there are now about 40 lawsuits and it is doubtful that all lawyers hired to keep the vault-BC under seal, work on pro-bono basis.

    We can not hope that this fringe of right-wingers are going to quit. In fact the pressure is getting stronger, with some lawmakers joining as plaintiffs.

    Please Barack pay the $12 and make them shot up. We are supporting you and we don

  • http://www.ascentent.com Ent Services

    Obama has gone against many of his campaign promises. It is disappointing but that’s how Presidential campaign goes. You promise something and you do something else.

  • http://www.sulubancliffbali.com Luxury Bali Villas

    Why don’t President Obama show his birth certificate? What is there to hide?

  • http://www.internet-empire.com Seo Singapore

    Perhaps Wikipedia got their arms full with defamation lawsuits in the horizon should they post something controversial.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom