Wikipedia polishes the Obama Drama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Enoch, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now when you read about Obama on Wikipedia all the drama, controversial connections, blemishes are gone, as in erased, as in no such record. Historical revisionism already…that was fast. Cleaned him up real good…absolutely shocking. So is this the tactic for his “volunteer soldiers” and the infamous “truth squad” this is alarming.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is not revisionism, it is the nature of a contributory information source.

    Wikipedia is not meant to be a scholarly research tool.
     
  3. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it is not a scholarly research tool, I never said it was. It's an online community encyclopedia and it has been altered to poslish Obama's past.

    Do you have anything to actually say about my topic other than just posting your usual Rogerite type posts?
     
  4. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    It's not meant to have a political bias either. I think most of what you're talking about is unsubstantiated political rhetoric.
     
  5. Enoch

    Enoch
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually it is substantiated information that has disappeared from Wikipedia. It was there and now it's gone, thus the topic of the thread.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    I did post my thoughts, the implication was that this was some kind of revisionism, I contended that this is not any kind of revisionism, it is just what Wikipedia is. Revisionism is an attempt to rewrite history, this is nothing more than wikiism. If this had been 'Encylopedia Brittanica polishes the Obama Drama' there would have been plenty of room for discussion.

    Okay, wiki acted like wiki. Why is that worthy of a discussion? What would have those who disagree with your contention say in response?

    And, BTW, this is still there:

    What further negativism would you like to see included in the article?
     
    #6 NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2008
  7. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I've mentioned before that the most interesting part of Wikipedia is the discussion behind the article - I just started scanning the discussion area for this article and it looks once again to hold true. Lots of turmoil behind the scenes that must be resolved.
     
  8. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    With as much as there is to write about Obama, his article has been split into many smaller articles. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers are mentioned in the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 subarticle.
     
  9. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Enoch should read what he is committing on before it causes him to look foolish! :laugh:
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    He doesn't look foolish. He actually looks scholarly because he knows what SHOULD be on there and isn't.
     

Share This Page

Loading...