Wikipedia Censorship Favors Obama

Have you ever used Wikipedia? I have to admit that I do. My college student daughter tells me college Professors refuse to allow Wikipedia to be used as reference and notation material because of the nature the online encyclopedia is set up. That set-up being that that anyone who registers (academically credentialed or NOT academically credentialed) and follows a few simple rules can write a Wikipedia article.

Now that actually does not bother me. When wade into Wikipedia information I am fully aware an article will be skewed Left-Center-Right with annotations to back up their article conclusions.

I ran into a WorldNetDaily article dated March 8, 2009 that writes about Wikipedia utilizing censorship beyond their usual scope.

Apparently Wikipedia is NOT allowing any anti-Obama articles to be published citing their rule of not allowing fringe information on the online encyclopedia. Well we all know that is poppycock because Wikipedia usually allows information if it is backed up by a slew of citations. Wikipedia will only remove such fringe articles if a large amount of complaints OR a big dog organization OR a big dog member of an organization write to complain about an article.

Specifically articles pointing to the controversy President Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to the Office of President are being removed instantly from Wikipedia. Also according to WorldNetDaily, articles relating information about connections to BHO’s friends and mentors are being deleted if they question the veracity of BHO.

Well I guess the President of the United States of America qualifies as a big dog working for a big dog organization. The question is does this kind of censorship rattle the American Way or does this kind of censorship smack of Leftist revisionism?

JRH 3/12/09

Wikipedia Defies 180,000 Muslims

Wikipedia displays medieval Mohammedan art depicting the Theo-political prophet Mohammed. Evidently this has 180,000 anti-Free Speech Mohammedans who wish to dhimmify Wikipedia by demanding the art created by Mohammedans themselves be removed.

So far Wikipedia has taken a stand for Free Speech and has disregarded the cultural clash of Mohammedans and is remaining by Western principles of Liberty and Freedom of Speech.

If you read this, drop an email of support to Wikipedia (info-en-o@wikimedia.org). Free Speech needs to stand in the midst of supremacist minded Mohammedans that cry victimization every time the West performs a function that is an accepted practice in Western Culture.

JRH (Hat Tip toward Blue Star Chronicles)