Basically, Wikipeida is home of Obama cult love.

Where the Owellean ideas of Thought Crime and censorship and thuggery is alive and well and
now getting the attention of the mainstream.

Mainstream getting on board that Wikipedia is bull donkey

Here an example of one of those admins that seek neutral point of view on St. Berry O's wikipedia
web site.
A true jimbo and Berry O cultist

So the Church Of Wikiality (COW) really does know where its tax exemption comes from, after all.

Ja Ja

Wait, I thought they were so conservative that there was some question of fascism?

Well, which is it, now?

Wait, fascism is conservative?

Don't expect change.

Oh; this is over here too.


Drudge linked to this WND article today.

He's the person who, if my memory serves me, talking heads have labeled as the person who can set the agenda for cable news.

Usual Truther idiocy.

Can't find "ayers" anywhere on the page and "wright" only appears in the footnotes.

Even more strangely, these words aren't in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or United States presidential election, 2008.

It's only in the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 article that you can get some idea what the hubbub is about.

it's not like Wikipedia has ever said anything at all about the way certain segments of society have attempted to portray the pilot, president, and business-person George W. Bush as anything less than articulate and intelligent person, right?

so why should anyone say anything about all this rubbish related to President Barack Obama?

It's far more important that we should learn about his work on Project Vote, for six months in 1992.

I've not been made privy of that. Please, pray tell.

The slogan was, "It's a Power Thing."

At face glance...

If you look at certain theorists in their critique of how power impacts our experiences, and then how voting impacts power, perhaps there is some sort of validity to the associations being made by the marketers.

Of course, I do not know the details, so I could be playing devil's advocate here for all the wrong reasons.

That WND story, like a lot of paranoid idiocy that the conservative Mighty Wurlitzer likes to bellow at the world, is rapidly spreading to right-wing blogs....

ihatethemedia

Newsbusters

Freep

We'll be hearing about this for months. It makes a good talking point, and WP's admins being a bunch of fucked-up paranoiacs, nobody will step up to refute it.

ORLY?

yes

ORLY?


The non-citizen business really is Truther territory. But honestly, no mention of Ayers or Wright either in the main article or in the campaign article?


Please to explain how this sentence appears in the main article on John McCain, but the only link in the Obama article to [[Jeremiah Wright controversy]] is in a footnote and the only link to [[Bill Ayers presidential election controversy]] is in a collapsed template.

Jimbo may be a Randian but the majority of Wikipedia editors skew liberal, as one might expect of high school and college students.

Welcome back JoJo, knew you couldnt go cold turkey on the Jimbo Juice (or anti-Jimbo Juice as you wish).

Ipecac, followed by a slurry of activated charcoal in more serious cases.

Jon (IANAD)

What does all this shite mean?! Translation:
The bland, grinning, corrupt man-in-a-suit-and-tie that I voted for is better than the bland, grinning, corrupt man-in-a-suit-and-tie that you voted for. So there.

You need to head over to the Obama article on Conservapedia for--shall we say--a more fair-and-balanced treatment.

A typical excerpt:


I love that website.

Did I mention my several accounts and I were banned from Conservapedia? It was not one of my happiest days.

I see what you mean. I used to - vaguely - like Obama. Well, my eyes are open now. Damn him to Hell.


I've never indulged. It would be interesting to see how long it would take for a couple of identities to get banned, there. So many forums, so little time, though.

"Mainstream" and "worldnetdaily" appearing in the same sentence is pretty funny, I tellya.

Man, what a bunch o' longhairs —

I mean on their knuckles —

Makes you wonder how they type —

Ja Ja Ja

Apparently, since that is a typical word used by The Left when speaking about conservatives.

But fascists always describe themselves as leading a populist rebellion.

Y'know, like Ronnie Raygun.

Jon

You see, you neatly illustrate my point, there. Richard Nixon, too. And both of them were populists, inasmuch as they collected most of the votes in the US heartland. No, not the Left's version of Populists. Populist in the sense of representing the most numerically popular views.

Now, the Left's answer for this, is that the Silent Majority in America is actually made up mostly of fascists. With the only moderates being denizens of coastal big cities.

So anyone who wins an election on the popular vote is pretty much a populist — y'know, except for folks who win by the popular vote of the Supreme Court, I guess.

So the House of Reps is populist and the Senate is … what?

Jon

Peerless.

And what, pray tell, were you doing on Conservapedia???
Subverting it? Or vandalizing it?

------------
It made Fox News.....

And holy.. crap, ANI is boiling over about this story.....

Welcome to Freep Hell, boys and girls.
WP was, at one time, relatively friendly and collegial (if rather corrupt and mismanaged).

Now that it's a target for edit wars conducted by righty nut-cases, how do you like it?


Uh, no, shithead. It's Freepers-vandalizing-WP time.

I suppose so. Though the word has been used in other ways so much that even the people who call themselves "populists" really agree on what it means. Usually it means you think somebody has more power than you do, and you think that's unfair.

I have no idea. The adoption of the Constitution and thus creation of the Senate was approved by what was probably a majority vote, although the vote wasn't taken that way. So does it count, or not? Again the old problem of democracy is that you cannot settle any basic democratic issue by democratic means, since there is no way to draw democratically draw voting boundaries to begin. The US was no different. Democratic government is not a problem which admits of a solution within its own set of rules.

Well, let's face it, pretty much all politicians these days describe themselves as representing the Interests, the Views, or the Will of the People.

Not that those are anywhere near the same thing.

It is usually said that the winner represents the Will of the People — but that is only because the Will is so undefined in its own right that you might as well take the winner as representing it by definition. Just like Fitness and Survival, I guess.

People may vote for the candidate who Echoes their Views, but that doesn't mean they vote for the person who Represents their Views, not by a long shot, as many a Slip of Misreading occurs between the Lip and the Echo.

Do people vote for the candidate who represents their Interests? That is even harder to tell. Unlike Views and Will, whose match or mismatch can be judged at election time, you never really know whether you elected the one who represents your Interests until several years down the road.

As for the Bicameral Congress, that was a compromise between the populism of Jefferson (the 5¢ and $2 guy) and the real estatism of Hamilton (the $10 guy). Sure, a bunch of DWG's co-founded the set-up, but what it means today is that non-populous States like Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming happily accept a disproportionate boon of Congressional Power year after year after year that allows them to doggle the denizens of populous coastal cities — like Washington DC, for instance. So much for populism. You can't get there from here.

Jon

Hey was the "Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio" section already there when I posted this? I don't remember reading it but now it's there.

Drudge will group what he believes are related articles together inside horizontal ruled off boxes.

Now with this WP Obama story he groups in:

--------
WIKIPEDIA scrubs Obama page clean of critical entries...

WIRE: 'Manchurian Candidate Starts War on Business'...
--------

keeps getting more interesting.

I sincerely hope you're not taking Drudge seriously.
There is no easy way to describe what a flake he is.....
but you can read this.

That's only because Obama ran against a guy who had been a POW …

Ja Ja

Okay, well, I don't know if a post was changed or I just lost the one that contained this blog link, but that's what I wanted to comment on. The overall point is sound, but the comments in brackets were no more informed than the stupidity of the Conservapedia article. This one above, however, was my favorite. The comment in the blog was: {Presidents don't pick their own code names. The Secret Service assigns them.} Granted his source says they're assigned, but Conservapedia's got a reliable source, too, that says Obama had some say.

Regardless, I had not previously heard of "renegado" meaning "Christian turned Muslim", but even if it did, that wouldn't describe Obama, whether he was or is Muslim. The confusion around this was being discussed on Conservapedia editor Ed Poor's talk page (permanent link) back in November. Guess what Aschlafly wants, Aschlafly gets. What a nut job.

http://gawker.com/5167585/right+wing-write...kipedia-scandal

eeeexcellent.

Psedonyms are a lot like potato chips.

Betcha can't edit as just one.


Jon

My only observation is - certainly in what used to be Communist Eastern Europe, and everywhere else that isn't/wasn't part of the Free World - that if the ruling political party had as part of its name the words "Democratic", "Peoples" and/or "Popular/list" in it then very likely it was nothing of the sort.

Whereas the United Kingdom....

More shenanigans:

http://gawker.com/5167759/update-writer-us...kipedia-scandal

Heh! Translation:
"Fuck. I've been caught. {Squirm! Squirm!}

Have to say, though, that I like Klein's little beard. Very dapper. Gives him a "you wouldn't want to buy a used car from me" vibe.

Aaron Klein, the guy who ordered the failed edits to Obama's bio and then concocted the dubious story, is now being referred to in mainstream press as the "Obama Wiki fiddler".

Oops! Well that backfired for him then didn't it!

Obama Wiki fiddler caught red-handed!

That ain't the half of it. WND's chief editor is now fully involved.

Farah Cries "Libel"

As that blogger notes, Mr. Klein is a regular apologist for the Israeli far right.
Some of whom, like the Kach and Kahane Chai, are actually considered terrorists by Israel.
And he seems to have no problems with Baruch Goldstein.

Calling Klein a "journalist" is an insult to all real journalists.

CharlotteWebb, you actually felt the need to ask this question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=277866000

Recall that a troll is someone who asks a good question that you'd rather not have to answer. Socrates asked good questions like that. So did Jesus, Becket, Galileo, Darwin, and a lot of other pesky trolls who got their asses banned for such temerity.

So true. Recall the time that Socrates sneaked into Plato's room one night and scrawled on the wall "PLATO U SUCK BALLS!!!!! + U R TEH GAYS!!!"