As always, consider the source. In this case, consider the source considering another source. (If you want to be a stickler, you can include me in that consideration, a source considering a source considering another source. Ah, academics.) World Net Daily reports changes made to Wikipedia’s entry on Barack Obama regarding his citizenship issues were deleted within minutes, and users were banned after trying again.
UPDATE: I’ve written a postscript at the bottom of this piece, or you can click here to read.
World Net Daily—bastion of objectivity, fairness, and spinlessness—says Wikipedia’s overseers are blocking attempts to update the President’s profile to include questions about his birth certificate and his relationship to William Ayers and preacher Jeremiah Wright.
“Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days,” writes Aaron Klein.
The bans were based, they were told, on violating “fringe theory” rules. After all, one can’t have an encyclopedia filled with conspiracy theories that can’t be backed up appropriately. In fairness, Klein does note that Wikipedia accepts fringe theories if widely documented by at least one major publication. In addition to World Net Daily’s own incessant “documentation,” the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and numerous other media outlets beat these stories to death during the election season without ever producing evidence or argument achieving purchase with the majority of conscientious observers.
Klein calls the Obama entry “mostly glowing” and compares it to George W. Bush’s “highly critical” entry. Both accounts appear upon examination to be factual; Obama’s suggests he’s a bastard, a former drug user, and a failure at quitting smoking. But if Obama’s entry is glowing and Bush’s paints him as less than perfect, it’s because the facts pretty straightforwardly paint them as such.
In fairness, the birth certificate controversy should be mentioned and debunked. The State of Hawaii confirmed Obama’s birth in the state in 1961, both with an authenticated certificate of live birth (which counts as documentation), and official state government decree. Those challenging the official ruling of an American state always have the burden to prove otherwise, which they have yet to produce—not that official government decrees are always to be trusted. Furthermore, a conservatively stacked US Supreme Court has thrown out challenges. Also in fairness, Wikipedia might mention the controversy in conjunction with John McCain’s birth in Panama, and note nobody seemed to have an issue with that unequivocal fact.
The editors have actually done a commendable job keeping Obama’s entry free from bias or unfounded claims from either side. If it’s glowing, it’s because Obama has led an admirable, exceptional, and intriguing life. The entry does imply Obama’s parents weren’t married when he was conceived: they married in Hawaii in February 1961, and Obama was born later in August.
So, do the math.
Jeremiah Wright is actually mentioned at this time, though spare on controversial details. The Ayers controversy is omitted, and really does deserve a sentence or two about the issue, one of which should end with John McCain’s more intimate (and proudly admitted) relationship with G. Gordon Liddy, who actually served prison time for his own brand of domestic terrorism, and who is not mentioned on John McCain’s Wikipedia entry. Perhaps the two cancel each other out. Ayers, who never went to jail, gets to teach college; Liddy gets his own nationally syndicated radio show. Call it even.
As for Bush’s “highly critical” article, Klein cites mentions of Bush’s admitted and documented alcohol abuse, how Bush suffered increasingly heated criticism after reelection, which is true, especially regarding his handling of Hurricane Katrina, which is true, and how in December 2007 the US entered one of the worst economic catastrophes since after WWII, also true.
It’s not unfair, unfounded, or untrue, and if not any of those things, it’s fact, not criticism.
Objectivity is extraordinarily difficult, and true objectivity verges on mythical status. Maintaining objectivity in user-generated narrative (narrative, I forever maintain, is all there really is) is a monumental task, and it appears the editors in this instance fear the type of subjectivity, bias, and agenda-driven, unsupportable, and unfair commentary routinely emanating from World Net Daily, which probably dislikes its own Wikipedia entry chronicling controversial inaccuracies, outrageous claims and incendiary remarks from the publication. Likely WND wishes it had the credibility Wikipedia has.
Which would you trust more? A publicly edited encyclopedia that is briefly and occasionally wrong but the editors of which aggressively monitor sources of information and cite them diligently at the bottom, or an openly slanted editorial site known for specious claims and vitriolic commentary the kind of which the American people rejected in the last two elections leading to a serious identity crisis within that particular political group?
Well, you choose. It’s probably unfair to have Daily Kos and the Huffington Post writers in there editing, too. That’s part of the difficulty associated with considering sources.
Postscript To World Net Daily/Wikipedia Editorial
Maybe I was a little rough on World Net Daily
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 murdok or murdok 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.
