When it comes to its biographical article on Barack Hussein Obama, some are saying not. Indeed, if you access the current Wiki piece on Obama you will find a note at the top of the page declaring that the article has been closed to editing pending the resolution of disputes over the inclusion in the article of less than glowing facts about Obama's questionable past associations, political, religious and otherwise.
Okay, okay, they don't quite put it that way, but what else are we to make of this protection of the page as it now exists given the glowing nature of the article but that the page is being "protected" from the inclusion of facts about Obama's past that don't speak particularly well of him? The principle expressed in the adage "birds of a feather flock together" is universal, thus it applies equally to Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush. What then is a supposedly objective information outlet doing whitewashing the associations of one high profile individual while not granting the same privelege to the other, if indeed it is objective and strives to be objective?
Otherwise, however, the article seems to be a pretty good biographical sketch of Barack Hussein Obama, his personal life and professional and political careers. So it's not that the article is completely useless. It's just not very reliable as a source for Obama's questionable activities and past associations. And I personally have my doubts that it ever will be. Liberalism again wins the day, which is precisely what one would expect in liberal dominated society.
So it is that Wikipedia is yet one more example among many that liberalism is the dominant and ruling ideology in modern America.
Wikipedia is exactly what happens if egalitarianism is given carte blanche, a disgusting hotchpotch of the current Zeitgeist. Political correctness runs rampant and, believe me, that is exactly the same in the German version. It isn't limited to political topics either, but permeates all aspects of life.
ReplyDeleteAs a historian by training and supposed to be able to perform a critical analysis of any given source, I have come to find, after my initial irritation had waned, some interest in Wikipedia, simply because of that fact. What Wikipedia does NOT mention is very likely more interesting than what it does mention.