Wikipedia as a bastion of truth: reason #457,871 it’s not

Posted on March 9, 2009


File this under, “Wow, what a surprise.” It seems the Wikipedia page for Barack Obama has been scrubbed clean of controversial criticisms like his citizenship eligibility (an argument against him which I don’t put any stock in whatsoever) and references to Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Just checked, and it’s still true.

I hope people can realize the difference between saying, “Barack Obama has a problem with his association with Rev. Wright” and, “Critics contended that Barack Obama’s association with Rev. Wright was a problem.” Like it or not, the topic of Wright and Ayers were legitimate issues in the campaign, so merely saying they were brought up, you would think, wouldn’t be too big of a deal.

Wikipedia is a decent resource to go to when you need a broad outline of a topic or subject. For instance, I usually check it out for information on obscure historical references or bands. It’s worth when examining public figure or controversial topics goes significantly down the toilet as its users war back and forth to promote a particular narrative that fits a certain worldview. So when it comes to information from Wikipedia, I’ll continue to take it with a grain of salt, as we all should, and follow the advice of Reagan: “Trust, but verify.”

Posted in: Politics