Lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia

So I had heard that the Barak Obama wikipedia entry had a lot of "edit warring" going on where people were rapidly adding and removing facts and information. So I went to investigate myself. Sure enough, if you look in the old revisions for the page, you can find this old revision that has a section labeled "Controversy". The only thing in this section is three links to men that have had some sort of controversial relationship with Obama in his past (the section is at the bottom of the article, above the Notes section). The three men mentioned are Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Tony Rezko. However, if you look at The most current version of the article (I linked it's "oldid" revision because the page might change yet again by the time you read this), this "Controversy" section has been completely removed. In addition, the page has been locked for editing because of all the controversy.

Politics aside, I don't think anybody will dispute that these three men knew Obama and had some sort of relationship with him. And it's obvious that these relationships are controversial, by definition. You may have your own opinion about what these men mean to Obama, and what kind of man he is having dealt with them in the past. That is NOT what I am concerned about here. I just think it shows how innacurate Wikipedia can become when simple facts like the above (Obama's relationship with these men has been controversial) cannot stand in the article due to people's political beliefs and their ability to edit Wikipedia to match their political agenda.

Comments
Actually if you really want to see some wikipedia wars go to the sections on evolution and creationism. Those who support creationism have been triying to force a lot of their views into that section while those who are in the opposite camp have been as active erasing those changes.
# Posted By Larry C. Lyons | 3/20/09 12:04 PM
All the more reason not to trust Wikipedia, Larry.

However, I think the same can be said for ANY source of information. History books, science books, they all can potentially have agenda driven "facts". It's hard to find the truth sometimes...
# Posted By Jake Munson | 4/3/09 9:51 AM
It can be said more for Wikipedia because the goal of Wikipedia is to provide gladiator-style entertainment for its founder, Jimbo Wales. When you read a book about evolution by a preacher or a scientist at least you know where the author is coming from, that his goal is to put his own singular viewpoint across. But when you read Wikipedia, you can never be completely sure that you really are reading the viewpoints of the authors.

What you read in a Wikipedia article today is a combination of the various games played by Wikipedia warriors, some of whom don't really care whether creationism or evolutionism is winning, as long as what they do helps them win a seat on Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (which for some Wikipedia warriors is like getting elected to Congress). Look at the edit histories of some of these warriors: some of them will revert their own edits when it serves their war goals.
# Posted By Bill Meyer | 7/2/09 12:47 PM
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.9. Contact Blog Owner