Still fighting that $12 for a vault copy..why would anyone go to this much trouble if they were honest??

Because it drives the birth-certificate nitwits crazy, Siouxcity.   Best $12 he never spent.

You haven't realized that Obama's whole political strategy, from the Birth Certificate Flap to Rush LimBoss is to let Republicans make fools of themselves? 

Wikipedia knows how to deal with vandals.

Hmmmmmmmmmm  freedom of speech?????????????????? blocked.

Hmmmmmmmmm, graffiti?  Blocked.

Dissenting voices are graffiti?  Since when?

wiki has a clearly defined editorial policy. You can access it through the main page.

--virgil

Nancy, there's a long history of Wikipedia vandalism.  It's quite common that highly-visited pages there are locked down and accessible only to a limited number of known people.  Politicians' pages are particularly susceptible to that.

As I said, they have ways of dealing with the vandalism.   There's always the <snort> "Conservapedia" to indulge the crackpot-du-jour.

Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio is graffiti??

That doesn't answer the question as to being able to cite dissenting voices ..or is it that wiki only wants to allow whitewash?

That doesn't answer the question as to being able to cite dissenting voices ..or is it that wiki only wants to allow whitewash?

Wikipedia doesn't want to deal with the same crackpots day after day after day.  They're not as patient as I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

looking in the mirror and talking to yourself must take its toll RF

looking in the mirror and talking to yourself must take its toll RF

Ask Buffoo.   I'm sure it does.

Get used to revisionist history folks, from now on, you will NEVER get the truth.  The Communist leaders in the USSR knew the value of regulating (censoring) the media and this is simply another page from the socialist playbook.    Once the so-called Fairness Doctrine is in place there will be NO dissenting opinions tolerated whatsoever.

Next, look for sanctions on the Internet and the Second Amendment.

Sioux,

Obama has produced a certified copy. I have no idea what you mean by vault copy. Where did you ever get that terminology. In any case. No one will be issued anything but a certified copy.

No originals are ever released.

Go to the hall of records and request a vault copy. I would suggest they would look at you strangely and ask if you meant a certified copy. Then ask if you have a good cause for receiving that copy.

You will not be issued a copy except for good cause.  :>)

Get used to revisionist history folks, from now on, you will NEVER get the truth.

You can't handle the truth, Curt.

Nancy,

Wiki is a on line encyclopedia. Not a blog or soapbox.

Curt,

‘The Colbert Report" is the tongue-in-cheek Comedy Central news show that features the titular humorist spouting off on a variety of political topics in a highly stylized, Bill O'Reilly-esque manner. On Monday's episode, Colbert praised Wikipedia, the online resource that can be read and edited by anyone with access to a computer, for promoting what he termed "Wikiality" — a sort of pseudo-reality that exists when you make something up and enough people agree with you.
"I'm no fan of reality, and I'm no fan of encyclopedias," Colbert opined. "I've said it before: Who is [Encyclopaedia] Britannica to tell me George Washington had slaves? If I want to say George Washington didn't have slaves, that's my right. And now, thanks to Wikipedia, it's also a fact."
While he was speaking, Colbert was also typing away on a laptop computer, apparently editing the Wikipedia entry on George Washington to read, "In conclusion, George Washington did not own slaves."
He also apparently edited the Wiki entry on his own program, replacing a lengthy section on his reference to Oregon as both "the Canada of California" and "Washington's Mexico" with "Oregon is Idaho's Portugal" — an example, he said, of Wikiality.
"[On Wikipedia], any user can change any entry," he said. "Now 'Oregon is Idaho's Portugal' is the opinion I have always held. You can look it up."
The thing is, Colbert was actually making the changes — or, at least, someone with the username StephenColbert was. The edits are seen on Wikipedia.com here and here, and they were both made around 6:35 p.m. ET, when "The Colbert Report" tapes in New York.

From:

http://www.mtv.com/news/art...

 Random -

I do quite well with the truth, thank you.

As I have stated here MANY times, I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. I am a Conservative.  

Please do not assume I am carrying any-ones water but my own.    I do not listen to Talk Radio and I receive my news -via- on-line versions of six to seven daily newspapers from through out the globe.  I take Katic Couric with the same grain of salt I take Shepard Smith.  All mainstream media has an agenda - to make money NOT report factual news. 

The opinions I express here are my own.  If they occasionally coincide with the views expressed by a talking head, I sincerely hope they are parroting my views rather than vice versa.

 Tkozy - 

As you have so aptly illustrated, anyone who would utilize Wikipedia as a sole reference source is an idiot.  Occasionally, they will hit the nail on the head but I fear that is by accident rather than by design.

I can not comment here.

Curt, you were a convenient target because of your silly assertion that Wikipedia's using its normal procedure to protect a page from vandalism in any way signals some sort of repressive regime coming down.

The country's main problem is not an economic one, it's the near-total breakdown of the news media, which should be reporting on what's going on, and instead seems to treat the latest Republican press releases as golden truth.  It's a latter-day version of Kitman's Law:  pure drivel tends to drive ordinary drivel off the TV screen.

The vast majority of Americans are woefully ignorant of what socialism really is, and why what Obama is proposing *ISN'T* socialism and really isn't all that liberal.    If you didn't call Shrub on his implementation of Soviet-style tactics during his eight-year junta, then I really don't think you have much credibility to claim Obama is using them.

I can comment here, but not on several other "conservative" bloggers postings at this site. 

Sometimes self imposed "censorship" is the most satisfying. :-)

Tkozy my learned friend..a vault copy

 Random  - I do not see ANY censorship as "silly"  

Whether it is Wikipedia or the NBC nightly news I find the censorship of any legitimate information revolting.   We see censorship just about everywhere.  Even here on TBC blogs, there is censorship.  

While Wikipedia may not have censorship as an official policy, with a nod and a wink, they are condoning censorship by their acceptance of it.  They can shake their head in denial all they want and say it is "the moderators" who are doing the censoring, but unless they allow legitimate contrary information to be included, they cannot be trusted and they must be labeled for what they are:  A biased source of information no different than the Pravda of USSR fame.  I would hold this opinion even if the situation were reversed and the Republican was glorified.  Sadly, the situation is not confined to Wikipedia - it is rampant in the media as a whole.

I am not advocating the free and unbridled use of expletives (nor is that what I am talking about)  I am also not advocating conspiracy theorists be given the same legitimacy as a trusted news source. I am referring to the deliberate stifling of free intellectual discourse simply because someone does not hold the same point of view.   Long-timers here have noticed I rarely post anymore. In fact, I rarely even browse here simply because there is a huge lack of civility.   

In my opinion, anyone with a minority opinion here is brow-beaten.   I fear this increasing lack of civility will ultimately lead to a forum where all you will find is a group of people who completely agree with each other and dissenting opinions will be gone.  I can only imagine how boring that will be!

While I may not agree with your point of view, you would be hard pressed to find an instance where I have alluded to you as ignorant, or inferred there is a defect in your ability to utilize your intelligence.  Simply because someone does not agree with you does not mean they "don't get it" - They simply do not agree with your assessment of a given topic.

 Random  - I do not see ANY censorship as "silly"  

As practiced by those who lock people out of TBC blogs, it gives me a giggle.  But your humor may vary.  What the vandals at Wiki wanted to do is equivalent to spraypainting the side of a business.

In my opinion, anyone with a minority opinion here is brow-beaten.

They're free to brow-beat right back.  But it had better be with something better than ad-hominem, however they may spell that. 

I fear this increasing lack of civility will ultimately lead to a forum where all you will find is a group of people who completely agree with each other and dissenting opinions will be gone.

How does that differ from folks who lock dissenting commenters out?

Some people are just bone heads RF..whether they disagree or not has no bearing on them getting locked out..You my friend are on a higher level than others Ive locked out which are at a grand total of two so far..

it had nothing to do with differences in opinion..it had everything to do with the way they approach the people on the blog..One played a stupid game for a few weeks and got a few bloggers booted off TBC and sadly they haven't come back. I felt that was pretty low and every time we talked he became worse in his attacks until I finally had enough and quit responding to him altogether..said BY BY

the other always came in trying to bait the whole blog into a frenzy.. got rude one too many times

you take cheap shots but sometimes they make me grin even if they are directed toward me..If I occasionally get one over it makes my day hahaha...cant deny your wit which makes you a worthwhile addition.

I've been locked out by three different posters here.  (Although one of them doesn't seem to be around any more.)

(Edit:  four, but one has since relented partially.)

It's implicit in the rules of TBC that folks get to lock others out.  I don't do it, but it's "legal."  Similarly, it's "legal" for Wiki to do what they've done.  They had similar locks in place on the George W. Bush entry.  And they've caught politicians editing their own entries to remove stuff that politician doesn't like.

 Random,

Obviously, I can't help but disagree.  

In removing the unflattering information about BHO while allowing the unflattering information about ex-president Bush, Wiki is practicing revisionism at best and pure censorship at worst.  Further, it is performed with the "nod and a wink" approval of those who are responsible for the website, so how can that be compared to "spray-painting the underside of a business"?  The censored information was indexed, referenced and available via other "legitimate" sources!  It can hardly be compared to graffiti.

C'mon Random, call it what it is:  Deliberate censorship.

Curt at 12:12 p.m.  Hurrah!

let me see if ive got this  right..one day wiki is an acceptable source of info and the next its not because people dont agree with whats being posted??  lets get this straight before we continue so Im clear on where to find my facts from now on..so far its huffingtom post and factcheck.com..anything other than a favored liberal site is out of bounds..correct??

If you have spent anytime at wiki at all you can understand their policies. One should go read them for one's self.

BTW it FactCheck.com.

RF And they've caught politicians editing their own entries to remove stuff that politician doesn't like.

excellent point made and noted..pre election I picture Me-Shell getting up in the morning cup of coffee in one hand and laptop in the other..her homepage is wiki and she's busy undoing what others have done..such as any reference to 'O's past connections with shady characters..birth certificates etc..now she has the POTUS power to insist wiki keeps a watchful eye since the elections..or suffer the consequences

Obviously none of you are blocked out of my blogs..I take a lot of flak as you can see.  :-)

I've blocked two people here.  One a liar and one a cheat.  Kinda sorta the same thing in my book.

Sioux, wiki is a *CONVENIENT* source of info.  If I were writing a research paper and footnoted from there I'd be rightly laughed out of the classroom.  (Thank goodness my classroom days are long past.)   It's a "commons," with all the advantages and disadvantages of such.  Close enough for government work and blog citations.

In all it's pretty well-policed but certainly prone to abuse, as Colbert pointed out.  Sometimes they have to lock stuff up.  If you want to call that "deliberate censorship," feel free.  Would you have appreciated entries on Shrub including his drunken behavior at the Olympics? 

Huffingtonpost.com is an *OPINION* site, but a fairly well-documented one.  As with most left-leaning blogs, it generally links to what it's discussing.

I picture Me-Shell getting up in the morning cup of coffee in one hand and laptop in the other..

Whatever gets you through the day.   I picture her sending Obama off to kick Republicans in the kiester.  Which he's doing handily.

Why not direct your ire towards McCain?  He obviously screwed up by not believing the nutjobs advancing the birth-certificate fantasy. 

 Siouxcityranch - 

The point I am trying to make is ANY source of news and information should - indeed must - be suspect if they do not allow the inclusion of verifiable dissenting information.  Any so-called source of information that allows or advocates censorship can hardly be called an unbiased source of information.  This is true for Wiki, MSNBC, FoxNews, CBS ad infinitum.

Truth is, there is NO single source of information that can be trusted.  The truth requires multiple sources checked against each other. To think otherwise invites disaster.

if they do not allow the inclusion of verifiable dissenting information. 

Does not apply in this instance.  

 Random - 

You wrote:  "Does not apply in this instance". 

I copied this from the original post above:

..."As is required on the on-line encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage..."

I do not see any Wiki administrator running to "clean up" the entry for George W. Bush.  So,  using their own posting criteria, how can anyone possibly infer they are NOT practicing revisionist censorship? 

I do not see any Wiki administrator running to "clean up" the entry for George W. Bush.

He's no longer in office.   Thank God.  And yet, here are the recent revisions and "cleanups."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/i...  Couple of dozen today alone.

Sioux,
You linked me to blogsites. Not a dictionary of terms.
Google, ‘what is a vault copy‘.
I for one came up with no results.

So I yahoo’d it.
Nothing again.

So I wiki’d it.
No article found.. Was the response.

Vault copy is a term dreamed up by the blog world in order that they can confuse the issue of, ‘Certified copy.’

By the way, the lock on the Obama article is specifically noted as not an endorsement and lasting only "until disputes have been resolved."

But if WorldNutDaily is one of their "credible supporting sources," I want the Globe's reporting on Shrub's binge drinking to be included in his profile.

If Wikipedia keeps this up, it will be a parody of Randomfactor. Thanks for posting the link, Sioux, ditto for the comments, CurtDalton. It was but just several days ago that AOL and Politco.com made this issue the top story of the day. Loved how the Politico article referred to us folks as "The Birthers." Sounds like the title of a Stephen King horror novel. As we all well know, truth and good always wins in the end ... so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, do read what Phil at the Right Side of Life has to say about this flap at: http://www.therightsideofli...

So how's the thin skin of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama holding up to the light of scrutiny these days? If not good, then there's always the hope that he could harvest some embryonic stem cells to do this grisly work of shoring it up after he overturned Bush's policy today: http://apnews.myway.com/art...

RE: Stem cell.  Heard a bit on the news today that a 17 year old boy in, I bellieve GB, developed tumors that they believe came from stem cell therapy. 

Sorry, a bit OT.

Nancy,

ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2009) — Whitehead Institute researchers have developed a novel method to remove potential cancer-causing genes during the reprogramming of skin cells from Parkinson's disease patients into an embryonic-stem-cell-like state. Scientists then used the resulting induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to derive dopamine-producing neurons, the cell type that degenerates in Parkinson's disease patients.
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Rock Obama~better watch out! LOL

Why not direct your ire towards McCain? 

at this point their all a bunch of flakes out for themselves..i doubt any one of them give two turds about the country other than if It sinks they loose a paycheck..I'm extremely disillusioned by the whole freakin system..I used to feel the political scene was a necessary evil but now its just evil..

wheres George Carlin when you need him

I feel compelled to point out that Wikipedia is a private corporation and as such does not have to allow "freedom of speach" in the sense that one can write anything. It is not a government entity, so there is no guarentee of free speach there. Don't forget freedom of speach means freedom from government persecution over speach and government supression of speach, not freedom from a private entity saying "sorry, you can't say that on our property".

Just as one agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the blog owners when one writes here, so does one agree to the terms and conditions of writing over at Wikipedia. And one of those terms over there is that edits may be removed and so may contributors, at the whim of the site owners and editors. There's been bigger bruhahas over this sort of thing over non-political issues in the past.

Frankly, saying it is somehow a big government conspiracy is about as valid as saying "Aunt Edna won't let me talk about Obama's birth certificate while I'm at her house. It must be a government conspiracy!". Just as the fictional Aunt Edna has the right to determine what happens under her roof, so do private corporations have the right to decide what is written on their websites, even if they do allow anyone to contribute.

speech??

how embarrassing 4 U..