Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Wiki episode started two days ago, when Aaron Klein reported in WorldNet Daily that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism.
The article was picked up by Fox News, the London Telegraph and was linked on Drudge.
Mr. Klein's article noted that Worldnet Daily monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc.) was scrubbed. [NOTE: This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references, which, as previously noted, are requisite for Wiki posts].
Further, WND published a follow-up the next day, noting that many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See here. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, well-substantiated criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page.
Mr. Klein's article also referenced one user who attempted to add backed-up material to Obama's Wiki page on Wright, Ayers, and even eligibility issues. That user's edits were erased within 2 minutes and he was barred from editing again on Wikipedia for 3 days.
After Mr. Klein received a query about that one user, asking whether it was he, he updated the article to reflect that indeed it was his researcher. He wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. He was investigating scores of claims he had received via email that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism.
Next, a fulltime anti-WND blogger named Terry Krepel, who also works for George Soros-backed Media Matters, put his spin on Klein's scoop, suggesting that Klein was the Wikipedian in question. A few pro-Obama blogs yesterday seized on his one edit to falsely claim that Klein had "manufactured controversy." Their spin was based upon his one test edit and tries to suggest that the article was manufactured due to Klein's one edit being rejected at Wikipedia. In other words, they tried to claim that Klein tried once to add something to Obama's Wiki entry, was blocked and then based his entire article of "scrubbing" on that one blocked edit, as if the edit had not been investigating pre-existing claims of scrubbing; as if Klein had not documented how he had observed Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and watched all sorts of things scrubbed. As if one cannot verify all of this by simply browsing the history of Obama's page to see how literally TENS of thousands of edits were scrubbed of controversy and how until Klein
wrote on the issue, Ayers and Wright weren't even mentioned on Obama's page.
It is also necessary to point out that after he wrote the story, Klein received the largest volume of email ever sent to him for a single story, most of which related personal tales of having the writers' edits scrubbed from Obama's page. In other words, nothing was manufactured by Mr. Klein. But wait--there's more!
Next, the Sydney Morning Herald joined the fray with a false story. Klein is now getting calls from pro-Obama reporters, all asking about this non-story--all because he DARED to write something negative about Obama and report the incredible propaganda machine that works 24/7 to suppress facts about this man. Klein first broke the story at WND about Ayers' and Rashid Khalidi's ties to Obama. It was also stated in an interview with radio host John Batchelor and Klein that Hamas infamously "endorsed" Obama, with Hamas' comments to Klein becoming a major theme in a presidential debate.
Below is Klein's retraction demand to the Herald (just submitted) which best summarizes the issue:
RETRACTION DEMAND:
Mr. Moses:
I demand an immediate retraction of your Wikipedia article today, which is defamatory and libelous. You stated, "A right-wing pundit has been caught red-handed manufacturing controversy after claiming US President Barack Obama's Wikipedia page was being whitewashed."
This is entirely false. You should refrain from obtaining information from pro-Obama blogs without doing your own research. It is accurate that one out of many edits were monitored by me -- I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. I was investigating scores of claims that Obama's Wikipedia page was being scrubbed of criticism. For your information, often investigative journalists engage in exactly this kind of testing, like seeing if they can bypass mandatory disclosures while donating to a candidate (several newspapers did this prior to the November election), or if they can register a dog to vote in Illinois. Thus, even if I had personally edited Obama's page as a test to investigate allegations of scrubbing, this is entirely legitimate journalistic practice. A few pro-Obama blogs yesterday seized on my one edit to claim I manufactured controversy.
Second and more importantly, your article is entirely misleading and false; it claims I "Manufactured" controversy"; it paints a picture that my piece from was reliant simply upon "Jerusalem21" being barred from entering information on Wikipedia that is critical of Obama, suggesting the controversy was both "invented" and based on that one account. But my article from yesterday notes that "multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately." The article further notes that WND monitored Obama's Wikipedia page for one month and observed as criticism on all kinds of issues (Ayers, Wright, etc) was scrubbed. This can easily be confirmed independently by simply going through the tens of thousands of attempted edits to Obama's Wikipedia page and seeing how a large number of critical edits are erased, including edits seemingly backed up with third-party media references. Further, World Net Daily published a follow-up today noting many users were still being blocked from attempting to add key issues to Obama's Wikipedia page and other pages, quoting some users. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257. Indeed, WND has been flooded the past two days with e-mails from readers with their own "Wikipedia stories" of how they were barred from entering what they claim is legitimate, backed-up criticism on Obama's Wikipedia page.
The claim that I invented controversy that wasn't there must be removed, updated with correct information and retracted.
You further falsely state that I "appeared on Fox News airing the claims." I did not appear on Fox News airing the claims and this must be retracted.
My article from yesterday noted what is clearly a major trend at Wikipedia and is a very legitimate piece. I demand your article be immediately retracted.
Sincerely,
Aaron Klein
Jerusalem Bureau Chief
WorldNetDaily.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment