Pro-Truth Journalist Investigating Wikipedia's Pro-Obama Stance is Under Attack!

I am being smeared by the pro-Obama media machine and could really use your help in setting the record straight on a totally fabricated story about me that is now receiving mainstream media attention. Can you please blog the truth about this at No Quarter? It would help me a lot.

My article noted that WND 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.

Further, WND published a follow-up the next day 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.

My 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 I received a query about that one user, asking whether it was me, I updated the article to reflect that indeed it was my researcher. I wanted to personally oversee whether indeed criticism of Obama was being deleted. I was investigating scores of claims e-mailed to me 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 (http://gawker.com/5167759/update-writer-used-a-researcher-to-invent-an-obama-wikipedia-scandal) (http://washingtonindependent.com/33207/fox-news-gets-punkd-by-Obama-birther) seized on my one edit to falsely claim that I "manufactured controversy." Their entire spin is based around my one test edit and somehow suggests that my article was manufactured due to my one edit being rejected at Wikipedia. In other words, they are claiming that I tried once to add something to Obama's Wiki entry, was blocked and then based my entire article of "scrubbing" on that one blocked edit. As if my edit wasn't investigating pre-existing claims of scrubbing; as if I didn't document how I 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 I wrote on the issue, Ayers and Wright weren't even mentioned on Obama's page.

I also want to point out that after I wrote the story, I received the largest volume of emails ever sent to me for a single story. The e-mails mostly told of personal tales of having edits scrubbed from Obama's page. In other words, nothing was manufactured.

I am now getting calls from some other (pro-Obama) reporters, all asking about this non-story; all because I dared to write something negative about Obama. Already, I am not exactly a hero to pro-Obama reporters. I first broke the story at WND about Ayers' and Rashid Khalidi's ties to Obama(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=57231). Also it was in an interview with me (and radio host John Batchelor) that Hamas infamously "endorsed" Obama, with Hamas' comments to me becoming a top theme in the presidential debate. So I dont think pro-Obama reporters mind smearing me.

Here is my retraction demand to the Herald (just submitted) which I think best summarizes the issue; can you please write about this:

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, WND 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.

Wikipedia wiped several items I posted regarding the Vince Foster death years ago, and repeatedly wiped it after I re=entered it. I’ve know about them for years, and even schools won’t accept Wikipedia as a “source” for research because they are known to be unreliable. Wikipedia is a source of propaganda. Nothing more. What to do about it? God alone knows....but some people might have some ideas. Ignore your complaints and demands, though.

Fellow readers, we are witnessing an example of what the left does best: destroy decent people.

3 posted on 03/11/2009 12:39:28 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (liberalism is truly evil. and liberals have no sense of humor either.)

What to do about this?
There obviously needs to be a
Department of Internet Protocol for Securing Honest Intellectual Transparency
to keep these Wikipedia people in line.

Either that or some "in your face" humor to show what putzes they are.

4 posted on 03/11/2009 12:57:04 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)

I just want to know what kind of reply Mr. Klein gets for his demands of retraction.

CA....

5 posted on 03/11/2009 1:10:17 PM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've at last found that silly grin!)

Look up FreeRepublic on Wikipedia and you’ll see they have no shortage of negative material.

The Free Republic wiki page is certainly a very distorted view of FR.

8 posted on 03/11/2009 2:06:50 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.