Wikipedia is not a good source for political information

There may be no better example of Wikipedia’s leftward tilt than its entries on two of America’s First Ladies.

The entry on Michelle Obama is so glowing it might be likened to the nomination of Mother Theresa for sainthood.

But the entry on Melanie Trump is more aptly compared to a story from Confidential magazine -- a product of the 1950s that is considered the prototype for scandal, gossip and expose’ journalism.

Michelle Obama never produced or accomplished anything of note, but she wed a community organizer who went into politics, got rich and rode the PC movement into the White House.

Despite her lack of accomplishment, Obama was not known for her humility. "I have been at every powerful table you can think of...They are not that smart," Obama once told Newsweek.

However, author Dinesh D’Souza has described Michelle Obama’s college thesis at Princeton University as “illiterate and incoherent.”

The late author Christopher Hitchens said of Mrs. Obama’s thesis:

“The only thing you can definitely tell from the attempt to read it, because I maintain it cannot actually be read, it’s a degradation of the act of reading, is that she favors, or views with favor, black separatism, or as she calls it, separationism.”

“You should be able to be fluent, witty, self-deprecating, insightful, amusing, personal,” Hitchens said. “Not a bit of it. It’s a trudge. It’s a hateful, lugubrious, boring, resentment-filled screed written in some very bad form of sociologies.”

But Michelle Obama, who is of African descent, got a degree then parlayed that into lucrative, high-paying positions before meeting the very ambitious Barack Obama.

The two entries are done with some subtlety but you can’t miss the differences.

The article on Obama is more than twice as long as the one on Melania Trump. It reads like a month by month account of her life, with a wealth of trivia.

In passing, the article mentions the comment by Obama that infuriated millions of Americans. She said she was “proud of her country for the first time” when it elected her husband, but Wikipedia brushes it off by saying it was “seen as a gaffe.”

At times it borders on the grotesque: “Obama has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy,” it says, as if the Obama reign was Camelot 2.0.

The gushing, fawning Wikipedia article on Obama stands in stark contrast to its treatment of the lovely, effeminate Melania.

Trump is not described as a beautiful, accomplished woman who speaks five languages, but more as an opportunistic harlot, which is how she often is described by Trump haters.

Like many supermodels, she posed nude on occasion. Wikipedia dwells on this, essentially depicting the common practice as pornography.

It takes care to mention that her father belonged to the League of Communists in Slovenia, where she was born. Also, that she dropped out of college.

It quotes a snarky piece from the Trump-hating Washington Post questioning her citizenship, which she obtained in 2006, a year after she married Donald Trump.

It goes on to accuse her of plagiarism, but grudgingly notes that she was a defamation suit against the tabloid Daily Mail, (offering a chance to rehash the defamation). It also regurgitates the liberal media complaint that she spends too much on travel, comparing it to the cost of Michelle Obama’s travel. (But in doing so it compare’s Obama’s “solo travel,” apparently ignoring her frequent lavish junkets with a huge entourage of friends and family).

One curious passage: “During the 2020 State of the Union Address, President Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, who was sitting right beside Melania in the gallery and she presented the medal to him.”

What has all that to do with an article about Melania Trump? One with a suspicious mind might think the only point of the paragraph was to get the name “Rush Limbaugh” into the article, because it is a trigger for liberals.

Wikipedia might be useful for detail on the migratory habits of Canadian geese but when it ventures into politics it should be read, not with a grain, but a hefty helping of salt.