Quite frankly wikipedia is by definition a biased source. To think otherwise is simply cutting your own argument to shreds. It is banned from many schools because every single entry, regardless of sources, is a biased entry and not all of them are even remotely correct.
Personally, I would like to see the entry in question before I give judgment. The person was banned for "point of view junk", which -could- have meant he did in fact enter something that was biased junk, whether that be liberal or conservative junk.
Fact is a lot of the Ayer/Obama stuff is speculation, and if the person did post speculation and presented it as fact then it he deserved to be banned. For all we know, he posted some bull and then sourced blogs.
Again, an example of bad journalism in the form of poor elaboration, poor research, and sourceless speculation.
And before you pull a red herring, I am not pointing out Fox News in general. Most articles nowadays are poorly researched and they force you to speculate on what it actually means instead of presenting facts.