What's Wiki-able?

From time to time I like to keep tabs on how users of the Internet (especially those in positions of power in the non-virtual world) interact with and manage content on Wikipedia. Obviously a popular site relied upon by many for public knowledge is intriguing enough, lest we forget that anyone with web access can edit it as they see fit.

I noticed today that someone by the alias 'Aurorapio' had gone through and done a substantial amount of editing on the Wikipedia entry for the city of Aurora, Colorado. They were good edits that provided a wider understanding of the city, its neighborhoods, its history and much more. [EDIT: I had a nice chat with Julie Patterson at the city, who confirmed she spent the time adding to the city's page. I'll tell you what I told her: Having a photo of Buckley AFB is probably a better representation of Aurora than the decades-old photo of Fitzsimons that previously inhabited that space.]

It was some good housekeeping on what is usually one of the top three search-engine results that pop up when people search for information on Aurora. In fact, it's good to think someone on the municipal payroll thinks about the city's online presence beyond the official website. Visitors of the Wiki page will be better off for those edits.

But then there's the other side of that coin: What's fair game regarding less-than-flattering information on Wikipedia?

Take, for example, former state Rep. Michael Garcia, who served Colorado's 42nd House district from 2001 to 2008. His Wikipedia page includes plenty of biographical information about his education and public service, including measures he sponsored and supported during various legislative sessions.

Former Rep. Garcia is also notable for why he left office: Garcia resigned in 2008 following accusations made by a female lobbyist that Garcia had exposed himself to her at a Denver bar. Garcia disputed the media reports at the time but did not deny that the incident happened (in a press release (PDF), Garcia stated "the other party and I engaged in consensual conduct that was inappropriate given my position in the legislature").

So the question is: Is it pertinent for the online encyclopedia to contain information about Garcia's exit from the legislature? For the time being, Garcia is a private citizen; whether he decides to return to a public profile on scale with what he once had remains to be seen.

According to Wikipedia user 'Repgarica,' the answer is no.

In June 2009 and December 2009, user 'Repgarcia' took great care to edit or delete references to the scandal and Garcia's subsequent resignation.

Lots of people (especially elected officials) are haunted for years by tales of misdeeds, alleged or assured. That's not necessarily the main issue here. The bigger issue at hand is our general reliance on information like that found on Wikipedia. We can have extremely detailed examinations of the lives of public figures (take the gargantuan Wiki page for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example) alongside pages for people like Garcia, which you could argue contain a few sins of omission.

In the end, there is still need for independent voices that check facts and vet sources before publishing. Wikipedia would not exist without them (the online encyclopedia's own guidelines state various standards must be met for a citation to be considered reliable).

Read more...

You say you want a revolution...

The Tea Party movement is good for America and democracy worldwide.

I think that statement probably comes as a bit of a shock to some of my acquaintances, but I’d like to think people who have a rudimentary understanding of how my mind works would read this, think for two seconds and slowly begin nodding their heads as they piece together the reasoning.

For those of you not as in tune with my intellectual wrangling, let me explain:

For starters, let’s make a clear distinction between the Tea Party movement as a whole and various sub-sects (such as Glenn Beck’s 9.12 Project, which I’ve previously lambasted for co-opting the harrowing imagery of the Sept. 11 terror attacks). Every political cause will have its extremists, demagogues and “bomb-throwers.” For every Tax Day protesters waving an illustration of Barack Obama as a Nazi, there’s undoubtedly someone on the far left who thinks every single last Republican in Congress is a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan.

And I hold out no hope that I’ll ever find a political candidate or group with whom I agree 100 percent; suffice it to say, this is no endorsement of the specific tenets of the Tea Party movement’s platform.

What I wholeheartedly endorse is the sense of personal empowerment that these people have found and how the vast majority of them are operating within the proper channels to bring about real change.

Case in point: Joseph Andrew Stack flew a plane into a building, in part an act of protest. He took the life of an innocent person in the process. That is unjustifiable.

I’ve read his “suicide note.” Within his writing, you hear many of the same frustrations concerning the U.S. government and its tax code from myriad members of groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather not see taxpayer-owned federal buildings go up in a jet-fueled blaze. I’m for peace. I’m for life. As far as I’m concerned, Stack’s actions do constitute a terrorist attack. Stack is no hero for destroying property and taking lives (including his own) toward an ideological end.

I think I already met my quota of “nice things to say about right-wing politics” this year with the first sentence of this post, but I’ll go ahead and get next year’s out of the way with something Sean Hannity would certainly agree with: The United States of America is the greatest experiment in democracy our modern world has seen.

As untenable as reform may be in Washington, D.C., the power of the individual is often forgotten when incumbents, parties, corporations and other interests seem to dictate so much of how our government and our lives are run. We’re a nation where Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger, for better or worse, can be considered political heavyweights. We’re a nation where Ned Lamont can wreak as much havoc as he can in the political establishment on behalf of the progressive voices of Connecticut. Even you – yes, YOU – can make your case for why you’re the best person for whatever elected office you feel best-suited for (barring residency and age restrictions; no rain checks).

You get the picture.

If you pay any attention to politics or law in this country, you should be angry or frustrated – and that applies to people of every political persuasion. Where you go with those feelings and beliefs is what separates the true agents of change and the terrorists.

So let’s hear what you have to say, whatever it is. I’ll gladly take another Glenn Beck type on TV than another Timothy McVeigh at a Ryder truck rental.

Let’s flood the marketplace of ideas and let the people decide with their ballots, their petitions and, yes, even their pocketbooks. Is there anything more democratic than that?

It may be far too idealistic to be realistic, but as so many of these grassroots movements have proven, doing and saying nothing on your behalf does nothing to achieve your goals – and as far as I’m concerned, I don’t want the Joe Stacks of the world speaking on my behalf.

Read more...

Reality and revelry

Late last week I decided that I would finally start catching up on the year in film 2009. I didn't actually see a single film in a theater the entire year, and I'm not proud of that fact — not one bit.
However, I do take heart in the fact that I managed to see two great films in the comfort of my home via Redbox at a cost of $2 and change. (On a side note, I have little sympathy for the closing Blockbuster brick-and-mortar locations; in the few times I was a patron, the most-popular titles were always sold out, and the harder-to-find titles were very rarely found.)
I started with "The Hurt Locker." In retrospect, this probably should have come later in my schedule of screenings. I'm pretty sure the bar has been set tremendously high for all films that follow.
What struck me the most about "The Hurt Locker" was the complete and utter lack of pretense. While there is manufactured drama and other thematics in any work of fiction, the dialogue and its delivery reminds us that this story comes from a very real place. There are a number of good documentaries on the Iraq war (including Michael Tucker's excellent "Gunner Palace"), and this film — more so than any other fictionalized accounting of the soldier's mission in Iraq — reminds me of them in the sense that the quiet scenes and booming action sequences alike draw me into the moment and never feel like I'm witnessing the product of a scripted, financed Hollywood spectacle.
Too many modern films about the military are too quick to concoct an emotional breakdown to serve the purpose of humanizing the trained killers we see on screen (Count the 2005 Sam Mendes film "Jarhead" among them, despite the absolute brilliance and reality in Swofford's published memoir). In nearly any other film, Staff Sgt. James' showering with his armor on would seem contrived or cliché. For such a powerful character to react in such a way — the only other time he unravels to such a level is his off-base excursion to find those responsible for the DVD-hocking "base rat" Beckham — is incredibly telling. We know that no person's resolve can be so steely that it never breaks; we know James is troubled on some levels. We know it will be shown in some way — but the way it comes across to the audience is not so much subtle and nuanced as it is logical, reasoned and seemingly real.
But as the opening quote and closing scene remind us, the conflict between the quiet intensity of defusing bombs and the violent outbursts both within and beyond the characters' minds and mouths is not the issue here. "War is a drug," as journalist Chris Hedges put it. James isn't so much surviving each day in Bravo Company to return home to his family; he knows that "one thing" that he loves.
As the greatest film critic of our times, Roger Ebert, pointed out: This film is not about action; it is about suspense. I'm hard-pressed to think of another film focusing on the military that includes so much suspense. The levels to which it rises in "The Hurt Locker" are top-notch. Think Gene Hackman's best works ("The Conversation," "The French Connection"). Think Alfred Hitchcock.
I'm not sure if "The Hurt Locker" is the best film of 2009; I'm not in a position of authority on the matter having seen only two films released since January 2009. But the part of my life that's been spent enjoying cinema is better for this film.
On a much lighter note, I followed the critically acclaimed "Hurt Locker" with a film that engendered equal amounts of praise for vastly different reasons: "The Hangover."
I've always found it very difficult to put good comedy into words. Good comedy is far too nuanced to try and explain with an alphabet. It's the indescribable look on John Belushi's face as he tries to smooth things over with the vengeful Carrie Fisher while on his knees in the last hour of "Blues Brothers." It's the wheelchair-bound Dr. Strangelove grappling with his diagnostic apraxia, trying to maintain some decorum while his uncontrollable hand tries to salute the Führer.
"The Hangover" isn't as good as those classic comedic moments, but it executes so many jokes so well, it gets a tip of my hat, even as I admonish myself for a guffaw over a poor, innocent baby being it by the door of a police car.
Both of these films have flaws, to be sure. "The Hurt Locker" could have done without the slow-motion shot (I tried to understand what purpose it served; I still haven't found it). The superfluous pop music throughout "The Hangover" will certainly be very dated in four years' time (Look back to Todd Phillips' "Old School" for a better score and use of a soundtrack — "Master of Puppets" and "Dust in the Wind" are now forever linked, in my mind, to that film instead of the respective albums they appear on).
I know I've seen better films in the last decade, and I've been privy to a decent amount of press screenings in my time, but I'm pretty sure the $2 I spent to rent these films on DVD gave me the best entertainment value I can remember in quite some time.

Read more...