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).