Hurricane Katrina and Wikipedia observation

[apnu]

I was looking at Google's Hurricane Katrina page, and then used the Google search found there, which led me to this Wikipedia.org entry for the hurricane.
http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

My first thought was 'wow, its got an encyclopedia entry already -- well of course it does, this is the web after all' Then I noticed this odd little 'Stop' sign at the top of the entry's page. It says that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. And there's a link for the 'talk page' about the article. Intrigued, I followed that link and boy was I surprised at the heat over a Wikipedia article. There are 9 pages of archived comments on the article! And a note about not feeding trolls.

This thing got me thinking about the sad state of affairs we Americans have in terms of just accurately portraying the history of a thing. That an encyclopedia article has to come under fire from trolls and other people trying to spin the article one way or another. And so, this article about Katrina is, in a sense, a microcosm of our media. There are a few, legitimately contributing to the article -- suggesting decent criticism and reminders of other facts that tie into the hurricane, while a large chunk want to discuss unrelated topics to the one at hand (that is describing and recording what happened with Hurricane Katrina). There are discussions (and rants) on race, global warming, general conspiracy theories, Osama Bin Laden, press reporting and a slew of other things. Commentaries on Compassionate Conservatism and its 'solutions' to poverty add nothing to what actually happened with the Hurricane. They are just that, commentaries, however they are, none the less, tied to the article. However, as with our print, audio, and video media, commentary is now part of the reporting process. As a result, its very difficult to discern what the facts are and what is someone's opinion on the facts. Maybe that's by design, it certainly is in Fox News' case.

Now, the 'rugged individualists' I work with would say "That's free speech in action! Its the free market being known!" And, as usual, they miss the point. It is near impossible to agree on what exactly happened with Katrina (or 9/11 or Iraq or Election 2004, or the Clinton penis police) much less have a discussion on issues brought to light by Katrina (like racism by policy built into our culture, compassion conservative policies and their effectiveness, and/or global warming cause and effect relationships). An encyclopedia, and 'news' are supposed to exist for only one purpose: to record the 4 W's and how. That is Who, What, When, and Where. Why is a special case that often can only have commentary and opinion attached to it because 'why' a thing happens is often a matter of perspective. It shouldn't be this hard people, I shouldn't go to an encyclopedia and find an entry that has suspicious slants. I want to use the information in there so that I may give my perspective on things and to be able to say 'here's where I got this point' and 'my idea is backed up by so and so'

So the final result of this running commentary media and information ('infotainment' is Janeane Garofalo's word for it) becomes so much babble and little to no actual content. Is this free speech? Expressing your views is one thing, but distorting history is another. Its inexcusable -- no matter if left or right does it. So I'm not convinced that what's happened to Wikipedia.org's Hurricane Katrina article is necessarily an exercise in free speech.

What's worse than that, is the sneaking suspicion I have that all this divisiveness is deliberate. That (and this is my opinion here) the Right Wing nutballs want us divided and bickering. More importantly, that we bicker with their so called 'base'. That we constantly agitate against their voting blocks, and by doing so we do much of the work for the Right Wing masters. We keep their base stirred up, and keep them going back to Limbaugh, O'Riely, and Drudge for more fuel to the fire with more fishy reporting and confusing facts. Because if we are arguing about the commentary, then we won't argue (maybe even 'talk') about the facts. And in order for these criminals and murderers to stay in power, they have to keep everybody distracted. This includes their own base.

[apnu]

1. They've suddenly removed the dispute link I was looking at so...

... here is the link to see the "Talk" archives for this entry in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Katrina

[apnu]

2. shameless self kick

Maybe nobody is interested in a topic like this today. too much liberal rage racing around the boards I guess.

Oh well, here's a shameless kick.

:kick: