The veracity of Wikipedia

I just haven’t had time to blog lately. I’ve been in the Republic of Georgia and very busy trying to keep up in my position as Director of IT as well as keeping up my grades at Bellevue University working on a master’s in Management of Information Technology.

But I am writing. I’ve decided to share this response to a weekly discussion question in one of my two current classes: CIS520-T302 Survey of System Development.

Many Internet sources – including the extremely popular Wikipedia – are considered unacceptable for academic work. Discuss your opinions on this matter:

1. Why is Wikipedia considered an inferior source of information?
2. If Wikipedia provided information, are you obligated to give credit to it as a source of information?
3. What other sites fall into the category of “inferior Internet source”?

Wikipedia is considered an inferior source of information because it is non-authoritative. The people submitting the articles may well be professionals but the vetting process at Wikipedia does very little (compared to contemporary encyclopedia publishers) to ensure that information sources are factual. There are numerous well publicized incidents of false information being published to Wikipedia. An interesting article about Wikipedia’s internal politics can be found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/27/wikipedia.scandal. The converse is that some people would likely call the Guardian a non-authoritative source. In my opinion the quality of fact-checking has decreased across the board in our information society. We live in a sea of junk information. A useful life skill these days is a well developed internal spam/scam filter and a healthy distrust of all information.

If Wikipedia provides information then yes, it is important to give it credit unless Wikipedia itself cites a more authoritative source (and that is generally the case).

Many types of sites fall into the category of inferior Internet source. Most blogs probably fall into this category, in my opinion. Many purported news sites fall into this category as they are run on a shoestring budget. Poor copy editing is most likely a testament to equally poor fact checking. In addition, there are any number of corporate mouthpiece sites, government propaganda sites and shell company special interest sites that I believe fall into the “inferior Internet source” category. All of these are debatable and humanity spends a lot of time arguing about some pretty silly “issues.” Just Google chemtrails if you doubt.

As information sources go, Wikipedia in in the top 25 percent when it comes to reliability. While I accept that there is an institutional bias against it within higher education I still use it on a personal level and often use it to cite more authoritative sources when researching for my college work. There are millions of links from Wikipedia to quality sources of factual information.

If I had time to expand further on this idea I would focus on the premise that one of the most important skills an individual can develop in the early 21st century is a set of good information filters that must be constantly updated with an extreme investment of time and reading.

Serious people carry guns wherever they go

There has been a lot of hullaballo lately about citizens attending political rallies carrying guns. The uproar is predictable if foolish.

In Portsmouth, New Hampshire recently, a man carried a handgun a few blocks away from the site where President Obama was scheduled to hold a town hall a couple of hours later. Was it a danger or not? The man carrying the gun, William Kostric, even had permission to have the gun on private church property while he was protesting Obama’s appearance. Everybody from the New York Times to USA Today to CBS News expressed their outrage, interpreting it as a hot head threatening the president and linking it to militias and conservative talk radio. A prominent liberal radio talk show host came out saying that conservatives “want Obama to get shot.” New legislation related to this incident is even being proposed in Congress.

Obviously no one wants to see a president even remotely threatened and people need to be sensitive to such things. But worrying over a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a gun several blocks and a couple of hours away from an indoor event that the president will attend is overdoing it.

Before the president’s town hall meeting, an MSNBC host noted: “Apparently there is fairly significant, almost disturbing news, let us know what is happening there in New Hampshire.” A reporter, Ron Allen, breathlessly responded: “There is a man in the crowd who has a gun, a handgun strapped on his lower leg. . . . And I suspect that he won’t be here when the president gets here in a couple of hours time.”

The root issue is that private citizens are not taken seriously. Individuals are viewed as cogs in a machine. The machine is designed to protect the political class even though the political class likes to pretend the machine operates for the benefit of the citizens. I call bullshit. As John Lott points out, the media doesn’t know a damn thing about guns, as a general rule of thumb. The media also like to spread fear memes because those memes are their bread and butter.

What kind of people carry guns? Serious people. What kind of people openly carry guns at a political rally? Thoughtful serious people. What kind of people try to convince everyone else that the people carrying the guns at political rallies represent danger to everyone else? Fearmongers. Alarmists. Non-serious shallow people who prey on the weak minded.

Name a presidential assassination that began with a citizen who was openly carrying for the purpose of both self-defense and political statement while holding a slogan. There are no such incidents and there never will be. The armed individuals we have seen protesting at rallies recently, both pro and anti, represent the bedrock of American liberty. They are the glue that holds society together. They are the balance that we so desperately need in troubled times. I have seen no evidence of an armed individual openly carrying in the last few weeks that demonstrated any irrational behavior on the horizon. I heard no direct threats issue from the mouths of these individuals as the rabble we call the modern press clamored to ask them incendiary leading and insulting questions about their intent and their mental status. In fact, everything I heard sounded well considered and made me wish that the interviewer and the protester would magically switch places for a while.

Self-defense is for everyone, not just people in uniforms. People serious about their own defense carry guns. This basic right – the right to defend one’s own existence from aggressors – is assured in the founding documents of the United States. Serious people do not rent out their own defense or give up their right to exercise it on their own behalf. A million individuals with guns who are not trying to force you into a system you disagree with represent much less of a threat than a few thousand wearing uniforms and acting in concert who don’t care whether or or not you want to participate in the systems they want to impose on your life. We should laud citizens who exercise and reaffirm basic rights.

The U.S. health care debate

Universal health care is government controlled health care. In the United States, the federal government already control a great deal of the health care sector. While I think that some variant of government managed health care is inevitable it is important to remember that we already have government managed health care. What some of us are clamoring for now is government mandated health care; this under the assumption that any health care is better than no health care at all. For some Americans that might well turn out to be true.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, recently wrote a thoughtful editorial against the “right” to health care. I personally agree with 90 percent of what he has to say in that article.

Many promoters of health care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care-to universal and equal access to doctors, medicines, and hospitals.  While all of us can empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have any more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have an intrinsic right to food, clothing, owning their own homes, a car or a personal computer? Health care is a service which we all need at some point in our lives, but just like food, clothing, and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually-beneficial market exchanges rather than through government mandates.  A careful reading of both The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter, because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

Even in countries such as Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care.  Rather, citizens in these countries are told by governmental bureaucrats what health care treatments and medicines they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them.  All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce and expensive treatments.  Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million citizens.  At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund on their behalf.  Our Canadian and British team members express their benefit preferences very clearly-they want supplemental health care more than additional paid time off, larger donations to their retirement plans, or greater food discounts; they want health care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments.  Why would they want such additional health care benefit dollars to spend if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”?  The answer is clear-no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.-or in any other country.

Rather than increase governmental spending and control, what we need to do is address the root causes of disease and poor health.  This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for their own health.  Unfortunately many of our health care problems are self-inflicted with over 2/3 of Americans now overweight and 1/3 obese.  Most of the diseases which are both killing us and making health care so expensive-heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and obesity, which account for about 70% of all health care spending, are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal or no alcohol consumption, and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Mackey is correct in thinking that the root causes of disease are what most need to be addressed. He is correct in claiming that there is no intrinsic right to a service provided by other people. Health care will continue to become more expensive until root causes are addressed. I cannot think of a single government managed project that becomes cheaper or more efficient after it has been taken over by government. Is airport security cheaper and more effective now that the federal government runs it? It is a more pleasant experience for travelers? Why will health care be any different? Someone explain that to me.

The irony of the national “dicussion” we are having on this issue is that is isn’t really a discussion. It’s a room full of morons shouting at one another while all the thoughtful voices are drowned out. Mackey’s reward for his thoughtful opinion is that some people are boycotting his company’s stores – that’s freedom in action. Once we have a national health care plan in place being run at the federal level freedom of choice won’t be an option for Americans who don’t want to participate in that plan. That’s my understanding anyway – there is no opt out for Social Security, why would there be one for AmeriHealth or whatever they decide to call this great project. Government will pick the care options instead of Cigna. Government will tell you when the plan limits are reached. Congress will not apply the standards used on voters to themselves. Business as usual except more government offices will sprout in major cities to administer the fine new system.

Basic human rights are a great conceptual vision. When applied by bureaucrats and politicians their luster tends to wear off pretty quickly. Money for nothin’ and your chicks for free is a pipe dream. At least that has been my experience with such matters.

Disclaimer: I get my health care through the Tricare (military government program) because my civilian employer’s program costs three times as much. However, that doesn’t change my viewpoint that government inevitably makes thing operate less efficiently and cost more. The paperwork reduction act, for instance, caused more paperwork. I don’t know how that is possible but it’s true.

Cultural change and the U.S. Army are compatible after all

One of my biggest frustrations with military life is that old standby answer I always get when I ask why we are doing something I think is dumb – “We’ve always done it that way. Shut up and do it.” Welcome to new paradigms.

“For a couple hundred years, the Army has been writing doctrine in a particular way, and for a couple months, we have been doing it online in this wiki,” said Col. Charles J. Burnett, the director of the Army’s Battle Command Knowledge System. “The only ones who could write doctrine were the select few. Now, imagine the challenge in accepting that anybody can go on the wiki and make a change — that is a big challenge, culturally.”

In recent years, collaborative projects like the Firefox Internet browser or Wikipedia pages have flourished with the growth of the Internet, showing the power of thousands of contributors pulling together.

Not surprisingly, top-down, centralized institutions have resisted such tools, fearing the loss of control that comes with empowering anyone along the chain of command to contribute.

Yet the Army seems willing to accept some loss of control. Under the three-month pilot program, the current version of each guide can be edited by anyone around the world who has been issued the ID card that allows access to the Army Internet system. About 200 other highly practical field manuals that will be renamed Army Tactics, Techniques and Procedures, or A.T.T.P., will be candidates for wikification.

As is true with Wikipedia, those changes will appear immediately on the site, though there is a team assigned to each manual to review new edits. Unlike Wikipedia, however, there will be no anonymous contributors.

Many in the Army have been suspicious about the idea, questioning if each soldier — specialist or not — should have an equal right to create doctrine, Colonel Burnett said.

“We’ve gotten the whole gamut of responses from black to white,” he said, “ ‘The best thing since sliced bread’ to ‘the craziest idea I have ever heard.’ ”

The colonel said that he was hopeful that by reaching out to the 140,000 members of the Army’s online forums, he would be tapping the kind of people who would be comfortable collaborating on the Web.

“Our motto is, ‘If you ever thought what would I do if the Army let me write doctrine, now is your chance,’ ” he said.

Technology inevitably changes everything. Hopefully, in the Army, that will mean we think on our feet more effectively and value our soldiers more for their minds than we have in the past. Warfighting has never been more of a mental game than it currently is and that trend will only continue.

Economic recovery or economic doom?

The economy is in full recovery. Economic doom is just around the corner. Which of these scenarios is real? That depends who you are listening to.

Kenneth Rogoff thinks doom is inevitable – at least that is how I read it.

Asia may be willing to sponsor the west for now, but not in perpetuity.  Eventually Asia will find alternatives in part by deepening its own debt markets.  Within a few years, western governments will have to sharply raise taxes, inflate, partially default, or some combination of all three.  As painful as it may seem, it would be far better to start bringing fundamentals in line now.  Restoring confidence has been helpful and important. But ultimately we need a system of global financial regulation and governance that merits our faith.

The U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar are faith based. Government bailouts have the long-term effect of causing people to lose faith in their fantasy money system and draw attention to the fed’s completely dishonest bookkeeping practices.

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

“We’re on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations,” says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don’t show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Half a million dollars in debt per American household sounds like doom to me. Maybe someone can explain to me how the dollar is going to remain viable with this sort of staggering load. Bring me your economists and your money counters and have them explain to me how the American taxpayer is going to survive this. Explain to me why my Starbucks going out of business tomorrow is a good sign that the economy is recovering. Tell me how it is positive that of the 40% of my co-workers laid off over the last six months, most of them are still unemployed, or are working jobs that pay half of what they were earning.

Now explain to me what the government is doing that will fix this situation in the long run.

In the mean time, we hear that economic recovery is imminent.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A gauge of future U.S. economic growth edged higher in the latest week, sending its yearly growth rate to a two-year high that suggests a near-term end to the recession, a research group said on Friday.

The Economic Cycle Research Institute, a New York-based independent forecasting group, said its Weekly Leading Index rose to 118.5 for the week ended July 3 from a downwardly revised 117.4 in the prior period, which ECRI initially reported at 117.6.

The index’s annualized growth rate plowed further into positive territory to a two-year high of 5.4 percent from 3.9 percent the week prior, which was revised lower from 4.0 percent.

It was the highest annual growth rate the gauge has seen since the week to July 20, 2007, when it read 5.7 percent.

ECRI Managing Director Lakshman Achuthan holds that recovery is imminent before the year’s end, as long as economic data continues to weaken at a slower pace.

“It is increasingly evident that, despite widespread misgivings based on backward-looking economic data, the end of recession is at hand,” said Achuthan.

I’m left scratching my head and eyeing the pundits with deep suspicion. My pocketbook doesn’t feel safe.