I Can Explain... Wikipedia

Originally published on February 25, 2011 in Retirement News Weekly

Google any word right now: retirement, beagles, existentialism. It doesn’t really matter what the word is. What you’ll likely find as one of your top three search results is an entry from Wikipedia. This collection of editable information has increasingly been used as a go-to source for quick explanations and understanding. But what is it, is it reliable, and what do its detractors say? In my own sort of Wikipedia entry-with attitude... I can explain!

Let’s start with the word itself. Wikipedia is a combination of the words “encyclopaedia” and “wiki.” We all know what an encyclopaedia is, but what, you may ask, is a wiki? And is it at all similar to a kiwi?

A wiki is a particular type of website that allows any user to edit its content. I’ve seen it used by businesses to compile schedules and stories; as well, I’ve seen it used in classrooms where a teacher may have his students create a wiki collectively with all the information they learned in class (Thanks, Professor Bradley!).

Wikipedia is just a very popular online encyclopaedia in wiki form. It was launched in 2001 as an experiment and now contains over 17 million articles in multiple languages. These articles were written by average people across the world and are corrected and edited by anyone with access to the internet. The theory is that with so many editors balancing out information, the ‘truth’ will be revealed. Users are strongly encouraged to cite their sources and uncited information is flagged as requiring further research. However the site does not leave it up entirely to its users and hires teams of individuals that oversee software which is ensures that entries are not edited for the purpose of mockery or misinformation. This team also can lock certain entries to prevent any editing if the entry is controversial and a target for vandalism.

One example of this is a stunt pulled by Stephen Colbert, a popular TV-personality and satirist, in 2006. On his show he explained how Wikipedia has created a kind-of “wikiality” in which anyone can edit and post information on the website and if enough people agree, the new information becomes a sort of digital truth. He changed his own Wikipedia post, George Washington’s, and then encouraged his viewers to edit posts about elephants. He wanted them to say that the population of elephants has tripled in the last six months. By changing it on Wikipedia, it would become reality he declared to playfully mock the idea of truth in an editable age. Twenty different articles were edited within the hour and Colbert was blocked from the site.

Critics of Wikipedia say that since the information is often edited by average people and not experts, it is not accurate or reliable. Others say the site focuses too much on Popular Culture, with 30% of its articles on culture and the arts and 15% on biographies; comparatively only 2% of the articles are on health and 2% are on religion. Conservapedia is similar to Wikipedia in format. However it claims that Wikipedia has a left-wing biased. It presents its articles with a very distinctive American-Conservative spin.

Whether you’re getting your information from television, books, or sites like Wikipedia it’s good that you’re at least trying to stay informed and I applaud you. While the site may not always be accurate, it has made information accessible and allowed for user generated content and editing. This development means we can all contribute to a better understanding of the world around us and that can’t be too bad.

Act Your Age… Going to Church

Originally published on February 16, 2011 in Retirement News Weekly

I wish I could just call myself Catholic and leave it at that.

After all, I grew up in the church. I know the names of my saints and which of them I should speak with when faced with a particular problem (St. Jude is the patron saint of lost items, St. Francis de Sales of writer’s block). I know my prayers and the Ten Commandments. After teaching Sunday school for three years, I even know a significant portion of church dogma (i.e. church teachings).

Yet there’s a difference between understanding and believing. And I find that my faith has had its peaks and valleys. At one time, before noticing how cute girls are, I wanted to be a priest. At another point, I became very concerned that I wouldn’t like heaven (If there’s nothing wrong, and I am eternally happy, how can I really appreciate it?). And because of this, I’ve not only questioned my own faith, but the nature of faith. The term is thrown around often, but I find it incredibly illusive. After all, it is called a ‘gift’ so assumably not everyone receives it.

In any case, it’s along this journey that I was invited to go to a new church with one of my friends, Heidi Bezanson. She mentioned it on a whim, but I like to keep occupied and try not to turn down any invitations (one of the reasons I also ended up taking Salsa dance lessons, but that’s another story). Plus, I knew there were a lot of pretty girls that went to her church and as a rule, you shouldn’t turn down opportunities to meet pretty girls (one of the reasons I practically went to an all-girl’s school, but again, I’m getting off topic).

Oddly enough, the service was held in the local Empire Movie Theatre. While I’ve attended many different church services in locations ranging from basements to basilicas, a movie theatre was certainly unique. I was to meet her there and walked over that morning since the theatre was walking distance from my apartment in the city. On my way, I stopped by McDonalds (product placement money, please!) for a coffee.

Heidi was running late (a missed bus, apparently), so I waited in the mall’s lobby and watched as the stream of young adults headed to church. I recognized a few friendly faces from past get-togethers and waved awkwardly. She arrived eventually and with a skip in her step we headed to the escalator that would take us to the theatre. As we passed people on our speed walk, she would gesture to me and introduce the person she was making very fast, very small talk with. She also pointed out the free coffee being offered at the main entrance and the day care facilities.

To my surprise, the service was being held in the largest auditorium and upon entering I found myself faced with a theatre so full that it looked like we were about to see Avatar in 3D (i.e. it was pretty full). Since we were running late, the band had already started playing the opening songs so we rushed to the back of the room and found seats.

Pastor AJ Thomas was giving the talk that would make up the majority of the 90-minute service. While it was book ended by music, he filled most of the time. I’ll admit, he filled the time well. His theme was accountability and centered on the idea that individuals should have designated people in which they tell everything to in order for them to keep accountable. As a person that blogs often and openly discusses his faults and misadventures, I agree. Plus the speech was supplemented with video clips from Rocky projected on the big screen.

As the pastor talked, I noticed that Heidi was regularly getting texts and I peeked over wondering if she was flirting with some boy in church (Tsk, tsk, Heidi!). Instead, she was getting regular tweet updates from the church’s twitter page highlighting key quotes, offering biblical verses, and expanding on the pastor’s ideas.

At the end of the service, the pastor symbolically recreated the Last Supper by offering the members a plastic shot glass of grape juice and little pieces of bread. I vaguely remembered a Catholic rule (which I may have been remembering incorrectly) that Catholics weren’t supposed to take Eucharistic substitutes, so I passed on the snack.

Overall, I enjoyed the experience. The speaker was interesting and returning to a more religious state of mind for a couple hours offered an interesting lens to dissect my life. Admittedly part of me missed the rituals and patterns that a Catholic mass had to offer, but I wouldn’t mind returning for an encore service (pretty girls, after all!).

As for the doubt, I’ve made peace with it. The conclusion came during a Catholic mass, oddly enough. I was in church one Sunday and a man sitting across from me seemed to be having a spiritual struggle of his own. His head rested in his hands and has face was construed in a confused glare. In my mind he seemed to be going through the same sort of doubt I was going through. And as I telekinetically consoled his spirit, the answer to my question donned on me. Perhaps not the answer, but certainly a conclusion that appeased me. Being Catholic – being any faith – is not a declaration. You can’t just say, “I’m a Christian” and let it be. The answer isn’t that simple. Faith is a question, that throughout our lives we attempt to figure out. Churches are there to guide us, but the journey is our own. It has valleys and mountain peeks. Being Christian is the process we all go through to find our conclusion.

I still doubt, but that’s okay. It’s okay to question. It’s okay to be thrown off balance. As long as you keep trucking along you’re on the right path. The yo-yo never stops. Life is just complicated like that. And it can’t hurt to have a friend dragging you to church every now and again.

I Can Explain... The New Horoscopes

First appeared in Retirement News Weekly on February 11, 2011

For believers, horoscopes can define identity, personality, love connections, and future prospects. And even for non-believers, one can’t deny the effect that these signs have on people who perceive them as having meaning. So when one community college professor said that our system of horoscopes was wrong and Leos are actually Cancers, the internet exploded with stories. But was the professor right? Are the horoscopes wrong? And should we care? Don’t go get that Taurus tattoo removed, quite yet! I can explain!

It was a community college professor named Parke Kunkle of the Minnesota Planetarium Society that started all the drama (why you’d believe someone named Kunkle is beyond me). Even though he does not believe in horoscopes personally, he pointed out in an interview that the constellations the sun was in 3000 years ago, when horoscopes were created, are not the constellations the sun is in now. This is a result of Earth’s shifty axis (shifty indeed). The result is a new constellation named Ophiuchus (which is a dude with a snake) being behind the sun for part of the year and thus he exists as a modern 13^th sign. The rest are shifted accordingly.

Pretty dramatic revelation, right?

Not so much. Despite the hype, this actually isn’t news... it’s not new anyway. We’ve known for a long time (a little over 2000 years). The thing is, there are two types of astrology; there’s classical tropical astrology and sidereel astrology. Kunkle (or Uncle Kunkle as I like to call him) was right. That’s sidereel astrology and if you’re Hindu and follow that sign system, your sign has indeed changed. But it turns out us Westerners tend to use tropical astrology, which basis its sign system on the position of the Earth, sun, and planets of our solar system; not constellations at all.

In defence of the non-believing, instigating Kunkle: he never said there should be 13 horoscopes or that horoscopes should change. He just pointed out where the sun fell and let believers blow it out of proportion.

Now, I’m not a believer. I also wasn’t significantly affected by this change as in either system I’m a Cancer. But what I will say is this: we’re all looking for something to define us... some identity external to ourselves. We look for someway to know what our future holds so that we can we be prepared; so that we can understand this journey we’re on. For those who are serious about horoscopes and astrology that’s what the system offers; a glimpse into an unknowable future and a sense of place along the way. And for the rest, it’s just fun to read the twelve potential futures a newspaper columnist crafted for us and try to find our own place in the newsprint.

Either way, let’s agree that horoscopes offers us each a little something and stop bickering over the specifics. And if you want to know how to pronounce ‘Ophiuchus,’ well... I can explain!