An
insightful piece in today's WSJ asks whether the collaborative power of wikis can transform government.
One of the most
frustrating experiences in dealing with government is finding helpful information.
Government websites have a tendency
to organize information by the program (or statute) that authorize an expenditure. So, for example, the Department of
Health and Human Services has its own
online media guide for disasters and emergencies while the Federal Emergency Management Agency has its own counterpart "news media"
page. I can understand how federal government employees might be required to organize their websites this way, but how does
this organization create value for citizens? If a disaster victim wanted to find relevant information about assistance
available from the federal government, which website should she visit first?
Undoubtedly it would take an
Act of Congress to replace both websites (each on its own domain of course) to a single, threaded discussion on "
emergencies management" as Wikipedia has done.
But the Web doesn't need to wait for an Act of Congress. Why not
simply organize a wiki with the organizing principle of organizing information about government in a manner that brings
together data regarding disparate agencies and programs as that data would be needed by citizens?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill because of an attached rider that would
give immunity to the Salvation Army and other charities from discrimination suits based on English-only policies, according
to John Fund in today's
WSJ.
That new immigrants to the U.S. be required to speak, read and write ordinary English has been a requirement of U.S.
law for more than 100 years and is supported by a vast majority of the population, including among groups whose second language
is English.
So why is the Speaker tempting fate by catering to the very small minority who oppose English-only policies in the workplace?
The group most likely to benefit from defeating the immunity rider is the trial lawyer lobby, whose members will be able
to continue to sue deep-pocket defendants with English-only policies. Those same trial lawyers have contributed
$10,000 to Pelosi so far in this election cycle.
