As I was perusing Wikipedia, I noticed something rather interesting. For some time in the past election cycle, we had a bio posted for me on Wikipedia. The bio was removed, with no mention of why, although I recently found their reasoning (while I saw it, I can't say I agree with it...but it's their site, their rules).

But while my bio is absent, that of my opponent is easily available. Why? Because he's considered noteworthy by virtue of holding public office.

This is something to consider, especially as the government works harder and harder to bring the hammer down on bloggers who advocate for a political candidate. There is a strong movement afoot to have our blogging considered as a campaign contribution, so that it can be limited and regulated. While such laws haven't passed yet, it is not unforeseeable that they would.

Why, then, aren't websites like Wikipedia subject to the same scrutiny? Why would a blogger be restricted in their speech, and websites like Wikipedia given carte blanche to pick and choose which candidates are "noteworthy" enough to meet their criteria? My run for office was certainly noteworthy, as it was the first time in 18 years the office had been opposed in a general election, and my 15% was basically historic for a third party candidate.

Yet to people like Wikipedia, third party candidates remain unpeople. The populist promise of a site such as Wikipedia, however, can never be fully realized until they recognize people outside of the major parties.