New Wiki for political issues by wikipedia founder

[croxis]

http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+founder+launches+political+site/2100-1028_3-6091151.html?tag=nefd.top

Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales this week announced the opening of a wiki devoted to hot-button political topics such as gay marriage and environmental protection.
Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales

Political junkies who can't get enough of Daily Kos or RedState (depending on party preferences) may now have a new Web 2.0 toy in the form of Campaigns Wikia.

As with Wikipedia, Wiktionary and other wikis, contributors to Campaigns Wikia will be able to edit any section of the site, provided that they register for free accounts first.

Campaigns Wikia was unveiled, appropriately, on July 4, with an "open letter to the political blogosphere." Wales said he is targeting the masses of activists from every corner of political opinion who have made the Internet their home base.

Ever since Howard Dean's then-surprising Internet-based campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, and the subsequent coverage of bloggers' presence at the major parties' national conventions, the use of the Web as a political tool has become an increasingly highbrow topic. If Campaigns Wikia is a success, Wales hopes that it will be a resource where voters can become more informed about current events and issues, he said.

Even though the so-called blogosphere is perhaps best known as a breeding ground for liberal rhetoric, Wales aims to make Campaigns Wikia a nonpartisan effort.

"Whoever you are and whatever you believe, you can share with me my sincere desire that the process starts to be about substance and thought, rather than style and image," he said.

The wiki: http://campaigns.wikia.com/

 

[Elrohir]

Very interesting, thanks for the link.

 

[ybbor]

that's insane. Wikis make very good communities for lots of things, but politics is not one of them. There is no "right" answer in politics and political issues.

for instance this is the first page that popped up after hitting "random page": illegal immigration. And it's a great illustration of the limitations of a wiki. You see headings such as "The Bush Plan" The Democrat Plan" and "Mexico's Solution" (as of this writing Mexico is the only one with content).

The article does not present a NPOV in any section (ex: "...that Americans would love", "a country without borders is no country at all", "biggest problem", "who could disagree", "perfect solution", etc.)

You'll also notice there is no standard of who gets a plan is the democrat's plan supposed to be the opposite of Bush's plan? The republicans are divided so should we have a Bush, GOP, and Dem Plan? What about the extreme left, do they get their plan in? How long until some user submits "Steve's plan"?

There is no way to decide what version of a plan is submitted. What happens if 5 months down the line Bush stops talking about a guest worker program in his plan (and we don't know if he still supports it or not, or gives vague answers)?

It won't be long until there's a long series of "re:"'s and it would either have to get archived or clutter up the page. What happens if someone says something stupid ("The only solution is to nuke Mexico City and hire Mexicans to clean-up the fallout!!!11one!one!!!1eleven!") can we delete that? who decides what a valued opinion is?

And there's a single source on that page, but stuff that really should require sources ("More than 40 middle-eastern men have already been captured at the Arizona border") don't have one. Can we remove it without a source? What if it's true. What if the number is 39 million, and I have a source, can I change "Steve's plan" (which is property of Steve) is I agree with him to make his argument better?

It'll never work well. A forum is so much more simple and Elegant.

 

[croxis]

Actually it is set up very well. Maybe you should actually read it and see how it is set up.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This is an amazingly stupid idea.

Those of you who don't yet understand why have probably never edited a wiki. For further information, see this page.

What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is a new paradigm in human discourse. It's a place where anyone with a browser can go, pick a subject that interests them, and without even logging in, start an argument. In fact, Wikipedia is the largest and most comprehensive collection of arguments in human history, incorporating spats and vendettas on subjects ranging from Suleiman the Magnificent to Dan the Automator. As an unexpected side effect of being the perfect argument space, it's also a pretty good place to find information about all the characters from Battlestar: Galactica.

Why do people talk about Wikipedia so much?

Wikipedia is such a powerful argument engine that it actually leaks out to the rest of the web, spontaneously forming meta-arguments about itself on any open message board.

Yes, but what is there to argue about?

Well, Wikipedia exists in a state of quantum significance flux. It's simultaneously a shining, flawless collection of incontrovertible information, and a debased pile of meaningless words thrown together by uneducated lemurs with political agendas. It simply cannot exist in any state between these two extremes. You can test this yourself by expressing a reasonable opinion about the site in any public space. Whatever words you type, they will be interpreted by readers as supporting one of these two opposing views.

What should I know if I want to contribute to an argument nexus (or "article") on Wikipedia?
It will help to familiarize yourself with some of the common terms used on Wikipedia:

meat puppet: A person who disagrees with you.
non-notable: A subject you're not interested in.
vandalism: An edit you didn't make.
neutral point of view: Your point of view.
consensus: A mythical state of utopian human evolution. Many scholars of Wikipedian theology theorize that if consensus is ever reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear.

Is it true that anyone can contribute?

Sure, Wikipedia is absolutely open to absolutely anyone contributing to absolutely anything! As long as you haven't been banned, or the article you're contributing to hasn't been locked, or there isn't a group of people waiting to delete anything you write, or you don't make the same change more than three times in one day, or the subject of the article hasn't decided to send scary lawyer letters to Wikipedia, or you haven't pissed Jimbo Wales off real bad. It's all about freedom.

But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.

That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.

What's this is I hear about Wikipedia saying some guy shot Kennedy?

That was actually a misunderstanding. The person who was accused of murdering Kennedy didn't realize that it's his job to monitor his own Wikipedia entry at all times and fix mistakes. By not doing so, by allowing his entry to contain libelous information, he was in essence accusing himself of murdering Kennedy. The Wikipedia board of directors is hoping that the courts will accept this as a confession and convict him of assassination. At that point, his Wikipedia entry will be 100 percent true, proving that the system works.

An article about me is up for deletion! What can I do to keep this from happening?

Well, you could try building a strong case using documented evidence from outside Wikipedia to bring people around to your well-researched and well-founded point of view, but honestly your best bet is to get a role on Battlestar: Galactica.

 

[Arcadian83]

I don't think it's such a bad idea. I've told people about Wikipedia and have been unable to convince them that such a system would not immediately collapse from vandalism or DDOS attacks, and yet... there it is.

No, it wouldn't be perfect, but it may very well turn out better than any other system currently available. The vast majority of existing sources of information about political ideas are either housed by holders of those ideas or are poorly packaged into soundbites by media organizations.

Even a cynic might take satisfaction in Wikia's diverting the flow of vandalism from Wikipedia into a more concentrated cesspool. I for one would like to see various opposing (or not so opposing) viewpoints side-by-side. Such a tool could lead to *gasp* well-informed voters.