[Campaigns-l] Languages

[Janet Hawtin]

On 8/3/06, Becky Blackham <bblackham at san.rr.com> wrote:

>  I'm sorry if I am being a dunce here, I was in a rush when I read this
> thread, but how do we get to the idea of closed Campaign Wikias, by language
> or any other factor. Is this not contrary to the very essence of wiki-ness,
> not to mention some aspects of the Mission Statement?  Please don't be
> aggravated if I am being clueless. I have missed something, I'm sure, and I
> apologize.

No you share my concern.

For a wiki to start with an English is main and dialects are
irrelevant beginning point
especially when it is about politics and the right for people to
express divergence
is a sad thing in my opinion. The idea that there is a main site in
any form or language presumes that there is right of way for one
perspective.

I am not American so I speak a dialect of English, some call it
international English.
I am not so concerned that there will be bickering over z's and lls in English,
but think that there are many nations and people within nations who
speak English who would not have a US based perspective on what is
valid and important.
Or for that matter an opinion which is consistent with a political
party or government in power in their own country. For some people for
example in Timor Leste
the language used says a great deal about the perspective of the
message before you even get a sentence out.

The campaign.wikia site is being structured primarily around
campaigners and existing politicians. That will probably result in
fairly formalised and limited divergence of opinion based on party
lines = ie a map of the existing political system but not really a
forum for ideas to be shared on issues.
This structure makes sense for politicians who wish to be seen in a new medium.
For me as a layperson wishing to find others with similar concerns on
an international issue I need a different kind of wiki.

Economic rationalist jargon can in some ways be a kind of dialect. I
tried to start some content about the DMCA but after some weeks the
material is still part of a talk page on Digital Rights, with the
proposed page being Digital Rights Management. These terms are so
partisan its surprising they are not trademarked.
The scope of the discussion is then defined by the language used, the
relationships of the people involved are defined into publisher and consumer.
Creator-consumers dont fit. Information being accessed as a right and
not as a customer/consumer does not fit.(Someone else pointed out I
had made this mistake - thanks) Creative commons doesn't fit. The link
between health in Africa and Medicine patents is out of scope. The
language structures the room for the conversation and results in
limited options for forwards. I have become frustrated and stopped
working on it. As a page to point to for existing US politicians to
link to their position on an existing law the current page would
probably be fine.

Issues wiki seems to be taking on the dialogue based material, so
perhaps the best path is to recognise that there are two kinds of
soapboxes.

One is for people to see and identify politicians by their platforms.
This one could really just have translation and not really need language flow
because the politician is making a statement about their own truth.
There could be room for comment but the core purpose is one way.

The other is for politicians to see and understand the discussions
held by people outside of the professional political sphere about what
is vital and what is destructive about policies and processes as they
stand or as they emerge.

As Becky points out there is potential in the wiki medium to have a
flow of dialogue across language boundaries. For that to work you need
two flavours of document.
One is a document in its home tongue, the other is a translation. Each
language group would need to be able to see both kinds of material and
to understand which
kind of document they are looking at and which language the
translation comes from etc. A space for dialogue is very different
from an encyclopedia because the value in the wiki is its ability to
facilitate us seeing another person's point of view.

This kind of wiki could enable politicians to discover their
communities in a new medium. And for communities to discover one
another without mediation. We could all learn about what kinds of
criteria people think might be good for mapping to a different
outcome. These might be divergent from the political frameworks as
they stand. This kind of wiki could only be effective if there is
language flow, opinion flow, inclusion of divergent material from
whichever dialect or
perspective the contributor is speaking/seeing.

ie there is room for looking at issues
- in english from english opinion x
- in english from another language opinion y
- in english from english opinion z, etc
and if at all possible
- common ground
- criteria for different view points
- possible criteria or suggestions for new outcomes.

This kind of inclusion means that as someone pointed out some weeks back
we would end up with a full spectrum of opinion from very radical to
more moderate opinions. Working from those starting points to look for
common ground and ways forward would be the real engine room of that
kind of wiki.

An issues wiki could well be something which does not end up with a
static outcome page but which is always in a process of moving towards
common ground or mapping a range of outcomes based on state of play at
any given time. It would be likely to be intense, passionate and in
places feral. How much feral for how much constructive outcome would
probably be an ongoing discussion.

In the long run I think the politician led campaign.wiki could be useful
but may be limited in its ability to facilitate change.

I think the people led wiki would be likely to have a lot more early contention
but may be a means for us to develop better ways of thinking and
problem solving.

Perhaps slicing them into campaign and issues wiki is a good first
step because there is a value or logic for two different structures
based on the goals and perspectives of the people participating.

Janet