[Campaigns-l] Wikipedia and Campaigns in the same namespace... was "Languages"

[Benjamin Rahn]

> The trick is that the facts themselves are sometimes in dispute, especially
> when they have relevance to controversial issues.  It would be nice if we
> could have "neutral fact" pages intermixed with the "pages full of opinions"
> where people just coming from an opinion page full of "readiness to edit"
> find a place where such edits are welcome.

Conversation at the Boston meetup led me to recall a web site I
haven't looked at in a long time: http://www.publicagenda.org/ which
provides one model for distinguishing the types of content described
above.

Public Agenda calls itself (in earnest) "A nonpartisan opinion
research and civic engagement organization helping Americans explore
and understand critical issues since 1975."

As an example of their approach, their education page
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/frontdoor.cfm?issue_type=education
links to both a "Fact File"
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles.cfm?issue_type=education
and "Discussion Guides"
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/debate.cfm?issue_type=education
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/debate_detail2.cfm?issue_type=education
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/debate_questions.cfm?issue_type=education
which walk through the differing perspectives and arguments (both pro
and con) for each.

-Ben