[Campaigns-l] Candidate Inclusion

[YYK H]

> Fair point. OK so we have to be conscious of the possibility of
> astroturf, and to be aware that our perspectives might get restricted
> by people with vested interests locking down specific issues. And to
> find ways to respond to that so that they are only temporary
> blockages. Negotiated opinions are not going to be a cakewalk. In some
> cases there are likely to be multiple truths even after we negotiate
> for common ground and look at options for forwards.
>
> Figuring out ways to respond when things get bent is probably
> something which we need for ourselves as well. It happens informally
> as a part of people promoting their own perspectives. Possibly with
> more formal entities doing this kind of thing
> they stand to run a bigger risk of being discredited as in the above example?
> Possibly they are going to be sneakier in future.
I think you may have hit on an interesting point about this platform.
I believe the greatest strength of a platform like campaigns wikia is
traceability.  Instead of waiting for TV political pundits to recall a
politician perspectives through the playing of video segments (an act
in itself could have been motivated by the pundits' own agenda) the
wiki can make the evolution of perspectives more of an open book and
thus increase understanding of opposing view.  It is true that the
concept of traceability can bite the politician in the rear for
"filp-floping" but it also let them explains the reason behind the
change, something that cannot be done with a soundbyte.

As important as traceability to tracking politician, it can do more
than that.  It can help track the evolution of issues and help
different regions of the world understand each other.  For example,
how does one go from supporting the war to going against the war.
People don't change their view over night.  Politics are organic ideas
that evolve over time and I think what the wiki can do is to map it
over time like the growth of a tree.

Kenny


> Cory Doctorow recently did an interview where he discussed graceful failure
> with regard to wikipedia, ie the idea that when something gets bent it
> does so in ways which can be recoverable and that distributed media
> are better at that kind of response than traditional models. He also
> talks about reading intelligently and not taking things at face value.
> http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/9/2214150.html
>
> Perhaps as part of the process we will come to understand what a pure
> motive looks like and what astroturf looks like and how we determine
> which is which
> not just from pollies but from all of us. Wikipedia perhaps has had a
> more verifiable path to follow. Will be interesting to see how we work
> with the same issues on perspective information.
>
> I think there will probably be 'good for schools' posts, but I think
> we will find that will have a cost, unlike in other media we can ask
> why? For me I am unlikely to go back to a page or be interested in a
> voice which has nothing new to offer?
> Perhaps the discussion pages and the comments bits on those pages will
> become busy until either the person is explicit or until people accept
> that 'good for schools' is as far as that person is prepared to
> commit, and move on to looking for people who are answering the issues
> we want answered, meaningfully.
> Perhaps that means we as an audience have to think about whether from
> a politician's point of view it is more expensive to be explicit or
> more expensive to post a soundbite. Part of that will be about how we
> respond to both kinds of posts.
> Lets see what happens?
>
> Janet
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>