From joe at daverin.com  Wed Jul  5 20:55:52 2006
From: joe at daverin.com (Joe Daverin)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:55:52 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Introduction
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1152132509.2988.campaigns-l@wikia.com>
Message-ID: <777CCA70824@64.119.142.83>

Hi folks,

I'm not particularly politically involved, except when it comes to opinions.
But I'm high on wiki. I just started one at my workplace for software
development activities and project logs and fun stuff like that, and I've
just been blown away by the possibilities of such a simple, open
collaborative workspace. So I saw this link on BoingBoing.net (free plug,
one of my favorite blog-like thingies) and jumped in.

I sent e-mail to my federal reps, maybe will shoot them off to state reps
too later. I don't have too much hope for my senators (Kerry and Kennedy) as
they don't really seem "hip", as it were. But Meehan is my Representative
and he's always very e-active, lots of e-mails and web-based stuff, so he
might pay more attention.

Anyways, that's my story, I'll keep my eyes open and try to think of things
to help out.

Thanks,
Joe



From lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com  Wed Jul  5 21:36:46 2006
From: lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com (Lord Voldemort)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 17:36:46 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Introduction
In-Reply-To: <777CCA70824@64.119.142.83>
References: <mailman.0.1152132509.2988.campaigns-l@wikia.com>
	<777CCA70824@64.119.142.83>
Message-ID: <aa62d5b70607051436u6e664a15v83dff2b8a21f776@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/5/06, Joe Daverin <joe at daverin.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm not particularly politically involved, except when it comes to opinions.
> But I'm high on wiki. I just started one at my workplace for software
> development activities and project logs and fun stuff like that, and I've
> just been blown away by the possibilities of such a simple, open
> collaborative workspace. So I saw this link on BoingBoing.net (free plug,
> one of my favorite blog-like thingies) and jumped in.
>
> I sent e-mail to my federal reps, maybe will shoot them off to state reps
> too later. I don't have too much hope for my senators (Kerry and Kennedy) as
> they don't really seem "hip", as it were. But Meehan is my Representative
> and he's always very e-active, lots of e-mails and web-based stuff, so he
> might pay more attention.
>
> Anyways, that's my story, I'll keep my eyes open and try to think of things
> to help out.

Actually, starting out locally might even be better than the
higher-ups.  If we can get enough of the small timers involved, the
big timers will have to pay attention.  So please, go ahead and
contact your local reps too.  I'll probably be doing the same in a
short while. Cheers!  --LV


From ap at Pass-Ed.com  Thu Jul  6 02:09:01 2006
From: ap at Pass-Ed.com (Andrew Pass)
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:09:01 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Great Idea
Message-ID: <44AC70BD.6000300@Pass-Ed.com>

I think the idea of setting up a wiki for political campaigns is 
excellent.  I posted an entry today on my blog about Ned Lamont, Joe 
Lieberman's opponent in the Connecticut primary. The address is 
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html

Andy



From tom at memestreams.net  Thu Jul  6 05:01:20 2006
From: tom at memestreams.net (tom at memestreams.net)
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:01:20 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Great, here are some ideas...
Message-ID: <20060705220120.c9edd0a9cdb42be9a023c68d64c34aae.abbd322d4c.wbe@email.secureserver.net>

I'm very excited to see something like this taking root. Its an idea that I've been thinking about for a few years. Wikia has the resources to actually pull it off. 

I think that a lack of good information resources has a huge impact on politics, particularly local politics, in many regions in the United States. I used to live in California. Before each election I received a Voter Information Guide in the mail which detailed all of the races and referenda items that would appear on the ballot. Each candidate was given space to explain themselves and their positions, and each ballot item allowed space for the text of the item, a pro and con view, as well as pro's response to con and con's response to pro. The result was that I had a reasonable set of data at my disposal when I went into the ballot box on election day. 

Living now in Georgia the situation is quite different. Local news organizations sponsor a non-partisan guide put together by the League of Woman Voters, but many people don't know about it, it only covers some of the races and candidates, and some of the information is limited. They just don't have the resources to put out a guide as complete as the one that California produces. 

The result is that you go into the ballot box and there are many local offices that you're asked to vote on that you know nothing about, and you only get brief information about referenda items. I think people frequently choose candidates in such races whose names sound familiar, which more often then not is the product of pure marketing. Signs hammered into street corners don't tell you anything about the kind of government you're likely to get from a particular candidate. 

People who haven't had access to good information in advance of an election don't really know what they are missing. Partisanship is what fills the information vacuum. If you don't have enough data to pick the candidate you end up picking the party instead, and as you become entrenched in your party your neuter your own ability to influence the process. If candidates know you'll never vote for the other party they don't need to worry about your specific interests as much. They court people who are up for grabs. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures has a website up about Voter Information Guides. (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/VoterInfo.htm) Only a few states have them, and few have detailed ones. I could try to convince my state to adopt one, (http://www.georgia-voter.info/) but they are expensive, and its challenging to get a large number of entrenched politicians to agree to spend the people's money on a tool that undermines their ability to get elected on the basis of pure marketing. It might be possible, but it requires more time and resources then I have at my disposal and it doesn't do anything to help other states. 

There are some Internet resources that currently exist, such as Project Vote-Smart (http://www.vote-smart.org/). However, I have some criticisms of it. Its an important, useful resource, but its more valuable to researchers then to regular voters in my opinion. They seem to do a good job of providing either too much information or not enough. Few politicians have agreed to fill out their position quiz, and they seem afraid to provide summary information about candidate positions in any other way. There is a wealth of data up there about voting records and the like, but this information requires a lot of time and effort to mine. I also found their coverage of local referenda lacking.

A wiki based voter information guide has several advantages: 
1. Its (relatively) cheap. Each state doesn't have to pony up millions to support it right off the bat.  
2. Its local. People living in your own district can provide informed data about candidates and ballot items.
3. Its global. It has the potential to serve people in Democratic states all over the world. If it fosters effective dialog about issues, it might serve as an example to people living in less Democractic states.  
4. Its open. The people are really in control of the focus of the message. Politicians, the media, and special interests take a back seat. 
5. Its not afraid. Due to their collective editorial process, wikis can provide concise, easy to read information about candidate positions and referenda items without being hampered by the need that single author information sources have to establish a strict, structural means of demonstrating objectivity.   

However, it also presents a number of architectural challenges beyond the simple matter of installing MediaWiki and giving it a domain name. 

U.S. voters would benefit from being able to enter in their ZIP+4 code and get a list of the districts they are in so that they can find out what is going to be on their local ballot. The basic information correlating ZIP+4 codes to local, state, and federal districts is available, but it can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and must be regularly updated due to constant redistricting. I THINK Project Vote-Smart's data is donated to them by one of the service providers that compiles it. Perhaps if this project reached similar stature that it could also attract such a donation. However, some software development would be needed to pull that data from CSV files into the database, make it searchable, and tie the search results back to editable wiki pages for each of the various districts and the ballot items for those districts. Of course, adding other countries into the mix involves additional complexity and expense, only truely known to those who are active participants in each country's system. 

In addition, there lies the concern that political science is an oxymoron. Politics is an environment in which people will have partisan and economic interests in abusing an open information resource in order to mislead  readers. I think that few environments exist in which abuse management in the wiki model will be put to a greater test. It probably makes sense to consider strategies for abuse management early on. I think I recall that Presidential candidate pages in wikipedia were simply locked down prior to the 2004 U.S. election in order to prevent vandalism from impacting readers. Is this strategy going to scale effectively, or are new ideas needed? 

Good luck with this project!
Tom Cross


From mcoupland at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 05:29:59 2006
From: mcoupland at gmail.com (Michael Coupland)
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:29:59 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
Message-ID: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings all.

Here's an initial list of thoughts, concerns, and ideas I've come up with.
Campaigns being a Wiki, I realize that some of these are things that I could
just go do on my own, but it seems worthwhile to post them here since
they're a bit higher level, and I'd like to hear what others have to say
before rooting around too much. (Not to mention I'm probably not familiar
enough with Wikis to do it all properly...)

- The direction that Campaigns seems to have started in, and what I'd like
to see (among other potential functions) is to act as a clearinghouse for
information regarding various political topics. For any given issue, it
seems that there should be a few standard sections: off the top of my head
I'd like to see
     "The Issue" - an unbiased nonpartisan overview (perhaps a summary of a
relevant Wikipedia article?)
     "Viewpoints" - summaries of the major opinions on the issue
     "Action" - information about prior, pending, and future relevant
legislation etc.
     "Resources" - links to outside sources of information, ways to contact
major players involved (companies, congresspeople)

- To avoid ping-pongy and hard to follow arguments, it might make sense to
encourage some sort of standard argumentative form, eg. in a given
discussion follow something like a Lincoln-Douglas form, where each side has
a limited number of rebuttals. The California voter information guide Tom
Cross just mentioned seems to have employed this approach.

- It would probably be helpful to have a big link to a "Guide to Reasoned
Discourse" on the front page, and a small link on every page. This might
help reduce flaming.

- As Tom mentioned, I know Wikipedia has had problems with vandalism on
topics that are "controversial." Unfortunately, most pages on Campaigns are
likely to fall under that classification, so special handling by
administrators might not be an effective solution. Is there a meta-page in
Wikipedia discussing the decisions they made and what other options there
may be?

- I've always admired the site http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and the way it
tries to publicize some of the workings of the British government. It's
probably a good source of inspiration for Campaigns.

- Given the phrasing of the mission statement, I have been assuming that
this is (for now at least) intended for politics in the United States (and
relevant international topics...) While I'm all for international discourse,
I would expect such wide scope is likely to result in chaos. I would propose
starting off with an restriction to US politics. (Parallel wikis for other
countries would be suitable, just as Wikipedia has branched into many
languages.)

I'd love to hear comments on / criticism of the above topics. Thanks!

   Michael


PS. As with Tom, I feel obligated to give a shout out to BoingBoing for
leading me here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060705/5995c680/attachment.html 

From bboston at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 16:55:40 2006
From: bboston at gmail.com (bruce boston)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:55:40 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>

I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with the
Wiki.  Wikis seem to do a great job of documenting information, but seem
over complicated for a simple topic debate.  Forums on the other hand are
great for documenting a conversation, and encouraging input in all forms and
from many people.

Just a thought.

-bruce


On 7/5/06, Michael Coupland <mcoupland at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings all.
>
> Here's an initial list of thoughts, concerns, and ideas I've come up with.
> Campaigns being a Wiki, I realize that some of these are things that I could
> just go do on my own, but it seems worthwhile to post them here since
> they're a bit higher level, and I'd like to hear what others have to say
> before rooting around too much. (Not to mention I'm probably not familiar
> enough with Wikis to do it all properly...)
>
> - The direction that Campaigns seems to have started in, and what I'd like
> to see (among other potential functions) is to act as a clearinghouse for
> information regarding various political topics. For any given issue, it
> seems that there should be a few standard sections: off the top of my head
> I'd like to see
>      "The Issue" - an unbiased nonpartisan overview (perhaps a summary of
> a relevant Wikipedia article?)
>      "Viewpoints" - summaries of the major opinions on the issue
>      "Action" - information about prior, pending, and future relevant
> legislation etc.
>      "Resources" - links to outside sources of information, ways to
> contact major players involved (companies, congresspeople)
>
> - To avoid ping-pongy and hard to follow arguments, it might make sense to
> encourage some sort of standard argumentative form, eg. in a given
> discussion follow something like a Lincoln-Douglas form, where each side has
> a limited number of rebuttals. The California voter information guide Tom
> Cross just mentioned seems to have employed this approach.
>
> - It would probably be helpful to have a big link to a "Guide to Reasoned
> Discourse" on the front page, and a small link on every page. This might
> help reduce flaming.
>
> - As Tom mentioned, I know Wikipedia has had problems with vandalism on
> topics that are "controversial." Unfortunately, most pages on Campaigns are
> likely to fall under that classification, so special handling by
> administrators might not be an effective solution. Is there a meta-page in
> Wikipedia discussing the decisions they made and what other options there
> may be?
>
> - I've always admired the site http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and the way
> it tries to publicize some of the workings of the British government. It's
> probably a good source of inspiration for Campaigns.
>
> - Given the phrasing of the mission statement, I have been assuming that
> this is (for now at least) intended for politics in the United States (and
> relevant international topics...) While I'm all for international discourse,
> I would expect such wide scope is likely to result in chaos. I would propose
> starting off with an restriction to US politics. (Parallel wikis for other
> countries would be suitable, just as Wikipedia has branched into many
> languages.)
>
> I'd love to hear comments on / criticism of the above topics. Thanks!
>
>
>    Michael
>
>
> PS. As with Tom, I feel obligated to give a shout out to BoingBoing for
> leading me here.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>


-- 
bruce boston
bboston at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/b371ff85/attachment.html 

From beesley at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 17:02:11 2006
From: beesley at gmail.com (Angela)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:02:11 +1000
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with the Wiki.

We do have a wiki-based forum at
http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the idea is
combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those people
new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used to?

Angela.

-- 
Angela Beesley
Wikia.com


From ahynes1 at optonline.net  Thu Jul  6 17:45:50 2006
From: ahynes1 at optonline.net (Aldon Hynes)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:45:50 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing  political wikis
In-Reply-To: <20060706165545.41208B98567@shannon.tpa.wikia-inc.com>
Message-ID: <NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>

I would like to highlight a few different political wikis that are currently
up and running:

http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/

This is a wiki about the various campaigns in the Connecticut 2006 election
cycle.  It includes information about the Federal and State races.  The
section on the State House of Representatives is particularly good.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congresspedia

Congresspedia is a project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for
Media and Democracy.  They provide information about members of Congress.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Main_Page

dkospedia : A project of the DailyKos community.  Presents a
left/progressive/liberal view of what is going on.

What else is out there?

Aldon



From george.murray at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 17:55:06 2006
From: george.murray at gmail.com (George Murray)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:55:06 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>

Angela,

I am new to contributing to Wikis and am interested in participating in
campaigns.wikia.com. I agree with the comment made about Wikis probably not
having the best functionality for debate. Forums certainly do have wikis
beat on that. However, forums come in a wide range of functions. For the
campaigns wikia I would suggest a forum kind of like digg.com's comments
section. Where fellow wiki contributors can rate a post on its value, and
posts of high value can rise and eventually be added to a wikia page with
the most valuable information skimmed from the forum discussion.

For instance you could have a forum "thread" tied to the debate of global
warming. Posts can have a thread heirarchy for organization. Poor posts can
be voted down and out. A post rating history is kept to make sure no one is
just rating down their opponents viewpoints. Wiki contributors cannot
re-write each others posts, but they can re-organize posts to create a more
distilled discussion. The highest level of talking points can be the wiki
page.

I am new to contributing to wikis so forgive me if my lingo is not on
target, but I hope that I have gotten my point across. The merging of a
flowing participatory forum functionality with the opening of wikis can
distill topics and present the basics for visitors.

Thanks,
gmurray

On 7/6/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with the
> Wiki.
>
> We do have a wiki-based forum at
> http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the idea is
> combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
> interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those people
> new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used to?
>
> Angela.
>
> --
> Angela Beesley
> Wikia.com
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/9648bd0c/attachment.html 

From ed.rodgers at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:05:24 2006
From: ed.rodgers at gmail.com (Ed Rodgers)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:05:24 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
Message-ID: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>

I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
disposal.  I'm the type that normally doesnt send out mass emails on
anything, but after reading the mission statement, i opened up the
address book and made known to all my contacts of this new development
and alternative forum for political information.

along the broader spectrum of international thought (as i was assuming
the campaign wiki is designed with american politics as the main
focus), there is already an idea based on logic on how a world could
operate outside of politics, http://www.highintelligence.com/ thinking
like a programmer (my profession) makes public policy become much more
black and white.

Thanks
Ed


From jpmahoney at mindspring.com  Thu Jul  6 18:20:36 2006
From: jpmahoney at mindspring.com (Joe Mahoney)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:20:36 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns Wikia abuse' concerns?
Message-ID: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@[192.168.0.101]>

Greetings, A quick thought...


Introducing the CampaignWikia, Jimmy Wales wrote:

"I am launching today a new Wikia website aimed at being a central 
meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum who 
think that it is time for politics to become more participatory, and 
more intelligent."


That is a noble thought, but are there concerns that "political 
operatives," staff, volunteers or just very enthusiastic supporters 
that don't grasp the wiki philosophy, would become embroiled in 
change wars over pages? Could this lead to a high number of pages 
being protected.

Just pulling a random page (by clicking the random page link!)

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

In this very brief page, are there not points that could be "edited 
mercilessly" by Mr. Ashdown's opponent's supporters.

How can this be discouraged or prevented? Or more positively, how can 
constructive and useful editing be encouraged in what I am assuming 
will be a very contentious arena.

Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. Have I misunderstood the intent 
of this wiki?

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/b27d0356/attachment.html 

From stpeter at jabber.org  Thu Jul  6 18:11:12 2006
From: stpeter at jabber.org (Peter Saint-Andre)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:11:12 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ed Rodgers wrote:
> I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
> yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
> disposal.  

My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
open up the political process and make the political debate more
objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
ideology or movements.

Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
=hzWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/6edc775e/attachment.bin 

From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:29:34 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:29:34 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing political wikis
In-Reply-To: <NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
References: <20060706165545.41208B98567@shannon.tpa.wikia-inc.com>
	<NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061129q79c08973gbffd3186164adcee@mail.gmail.com>

left.wikia.com
rightwing.wikia.com

wikia.com/wiki/Politics:Portal has the complete list.  There's a bunch of
them.

Chad


On 7/6/06, Aldon Hynes <ahynes1 at optonline.net> wrote:
>
> I would like to highlight a few different political wikis that are
> currently
> up and running:
>
> http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com/
>
> This is a wiki about the various campaigns in the Connecticut 2006
> election
> cycle.  It includes information about the Federal and State races.  The
> section on the State House of Representatives is particularly good.
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congresspedia
>
> Congresspedia is a project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for
> Media and Democracy.  They provide information about members of Congress.
>
> http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> dkospedia : A project of the DailyKos community.  Presents a
> left/progressive/liberal view of what is going on.
>
> What else is out there?
>
> Aldon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>



-- 
Chad Lupkes
Democracy for Washington
http://www.democracyforwashington.com
Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
http://pdcw.org

If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July
4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
still breathing.

The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin

Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!

Anyone want a roll-top desk?
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/a787993a/attachment.html 

From okarht at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:25:46 2006
From: okarht at gmail.com (Lee Crane)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:25:46 -0500
Subject: [Campaigns-l] My 2 cents
Message-ID: <7959c38a0607061125v2e02899cw312ad4b5a7a1a24f@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Michael's general layout plan (Issue, Viewpoint, etc.).  The
one thing I would add would be pages for candidates that included (among
other things) evaluations of their campaign material.  For example, on the
page for Candidate A you would find transcripts of his/her speeches and
advertisments.  If in a speech they said "GDP has increased X percent while
I've been in office" you could click on the phrase and find the source of
the statistic and a discussion of alternative statistics and their
accuracy.  The wiki format would be good for this because everybody can add
a bit about their personal favorite economic indicator.  Hopefully the page
would allow readers to assess the validity of the candidate's statement on
their own rather than being told it was right or wrong.

For the debate section, I would like to see something like Micheal's
limited-response Lincoln-Douglas thing combined with George Murray's voting
scheme so you would see the most insightful and polished debates first.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/ea022754/attachment.html 

From jon.lebkowsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:35:57 2006
From: jon.lebkowsky at gmail.com (Jon Lebkowsky)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:35:57 -0500
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns Wikia abuse' concerns?
In-Reply-To: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
References: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
Message-ID: <f9688f830607061135v102ffd84t6ebdb02f4adb6a9b@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Joe Mahoney <jpmahoney at mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> How can this be discouraged or prevented? Or more positively, how can
> constructive and useful editing be encouraged in what I am assuming will be
> a very contentious arena.
>
> Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. Have I misunderstood the intent of
> this wiki?
>

Nobody said this would be easy. We'll probably have struggles, as they do at
Wikipedia, but that's an inherent part of transformation, I think.


-- 
Jon Lebkowsky
web strategy | architecture | user experience
for-profit: http://polycot.com
nonprofit: http://assistorg.org
blog: http://weblogsky.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/de1975f4/attachment.html 

From djarb at highenergymagic.org  Thu Jul  6 18:38:00 2006
From: djarb at highenergymagic.org (Daniel Arbuckle)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:38:00 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
Message-ID: <ddd408be0607061137g556144b6lfd8b2f9b08cfc120@mail.gmail.com>

Or perhaps we're trying to further all of them, to the extent that providing
an informative forum and debate between the partisans of each ideology
benefits all of them.

On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ed Rodgers wrote:
> > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
> > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
> > disposal.
>
> My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
> open up the political process and make the political debate more
> objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
> ideology or movements.
>
> Peter
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
> vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
> =hzWb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/71ad1815/attachment.html 

From mark.slater at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:38:08 2006
From: mark.slater at gmail.com (Mark Slater)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:38:08 +0200
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns Wikia abuse' concerns?
In-Reply-To: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
References: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
Message-ID: <54760dab0607061138w3addb6b0i5269f92120535fa6@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Joe

On 7/6/06, Joe Mahoney <jpmahoney at mindspring.com> wrote:

> How can this be discouraged or prevented? Or more positively, how can
> constructive and useful editing be encouraged in what I am assuming will be
> a very contentious arena.

I guess if push comes to shove and it's quite obvious that such
editing is happening, you have choices, from offering a sharp-worded
"if you are employed by a politician or an affiliated association,
please read this nasty legalese disclaimer before editing", all the
way to "if you are employed by a politican, you are barred from
editing this wiki and if we find out that you're doing it anyway,
we'll sue you!".

Though I doubt neither of those possibilities are what Jim Wales had in mind...

-- 
mark


From ed.rodgers at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:39:29 2006
From: ed.rodgers at gmail.com (Ed Rodgers)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:39:29 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
Message-ID: <e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>

i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.

by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
political and governmental decisions.

i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)

and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
comprehension of rhetoric.

we are progressing past television advertisements
we are progressing to form an online community of thought contributors
we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may not
be misconstrued.

stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.

On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ed Rodgers wrote:
> > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
> > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
> > disposal.
>
> My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
> open up the political process and make the political debate more
> objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
> ideology or movements.
>
> Peter
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
> vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
> =hzWb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
>


From lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:48:15 2006
From: lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com (Lord Voldemort)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:48:15 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns Wikia abuse' concerns?
In-Reply-To: <54760dab0607061138w3addb6b0i5269f92120535fa6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
	<54760dab0607061138w3addb6b0i5269f92120535fa6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa62d5b70607061148k1e36398cq640e85169d0dcb06@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Mark Slater <mark.slater at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess if push comes to shove and it's quite obvious that such
> editing is happening, you have choices, from offering a sharp-worded
> "if you are employed by a politician or an affiliated association,
> please read this nasty legalese disclaimer before editing", all the
> way to "if you are employed by a politican, you are barred from
> editing this wiki and if we find out that you're doing it anyway,
> we'll sue you!".
>
> Though I doubt neither of those possibilities are what Jim Wales had in mind...

Whoa, definitely not.  As Kat explicitly states that people working
within a candidate's campaign should be involved.  Did someone miss
that part on the Draft policies page?  ;-)  We just have to be
vigilant and revert any egregious mistakes they may implement on their
opponent's pages.  And besides, don't you think it would look bad if
they were caught acting as saboteurs on their opponent's pages? :-)
--LV


From stpeter at jabber.org  Thu Jul  6 18:56:27 2006
From: stpeter at jabber.org (Peter Saint-Andre)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:56:27 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD5CDB.5020203@jabber.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sure, I can go for that. After all, I consider myself a progressive
libertarian. ;-)

To me, blogs and wikis are like modern pamphlets. It was the
pamphleteers who, more than anyone, sowed the mental seeds for the
American Revolution. Maybe we can use the modern tools at our disposal
to also build sometime better, more participatory, more open, more free.

Peter

Ed Rodgers wrote:
> i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.
> 
> by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
> utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
> political and governmental decisions.
> 
> i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)
> 
> and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
> comprehension of rhetoric.
> 
> we are progressing past television advertisements
> we are progressing to form an online community of thought contributors
> we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
> it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may not
> be misconstrued.
> 
> stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.
> 
> On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> Ed Rodgers wrote:
>> I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
>> yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
>> disposal.
> 
> My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
> open up the political process and make the political debate more
> objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
> ideology or movements.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErVzbNF1RSzyt3NURAtcPAKDVj/GgYKKprno5SlwMNR5NZxW3WACaAqeN
gJ550R2dTyR/bchPn+RVI7M=
=PQvP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/b5229e03/attachment.bin 

From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 18:59:35 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:59:35 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>

Something this wiki is going to be able to do is define our terms for the
ongoing discussion.  And the people who show up and make the edits will do
the defining instead of paid political operatives looking to spin things one
direction or the other.

Chad


On 7/6/06, Ed Rodgers <ed.rodgers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.
>
> by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
> utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
> political and governmental decisions.
>
> i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)
>
> and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
> comprehension of rhetoric.
>
> we are progressing past television advertisements
> we are progressing to form an online community of thought contributors
> we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
> it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may not
> be misconstrued.
>
> stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.
>
> On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Ed Rodgers wrote:
> > > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this wiki.  It's
> > > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at our
> > > disposal.
> >
> > My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
> > open up the political process and make the political debate more
> > objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> > libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
> > ideology or movements.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
> > vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
> > =hzWb
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>



-- 
Chad Lupkes
Democracy for Washington
http://www.democracyforwashington.com
Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
http://pdcw.org

If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July
4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
still breathing.

The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin

Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!

Anyone want a roll-top desk?
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/cdb9d1d5/attachment.html 

From dniel9 at mac.com  Thu Jul  6 18:59:27 2006
From: dniel9 at mac.com (Neil Pistol)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:59:27 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns
Message-ID: <8D1C722F-B7FD-4721-9AEC-615F4114894F@mac.com>

I became ecstatic once I read the Campaigns Mission Statement, for  
participatory politics is what I believe democracy is truly about. I  
agree with those of you who encourage a bipartisan organization of  
topics. I would hope that we can get past the political party  
methodology in order to discuss the issues themselves. I like the  
rating system of certain posts, to help find the best of the best,  
but am concerned of biases flooding the polls and blocking the  
opposition. One idea is to geographically divide the site, similar to  
Craigslist.org, and then the highly rated posts can be 'upgraded' to  
a wider, national audience.

Neil


From lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:06:58 2006
From: lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com (Lord Voldemort)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:06:58 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aa62d5b70607061206i4e96c3ceh4846deee13601d7d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> --
> Chad Lupkes
> Democracy for Washington
> http://www.democracyforwashington.com
> Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
> http://pdcw.org
>
> If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July
> 4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
> still breathing.
>
> The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
> members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin
>
> Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!
>
> Anyone want a roll-top desk?
> http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html

I just wanna know if you wouldn't mind taking all of the spam out of
your signature if you're going to continue to post here.  One link or
something would be fine, but your sig is longer than most of your
comments at this point.  Thanks.  --LV


From jbaswell at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:07:26 2006
From: jbaswell at gmail.com (Jamie Baswell)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:07:26 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] My 2 cents
Message-ID: <fbb28f290607061207s7b5ccfe0y95919d4f95e2098a@mail.gmail.com>

I think the wiki portion should be as factual as possible.

What I'd love to see:

Name

Biography
-- Written by himself or supporters. Not a political history, which will be
covered later, but a simple history, where they're from, what schools they
attended, generic stuff like that.

Voting Record
-- List of voting history, if any.  Each entry can be a simple item number
and how they voted.  Each item number can itself be a link to a different
Wiki entry containing a summary of the bill and what various candidates have
said about it, if anything.


For example:

[Bill 90210] - Voted NO
"I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, New York
Times interview, 1997
[Bill OU812] - Voted YES
"I voted yes on this because I think it's important to save the Alaska
Salmon." - Mr. Candidate, Campaign Wikia, 2006


If you click on [Bill 90210], you should get at least a brief summary of
what it was, and Mr. Candidate's comments should be echoed on that page,
along with the comments of every other candidate who had anything to say
about it.

So we can see what Mr. Candidate said about it on his page or we can click
on the item and see what everyone said about it.

This list should be a community effort, not just up to the campaigner to
post the ones he wants to popularize.  If he voted NO on something 30 years
ago and wants to comment about how he would vote YES now if given a chance,
he or his supporters can add comments to that effect, but the fact that he
did vote NO should remain on the page.


Other sections could include memorable quotes (with references) links to
speeches, debate transcripts, etc.


The bottom line for me is I would love to be able to see that Joe Blow is
running for governor or whatever, then go here and type "Joe Blow" and see a
list of things he's voted on in the past, what those things actually were
about, anything he had to say about it, etc.

Comments from random people should be left to the forums.  Comments from
opponets should be made on their own page, not here.

e.g.
 [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
"I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
"You voted no because you fear change and you're racist against penguins." -
Mr. Opponet, 2006

The second comment should be deleted, since creating a Debate Wiki would
just be ugly.  Mr. Opponet can write a speech about it and link that
seperately on his own page if he'd like.

Similarly:
 [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
"I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
residents to replace their cars with penguins.  Mr. Opponet has no respect
for the rights of modern Californians to not be subjected to the daily abuse
of penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997

That should be trimmed down to read as it was before.  The second sentence
is not directly relevant to why he voted NO and just invites a mid-wiki
flamewar.

The tighter we keep it to the relevant facts, I think, the better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/27dd9fec/attachment.html 

From schnippy at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:14:38 2006
From: schnippy at gmail.com (Greg Schnippel)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:14:38 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
Message-ID: <331548370607061214o6c9eb4e4v32bf1d6723c800c3@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
> open up the political process and make the political debate more
> objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
> ideology or movements.

I got the opposite sense from the mission statement -- I assumed that
this would become a place for people aligned with one party or another
to gather and refine their own party's platform out in the open. The
focus of the site and the mission statement on 'political campaigns'
as opposed to issues meant to me that this would be a forum for
deciding what the national parties platform on 'X' should be or how
Candidate 'Y' should structure their platform.

Either way is exciting and worldchanging, but it seems to me that this
is the crucial question in the beginning stages of this project -
whether or not it should split up into sub-platforms based on
political leanings or try and speak for everyone. Trying to create a
'national statement' would definitely be harder as there seem to be
some fundamental points of disagreement on both sides.

- Greg


From jeenaone at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:15:43 2006
From: jeenaone at gmail.com (Genghis Conn)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:15:43 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Connecting people with information
Message-ID: <97dfe23a0607061215n5f001ec3kb4c66dd104699501@mail.gmail.com>

The withdrawal of newspaper coverage from local political races and events
gives this wiki a perfect window of opportunity. More and more people are
looking online for political information (my own site stats tell me that)
and something like this could become an easier, less filtered way to connect
people with that information.

Right now, most of the political/campaign information online comes through
campaign controlled sites instead of third party sites.

It would be great to have a way to generate comparisons on certain issues.
For example, select an issue (say, property taxes) and limit to your
district, and see what positions all the candidates in that area have on it.

Chris Bigelow
Enfield, CT
http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com
http://ctelection2006.pbwiki.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/e67a4ba2/attachment.html 

From george.murray at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:21:20 2006
From: george.murray at gmail.com (George Murray)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:21:20 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>

One of my concerns with the current political process is the use of framing
[see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(communication_theory) ] and
buzzwords to redefine the problems rather than solve them.

Campaigns Wikia could be a great way to "cut through" the redefinition these
politicians do by taking whatever the latest buzzwords are and having an
up-to-date record of their use and redefinition over time.

Just a thought,
-gmurray

On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Something this wiki is going to be able to do is define our terms for the
> ongoing discussion.  And the people who show up and make the edits will do
> the defining instead of paid political operatives looking to spin things one
> direction or the other.
>
> Chad
>
>
> On 7/6/06, Ed Rodgers <ed.rodgers at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.
> >
> > by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
> > utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
> > political and governmental decisions.
> >
> > i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)
> >
> > and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
> > comprehension of rhetoric.
> >
> > we are progressing past television advertisements
> > we are progressing to form an online community of thought contributors
> > we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
> > it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may not
> > be misconstrued.
> >
> > stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.
> >
> > On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre < stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Ed Rodgers wrote:
> > > > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this
> > wiki.  It's
> > > > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at
> > our
> > > > disposal.
> > >
> > > My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying
> > to
> > > open up the political process and make the political debate more
> > > objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> > > libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought
> > or
> > > ideology or movements.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > >
> > > iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
> > > vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
> > > =hzWb
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chad Lupkes
> Democracy for Washington
> http://www.democracyforwashington.com
> Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
> http://pdcw.org
>
> If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July
> 4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
> still breathing.
>
> The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
> members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin
>
> Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!
>
> Anyone want a roll-top desk?
> http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/c8d93e82/attachment.html 

From george.murray at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:24:21 2006
From: george.murray at gmail.com (George Murray)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:24:21 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns
In-Reply-To: <8D1C722F-B7FD-4721-9AEC-615F4114894F@mac.com>
References: <8D1C722F-B7FD-4721-9AEC-615F4114894F@mac.com>
Message-ID: <3fdb2c400607061224n4a6e4a79ua963515c0c1676ea@mail.gmail.com>

>
> but am concerned of biases flooding the polls and blocking the
> opposition.


This could be solved by having another level of editing to "rate the
raters". Show a users rating history over time to find any themes and
hopefully sort out the bad apples.


-gmurray



On 7/6/06, Neil Pistol <dniel9 at mac.com> wrote:
>
> I became ecstatic once I read the Campaigns Mission Statement, for
> participatory politics is what I believe democracy is truly about. I
> agree with those of you who encourage a bipartisan organization of
> topics. I would hope that we can get past the political party
> methodology in order to discuss the issues themselves. I like the
> rating system of certain posts, to help find the best of the best,
> but am concerned of biases flooding the polls and blocking the
> opposition. One idea is to geographically divide the site, similar to
> Craigslist.org, and then the highly rated posts can be 'upgraded' to
> a wider, national audience.
>
> Neil
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/a45e0ac0/attachment.html 

From stpeter at jabber.org  Thu Jul  6 19:31:34 2006
From: stpeter at jabber.org (Peter Saint-Andre)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:31:34 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Connecting people with information
In-Reply-To: <97dfe23a0607061215n5f001ec3kb4c66dd104699501@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97dfe23a0607061215n5f001ec3kb4c66dd104699501@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD6516.6010909@jabber.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Well, some folks predict the end of the newspaper industry before long,
so something will need to fill the void. :-)

Providing all that local coverage will be a lot of work, but that's what
dedicated volunteers are for, I suppose.

Peter

Genghis Conn wrote:
> The withdrawal of newspaper coverage from local political races and
> events gives this wiki a perfect window of opportunity. More and more
> people are looking online for political information (my own site stats
> tell me that) and something like this could become an easier, less
> filtered way to connect people with that information.
> 
> Right now, most of the political/campaign information online comes
> through campaign controlled sites instead of third party sites.
> 
> It would be great to have a way to generate comparisons on certain
> issues. For example, select an issue (say, property taxes) and limit to
> your district, and see what positions all the candidates in that area
> have on it.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErWUWNF1RSzyt3NURAtC1AJ4ppqzmKOqJt1V5Z3o7BnIuoseMFQCggxEf
uL1VGqFec2lyeXTbs70Y3gE=
=696Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/c344fce3/attachment.bin 

From ed.rodgers at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 19:36:31 2006
From: ed.rodgers at gmail.com (Ed Rodgers)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:36:31 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Campaigns Wikia abuse' concerns?
In-Reply-To: <aa62d5b70607061148k1e36398cq640e85169d0dcb06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <p06210215c0d3021f9db4@192.168.0.101>
	<54760dab0607061138w3addb6b0i5269f92120535fa6@mail.gmail.com>
	<aa62d5b70607061148k1e36398cq640e85169d0dcb06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e23444c80607061236l6e3a8042tb7096ac542613e79@mail.gmail.com>

this can also lead to the same problems i associate with legislature,
where wiki articles get so large that some misinformation will 'slip
through the cracks' .. where something looks good as a whole, but then
you slip in the 'riders' that turn the gold back into lead.

so therefore there needs to be a large collaboration of involved
persons outside the actual political arena to serve as the balance and
moderation of presented information.

this is our jobs, to get those we know involved as well to whatever
extent they are willing.  the campaign for campaign moderation.

On 7/6/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/06, Mark Slater <mark.slater at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess if push comes to shove and it's quite obvious that such
> > editing is happening, you have choices, from offering a sharp-worded
> > "if you are employed by a politician or an affiliated association,
> > please read this nasty legalese disclaimer before editing", all the
> > way to "if you are employed by a politican, you are barred from
> > editing this wiki and if we find out that you're doing it anyway,
> > we'll sue you!".
> >
> > Though I doubt neither of those possibilities are what Jim Wales had in mind...
>
> Whoa, definitely not.  As Kat explicitly states that people working
> within a candidate's campaign should be involved.  Did someone miss
> that part on the Draft policies page?  ;-)  We just have to be
> vigilant and revert any egregious mistakes they may implement on their
> opponent's pages.  And besides, don't you think it would look bad if
> they were caught acting as saboteurs on their opponent's pages? :-)
> --LV
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>


From stpeter at jabber.org  Thu Jul  6 19:41:02 2006
From: stpeter at jabber.org (Peter Saint-Andre)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:41:02 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <331548370607061214o6c9eb4e4v32bf1d6723c800c3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<331548370607061214o6c9eb4e4v32bf1d6723c800c3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD674E.8000804@jabber.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Schnippel wrote:
> On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 
>> My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying to
>> open up the political process and make the political debate more
>> objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
>> libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.) thought or
>> ideology or movements.
> 
> I got the opposite sense from the mission statement -- I assumed that
> this would become a place for people aligned with one party or another
> to gather and refine their own party's platform out in the open. 

Or, perhaps, an effort to move beyond the existing parties? As far as I
can see, many Americans feel politically homeless and do not like the
polarization of the political debate. I rather doubt that Americans are
as polarized as the parties are, and the parties are that way in large
measure (IMHO) because of gerrymandering and the resulting safe seats.

> The
> focus of the site and the mission statement on 'political campaigns'
> as opposed to issues meant to me that this would be a forum for
> deciding what the national parties platform on 'X' should be or how
> Candidate 'Y' should structure their platform.

I think the national parties (U.S.) have their own means for defining
their platforms. But the first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all nature of
American elections means that candidates are fairly entrepreneurial in
the U.S. (unlike most parliamentary systems, which more strongly enforce
party discipline). And there are many local offices for which elections
are typically non-partisan (city council and such). So a focus on issues
and candidates might be more productive than a focus on parties. Or so
it seems to me.

Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErWdNNF1RSzyt3NURAuWbAJ9Q2KtH802khzhv0AGw0UnKJYhIWwCeOWMt
lcjcWmV3E4EVODQGDMO4iYI=
=ST9B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/59296dbe/attachment.bin 

From daneanderson at comcast.net  Thu Jul  6 19:33:43 2006
From: daneanderson at comcast.net (Dane Anderson)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:33:43 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Great work!
Message-ID: <200607061933.k66JXaKV025492@smtp.unc.edu>

I think this it a fantastic forum for discussion and debate... 

 

We're doing a similar thing over at www.Unity08.com - but instead of just
talking about it, we're creating a party to make politicians become less
polarized!

 

I can't wait to start more of this discussion!

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/020d5618/attachment.html 

From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:08:31 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:08:31 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] protection on front page
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061308s3dff2e73va7519fe6ea390948@mail.gmail.com>

Well, that didn't take long.  I just had to protect the front page from
multiple blanking attempts.  I've set it as protected from unregistered
users.  We'll see how long it takes for that to last before we have to go
Sysop only.

Chad Lupkes
Seattle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/76a0c47e/attachment.html 

From hubbird at efn.org  Thu Jul  6 19:50:02 2006
From: hubbird at efn.org (Ben Hubbird)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>

I like this idea a lot. The more that this can be a roadmap to the
political landscape, rather than just another collection of billboards
along the way, the more valuable and important it will be. I don't think
this SHOULD be a forum for discussion of "issues", as issues are merely
those prepackaged, focus grouped items that poll well with a politician's
target demographic.

Politicians love issues (especially bivalent ones) because they are easy.
We should hate them because they insult our intelligence as citizens and
perpetuate the myth that we are divided by some impermeable ideological
barrier.

Seems like the questions we should be answering are not "Who's right,
who's wrong?" It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has even a
modest political awareness that NOBODY is "right".

We should instead ask: "What should politics look like, if not the current
system? How can we get there?"

A section on how campaigns are run might be a first step -- nothing
impacts the current shape of the political debate more than the dirty
games it takes to get into office.

What do y'all think?

Ben Hubbird

George Murray said:
> One of my concerns with the current political process is the use of
> framing
> [see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(communication_theory) ] and
> buzzwords to redefine the problems rather than solve them.
>
> Campaigns Wikia could be a great way to "cut through" the redefinition
> these
> politicians do by taking whatever the latest buzzwords are and having an
> up-to-date record of their use and redefinition over time.
>
> Just a thought,
> -gmurray
>
> On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Something this wiki is going to be able to do is define our terms for
>> the
>> ongoing discussion.  And the people who show up and make the edits will
>> do
>> the defining instead of paid political operatives looking to spin things
>> one
>> direction or the other.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/06, Ed Rodgers <ed.rodgers at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.
>> >
>> > by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
>> > utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
>> > political and governmental decisions.
>> >
>> > i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)
>> >
>> > and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
>> > comprehension of rhetoric.
>> >
>> > we are progressing past television advertisements
>> > we are progressing to form an online community of thought contributors
>> > we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
>> > it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may not
>> > be misconstrued.
>> >
>> > stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.
>> >
>> > On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre < stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > > Hash: SHA1
>> > >
>> > > Ed Rodgers wrote:
>> > > > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this
>> > wiki.  It's
>> > > > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at
>> > our
>> > > > disposal.
>> > >
>> > > My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're trying
>> > to
>> > > open up the political process and make the political debate more
>> > > objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
>> > > libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.)
>> thought
>> > or
>> > > ideology or movements.
>> > >
>> > > Peter
>> > >
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
>> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> > >
>> > > iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
>> > > vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
>> > > =hzWb
>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Chad Lupkes
>> Democracy for Washington
>> http://www.democracyforwashington.com
>> Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
>> http://pdcw.org
>>
>> If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a
>> pre-July
>> 4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
>> still breathing.
>>
>> The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
>> members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!
>>
>> Anyone want a roll-top desk?
>> http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Campaigns-l mailing list
>> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>



From djarb at highenergymagic.org  Thu Jul  6 20:15:26 2006
From: djarb at highenergymagic.org (Daniel Arbuckle)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:15:26 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] protection on front page
In-Reply-To: <801553ab0607061308s3dff2e73va7519fe6ea390948@mail.gmail.com>
References: <801553ab0607061308s3dff2e73va7519fe6ea390948@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ddd408be0607061315s4bb22231lfb1049c6615edc57@mail.gmail.com>

Any idea who was trying to silence us?

On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, that didn't take long.  I just had to protect the front page from
> multiple blanking attempts.  I've set it as protected from unregistered
> users.  We'll see how long it takes for that to last before we have to go
> Sysop only.
>
> Chad Lupkes
> Seattle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/64e2e6f5/attachment.html 

From pashdown at xmission.com  Thu Jul  6 20:16:21 2006
From: pashdown at xmission.com (Pete Ashdown)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:16:21 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing political wikis
In-Reply-To: <801553ab0607061129q79c08973gbffd3186164adcee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060706165545.41208B98567@shannon.tpa.wikia-inc.com>	<NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
	<801553ab0607061129q79c08973gbffd3186164adcee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD6F95.60603@xmission.com>



Chad Lupkes wrote:
> wikia.com/wiki/Politics:Portal <http://wikia.com/wiki/Politics:Portal>
> has the complete list.  There's a bunch of them.
No longer exists.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pashdown.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 366 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/32e4da6c/attachment.vcf 

From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:20:40 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:20:40 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] protection on front page
In-Reply-To: <ddd408be0607061315s4bb22231lfb1049c6615edc57@mail.gmail.com>
References: <801553ab0607061308s3dff2e73va7519fe6ea390948@mail.gmail.com>
	<ddd408be0607061315s4bb22231lfb1049c6615edc57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061320h5ea2cbecx75bc2b39bcf94564@mail.gmail.com>

Just some IP address.  Someone playing games.  We know how to handle games.

C


On 7/6/06, Daniel Arbuckle <djarb at highenergymagic.org> wrote:
>
> Any idea who was trying to silence us?
>
>  On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Well, that didn't take long.  I just had to protect the front page from
> multiple blanking attempts.  I've set it as protected from unregistered
> users.  We'll see how long it takes for that to last before we have to go
> Sysop only.
>
> Chad Lupkes
> Seattle
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/a57e922e/attachment.html 

From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:22:39 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:22:39 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing political wikis
In-Reply-To: <44AD6F95.60603@xmission.com>
References: <20060706165545.41208B98567@shannon.tpa.wikia-inc.com>
	<NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
	<801553ab0607061129q79c08973gbffd3186164adcee@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD6F95.60603@xmission.com>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061322w3c4c0abbrc37bfb67d7abc4d4@mail.gmail.com>

I typed it wrong.

http://wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Politics

Pete, there's another candidate, Green/Libertarian/Populist, in I believe
Rhode Island, who followed your example for a wiki and was on Thom Hartmann
this morning.

Damn, Campaigns is moving fast!

Chad

On 7/6/06, Pete Ashdown <pashdown at xmission.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chad Lupkes wrote:
> > wikia.com/wiki/Politics:Portal <http://wikia.com/wiki/Politics:Portal>
> > has the complete list.  There's a bunch of them.
> No longer exists.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/74d75b69/attachment.html 

From baphometster at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:27:17 2006
From: baphometster at gmail.com (Io Attawai)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:27:17 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Citizen j's Campaign
Message-ID: <cde42430607061327i30952ee8wed62db2fbcc0edc6@mail.gmail.com>

Campaign Wikipedians:

Hi, i'm Citizen j, blogger, Wikipedian and democracy enthusiast. I've
been running a campaign on mypsace for 6 months or so, our main plank
being erradication of the electoral system. I have petitions in 5
states, and a website on Geocities that suffers from a combination of
my love for javascript and Geocities' hatred of it.

I love this idea. I love wiki tho, and may in fact love Jimbo, but
this is untested.

I sincerely hope this catches fire. It is this kind of technological
application that can actually bring democracy to the US. I'm sending
all my people this way; i'd rather lose my base to a bigger cause than
have them langour in inaction due to the obvious disabilities of a
Presidential campaign with no delagates.

Persistence is All.
-- 
Citizen j in 2008!!
http://www.myspace.com/baadjetame
http://blog.myspace.com/baadjetame


From mindspillage at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:29:27 2006
From: mindspillage at gmail.com (Kat Walsh)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:29:27 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] protection on front page
In-Reply-To: <801553ab0607061320h5ea2cbecx75bc2b39bcf94564@mail.gmail.com>
References: <801553ab0607061308s3dff2e73va7519fe6ea390948@mail.gmail.com>
	<ddd408be0607061315s4bb22231lfb1049c6615edc57@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061320h5ea2cbecx75bc2b39bcf94564@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560607061329k6e2e9594lcaf589ce19741dbd@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just some IP address.  Someone playing games.  We know how to handle games.

Indeed. I've put the main page on my watchlist now, and have opted to
receive email notifications when the page is changed (if this sounds
interesting to you, enter an email address in your user preferences
and enable email notification for your watched pages -- good for
keeping track of pages you care about), in hopes of catching things
like this sooner.

Also, if you spot any issues such as mass vandalism that aren't being
taken care of, please drop a message to this list or in the IRC
channel (#wikia on irc.freenode.net -- you can also reach it through a
web-based client from the "Live chat and support" link on the
sidebar).

Cheers,
Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]], Wikia community team

-- 
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com


From chris at chiasson.name  Thu Jul  6 20:46:08 2006
From: chris at chiasson.name (Chris Chiasson)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:46:08 -0500
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>

I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
well-informed on the topic at hand.

For a wiki with login requirements, I guess one could say that the
people are moderated while the "posts" aren't.

On 7/6/06, George Murray <george.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Angela,
>
> I am new to contributing to Wikis and am interested in participating in
> campaigns.wikia.com. I agree with the comment made about Wikis probably not
> having the best functionality for debate. Forums certainly do have wikis
> beat on that. However, forums come in a wide range of functions. For the
> campaigns wikia I would suggest a forum kind of like digg.com's comments
> section. Where fellow wiki contributors can rate a post on its value, and
> posts of high value can rise and eventually be added to a wikia page with
> the most valuable information skimmed from the forum discussion.
>
> For instance you could have a forum "thread" tied to the debate of global
> warming. Posts can have a thread heirarchy for organization. Poor posts can
> be voted down and out. A post rating history is kept to make sure no one is
> just rating down their opponents viewpoints. Wiki contributors cannot
> re-write each others posts, but they can re-organize posts to create a more
> distilled discussion. The highest level of talking points can be the wiki
> page.
>
> I am new to contributing to wikis so forgive me if my lingo is not on
> target, but I hope that I have gotten my point across. The merging of a
> flowing participatory forum functionality with the opening of wikis can
> distill topics and present the basics for visitors.
>
> Thanks,
> gmurray
>
>
> On 7/6/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with the
> Wiki.
> >
> > We do have a wiki-based forum at
> > http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the
> idea is
> > combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
> > interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those people
> > new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used to?
> >
> > Angela.
> >
> > --
> > Angela Beesley
> > Wikia.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/


From pashdown at xmission.com  Thu Jul  6 18:09:32 2006
From: pashdown at xmission.com (Pete Ashdown)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:09:32 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing  political wikis
In-Reply-To: <NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
References: <NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <44AD51DC.7040504@xmission.com>



Aldon Hynes wrote:
> What else is out there?
>
>   
AFAIK, I am still the only candidate with a Wiki on his campaign website.

http://peteashdown.org/wiki

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pashdown.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 366 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/7d7287bb/attachment.vcf 

From dkilmer at sevenless.org  Thu Jul  6 20:42:29 2006
From: dkilmer at sevenless.org (david kilmer)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:42:29 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>
	<4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>
Message-ID: <op.tcabs3no0wgz6v@desipramine>

There's one aspect of "issues" that's important. I think the main barrier  
to the "smartness" that Mr. Wales spoke of is the difficulty of getting to  
an informed state without doing a *lot* of searching, reading, and  
de-spinning. Rather than murky ideological "issues", I'd like to see  
specific *proposals* analyzed. If someone is proposing a tax cut, who is  
it going to benefit in real numbers, and what are the possible effects? I  
think some ruthless analysis would force politicians to speak in a  
language of specific proposals rather than ideological issues.

-- david

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:02 -0400, Ben Hubbird <hubbird at efn.org> wrote:

> Politicians love issues (especially bivalent ones) because they are easy.
> We should hate them because they insult our intelligence as citizens and
> perpetuate the myth that we are divided by some impermeable ideological
> barrier.


From george.murray at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 20:58:47 2006
From: george.murray at gmail.com (George Murray)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:58:47 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3fdb2c400607061358g258dab9flfc4eb4fde6aa8f63@mail.gmail.com>

Grandstanding and platitudes may be commonplace on forums such as digg, and
slashdot, but I think that mostly has to do with the type of people who
contribute. A more conventional forum for wiki users would probably not only
work better for communication, but be easier to use. Perhaps I'm just new
the wikis though.

And how much moderation is user registration? It's really not hard to
register a wiki account and then post away. The real moderation should be at
the post level.

-gm

On 7/6/06, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
> and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
> easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
> to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
> controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
> but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
> well-informed on the topic at hand.
>
> For a wiki with login requirements, I guess one could say that the
> people are moderated while the "posts" aren't.
>
> On 7/6/06, George Murray <george.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Angela,
> >
> > I am new to contributing to Wikis and am interested in participating in
> > campaigns.wikia.com. I agree with the comment made about Wikis probably
> not
> > having the best functionality for debate. Forums certainly do have wikis
> > beat on that. However, forums come in a wide range of functions. For the
> > campaigns wikia I would suggest a forum kind of like digg.com's comments
> > section. Where fellow wiki contributors can rate a post on its value,
> and
> > posts of high value can rise and eventually be added to a wikia page
> with
> > the most valuable information skimmed from the forum discussion.
> >
> > For instance you could have a forum "thread" tied to the debate of
> global
> > warming. Posts can have a thread heirarchy for organization. Poor posts
> can
> > be voted down and out. A post rating history is kept to make sure no one
> is
> > just rating down their opponents viewpoints. Wiki contributors cannot
> > re-write each others posts, but they can re-organize posts to create a
> more
> > distilled discussion. The highest level of talking points can be the
> wiki
> > page.
> >
> > I am new to contributing to wikis so forgive me if my lingo is not on
> > target, but I hope that I have gotten my point across. The merging of a
> > flowing participatory forum functionality with the opening of wikis can
> > distill topics and present the basics for visitors.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > gmurray
> >
> >
> > On 7/6/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with the
> > Wiki.
> > >
> > > We do have a wiki-based forum at
> > > http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the
> > idea is
> > > combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
> > > interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those people
> > > new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used to?
> > >
> > > Angela.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Angela Beesley
> > > Wikia.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://chris.chiasson.name/
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/6004802a/attachment.html 

From schnippy at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 21:02:47 2006
From: schnippy at gmail.com (Greg Schnippel)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:02:47 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <331548370607061402x83a7c58k52b2556ab2c8f7b4@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/06, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
> I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
> and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
> easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
> to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
> controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
> but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
> well-informed on the topic at hand.

I agree with Chris here -- we would need to develop a more
sophisticated kind of rating system than whats out there already if we
want to allow users to assess an argument in a debate. The rating
systems on sites like slashdot or digg often devolve into snarkoffs
with the funniest comments rising to the top (especially on
non-technical topics). Fun to read but we have to guide other users in
how to properly evaluate a statment to get the outcome we want.

I like the 'actionforum' system used by MoveOn but I'm not sure its
useful for evaluating arguments:

Example:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/?forum_id=266

Not sure if there is a good way to collaboratively assess an argument..

- Greg


From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 21:10:56 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:10:56 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] A summary of some existing political wikis
In-Reply-To: <44AD51DC.7040504@xmission.com>
References: <NFBBLCBGBMCDKOAPLALJKEIHPHAA.ahynes1@optonline.net>
	<44AD51DC.7040504@xmission.com>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061410i66101719pc8d7c50b078d3905@mail.gmail.com>

Here's one more.

http://www.zeese.us/index.php?title=Main_Page

Chad


On 7/6/06, Pete Ashdown <pashdown at xmission.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Aldon Hynes wrote:
> > What else is out there?
> >
> >
> AFAIK, I am still the only candidate with a Wiki on his campaign website.
>
> http://peteashdown.org/wiki
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/9b562ac1/attachment.html 

From tom at tompurl.com  Thu Jul  6 21:14:13 2006
From: tom at tompurl.com (Tom Purl)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:14:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <3fdb2c400607061358g258dab9flfc4eb4fde6aa8f63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d15e4d100607052229p6219d6f2ncaaf08bc6e84e9e3@mail.gmail.com>
	<bf451ba40607060955l4f35ea6aie91cd5f6264c03f7@mail.gmail.com>
	<8b722b800607061002v6b3be989xa38720108a580e29@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061055w7fc5e592y5c47dcb0e020e8e0@mail.gmail.com>
	<acbec1a40607061346u2b993ecew9415a46af8b5306f@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061358g258dab9flfc4eb4fde6aa8f63@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61269.159.53.78.142.1152220453.squirrel@mail.zoper.com>

You also have to remember that this is a wiki, not a blog, so there are
no "posts" or anything else similarly atomic to moderate.  When you
contribute to a wiki, you're changing an actual page.  I don't even know
how you would moderate something like that.

For example, if I delete one sentence from a paragraph, replace it with
something more accurate, and then add another paragraph, how do you
"hide" or "promote" my contribution without butchering the new version
of the wiki page?  You could revert the page to previous version, but
what does that mean for the next guy or gal who comes along and adds
some really valuable content?  Moderating by reversion is really only
useful for combating spam and vandalism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, using current wiki tools, groups
of users can't really "moderate" contributions so that the "cream"
automatically rises to the top.  You can do that in a blog (such as
Slashdot), but wikis are *very different* from blogs.  The best you can
do is have a small group of people who monitor changes to a page and
make edits as necessary (merging new content, restructuring, deleting
false content, etc.).

> Grandstanding and platitudes may be commonplace on forums such as digg,
> and
> slashdot, but I think that mostly has to do with the type of people who
> contribute. A more conventional forum for wiki users would probably not
> only
> work better for communication, but be easier to use. Perhaps I'm just new
> the wikis though.
>
> And how much moderation is user registration? It's really not hard to
> register a wiki account and then post away. The real moderation should be
> at
> the post level.
>
> -gm
>
> On 7/6/06, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
>> and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
>> easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
>> to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
>> controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
>> but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
>> well-informed on the topic at hand.
>>
>> For a wiki with login requirements, I guess one could say that the
>> people are moderated while the "posts" aren't.
>>
>> On 7/6/06, George Murray <george.murray at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Angela,
>> >
>> > I am new to contributing to Wikis and am interested in participating
>> in
>> > campaigns.wikia.com. I agree with the comment made about Wikis
>> probably
>> not
>> > having the best functionality for debate. Forums certainly do have
>> wikis
>> > beat on that. However, forums come in a wide range of functions. For
>> the
>> > campaigns wikia I would suggest a forum kind of like digg.com's
>> comments
>> > section. Where fellow wiki contributors can rate a post on its value,
>> and
>> > posts of high value can rise and eventually be added to a wikia page
>> with
>> > the most valuable information skimmed from the forum discussion.
>> >
>> > For instance you could have a forum "thread" tied to the debate of
>> global
>> > warming. Posts can have a thread heirarchy for organization. Poor
>> posts
>> can
>> > be voted down and out. A post rating history is kept to make sure no
>> one
>> is
>> > just rating down their opponents viewpoints. Wiki contributors cannot
>> > re-write each others posts, but they can re-organize posts to create a
>> more
>> > distilled discussion. The highest level of talking points can be the
>> wiki
>> > page.
>> >
>> > I am new to contributing to wikis so forgive me if my lingo is not on
>> > target, but I hope that I have gotten my point across. The merging of
>> a
>> > flowing participatory forum functionality with the opening of wikis
>> can
>> > distill topics and present the basics for visitors.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > gmurray
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/6/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On 7/7/06, bruce boston <bboston at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > I wonder if we couldn't use a set of forums that went along with
>> the
>> > Wiki.
>> > >
>> > > We do have a wiki-based forum at
>> > > http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Soapbox - the
>> > idea is
>> > > combine the advantages of a forum with those of a wiki. I'd be
>> > > interested to know what everyone thinks of it, especially those
>> people
>> > > new to wikis. Is it much harder to use than the forums you're used
>> to?
>> > >
>> > > Angela.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Angela Beesley
>> > > Wikia.com
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Campaigns-l mailing list
>> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://chris.chiasson.name/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Campaigns-l mailing list
>> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
>> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>



From alucard996 at wi.rr.com  Thu Jul  6 21:22:47 2006
From: alucard996 at wi.rr.com (alucard996)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:22:47 -0500
Subject: [Campaigns-l] My 2 cents
In-Reply-To: <fbb28f290607061207s7b5ccfe0y95919d4f95e2098a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbb28f290607061207s7b5ccfe0y95919d4f95e2098a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44AD7F27.6020607@wi.rr.com>

I absolutely love this idea, even if it is only part of the bigger 
picture. Keep strictly to what each candidate has said (quotes w/ 
source) and done (vote records w/source) and let people decipher the 
information for themselves and/or talk about it somewhere else. I think 
separation of fact and opinion is the biggest hurtle to jump over here 
and the best way to do it is to keep the wiki completely factual - 
things that can be proved without a shadow of a doubt via documented 
evidence.

Maybe there should be some sort of explicit distinction between pages 
that contain fact and ones that contain opinion.

- Dustin

Jamie Baswell wrote:
> I think the wiki portion should be as factual as possible.
>  
> What I'd love to see:
>  
> Name
>  
> Biography
> -- Written by himself or supporters. Not a political history, which 
> will be covered later, but a simple history, where they're from, what 
> schools they attended, generic stuff like that.
>  
> Voting Record
> -- List of voting history, if any.  Each entry can be a simple item 
> number and how they voted.  Each item number can itself be a link to a 
> different Wiki entry containing a summary of the bill and what various 
> candidates have said about it, if anything.
>  
>  
> For example:
>  
> [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California 
> residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, New 
> York Times interview, 1997
> [Bill OU812] - Voted YES
> "I voted yes on this because I think it's important to save the Alaska 
> Salmon." - Mr. Candidate, Campaign Wikia, 2006
>  
>  
> If you click on [Bill 90210], you should get at least a brief summary 
> of what it was, and Mr. Candidate's comments should be echoed on that 
> page, along with the comments of every other candidate who had 
> anything to say about it.
>  
> So we can see what Mr. Candidate said about it on his page or we can 
> click on the item and see what everyone said about it.
>  
> This list should be a community effort, not just up to the campaigner 
> to post the ones he wants to popularize.  If he voted NO on something 
> 30 years ago and wants to comment about how he would vote YES now if 
> given a chance, he or his supporters can add comments to that effect, 
> but the fact that he did vote NO should remain on the page.
>  
>  
> Other sections could include memorable quotes (with references) links 
> to speeches, debate transcripts, etc.
>  
>  
> The bottom line for me is I would love to be able to see that Joe Blow 
> is running for governor or whatever, then go here and type "Joe Blow" 
> and see a list of things he's voted on in the past, what 
> those things actually were about, anything he had to say about it, etc.
>  
> Comments from random people should be left to the forums.  Comments 
> from opponets should be made on their own page, not here.
>  
> e.g.
> [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California 
> residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
> "You voted no because you fear change and you're racist against 
> penguins." - Mr. Opponet, 2006
>  
> The second comment should be deleted, since creating a Debate Wiki 
> would just be ugly.  Mr. Opponet can write a speech about it and link 
> that seperately on his own page if he'd like.
>  
> Similarly:
> [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California 
> residents to replace their cars with penguins.  Mr. Opponet has no 
> respect for the rights of modern Californians to not be subjected to 
> the daily abuse of penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
>  
> That should be trimmed down to read as it was before.  The second 
> sentence is not directly relevant to why he voted NO and just invites 
> a mid-wiki flamewar.
>  
> The tighter we keep it to the relevant facts, I think, the better.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>   



From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 21:30:01 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:30:01 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>
	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>
	<4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061430u3645e24bpca3852a90dfa5403@mail.gmail.com>

Ben, I think your final phrase runs counter to your position.

"What do y'all think?"

Wikipedia is answering the question: What do you know?

Wikicampaigns is answer the question: What do you think?

Both gives people the ability to make their own infrastructure, either on
facts or opinions.  That's the strength of the wiki systems.


On 7/6/06, Ben Hubbird <hubbird at efn.org> wrote:
>
> I like this idea a lot. The more that this can be a roadmap to the
> political landscape, rather than just another collection of billboards
> along the way, the more valuable and important it will be. I don't think
> this SHOULD be a forum for discussion of "issues", as issues are merely
> those prepackaged, focus grouped items that poll well with a politician's
> target demographic.
>
> Politicians love issues (especially bivalent ones) because they are easy.
> We should hate them because they insult our intelligence as citizens and
> perpetuate the myth that we are divided by some impermeable ideological
> barrier.
>
> Seems like the questions we should be answering are not "Who's right,
> who's wrong?" It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has even a
> modest political awareness that NOBODY is "right".
>
> We should instead ask: "What should politics look like, if not the current
> system? How can we get there?"
>
> A section on how campaigns are run might be a first step -- nothing
> impacts the current shape of the political debate more than the dirty
> games it takes to get into office.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
> Ben Hubbird
>
> George Murray said:
> > One of my concerns with the current political process is the use of
> > framing
> > [see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(communication_theory) ] and
> > buzzwords to redefine the problems rather than solve them.
> >
> > Campaigns Wikia could be a great way to "cut through" the redefinition
> > these
> > politicians do by taking whatever the latest buzzwords are and having an
> > up-to-date record of their use and redefinition over time.
> >
> > Just a thought,
> > -gmurray
> >
> > On 7/6/06, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Something this wiki is going to be able to do is define our terms for
> >> the
> >> ongoing discussion.  And the people who show up and make the edits will
> >> do
> >> the defining instead of paid political operatives looking to spin
> things
> >> one
> >> direction or the other.
> >>
> >> Chad
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/6/06, Ed Rodgers <ed.rodgers at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > i think you misunderstood my meaning of progressive.
> >> >
> >> > by progressive i mean moving beyond the process currently in place by
> >> > utilizing tools available to us in order to better understand
> >> > political and governmental decisions.
> >> >
> >> > i wasnt saying 'go out and buy every howard zinn book, now!' :)
> >> >
> >> > and now we see one of the drawbacks to internet based discussion -
> >> > comprehension of rhetoric.
> >> >
> >> > we are progressing past television advertisements
> >> > we are progressing to form an online community of thought
> contributors
> >> > we are progressing toward a focus on the topics at hand
> >> > it is a progressive movement, label it wikigressive so that it may
> not
> >> > be misconstrued.
> >> >
> >> > stay tuned; same discussion to follow on democratic vs democratic.
> >> >
> >> > On 7/6/06, Peter Saint-Andre < stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > > Hash: SHA1
> >> > >
> >> > > Ed Rodgers wrote:
> >> > > > I'm very happy as well that boing boing pointed me to this
> >> > wiki.  It's
> >> > > > yet another way to further progressive thought using the tools at
> >> > our
> >> > > > disposal.
> >> > >
> >> > > My sense from the mission statement Jimbo wrote is that we're
> trying
> >> > to
> >> > > open up the political process and make the political debate more
> >> > > objective -- not that we're trying to further progressive, liberal,
> >> > > libertarian, conservative, green, socialist, communist (etc.)
> >> thought
> >> > or
> >> > > ideology or movements.
> >> > >
> >> > > Peter
> >> > >
> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> >> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >> > >
> >> > > iD8DBQFErVJANF1RSzyt3NURAsuAAKDJBZXNrGt9PpG4MOfLMCQeeAC4YACgw8Cv
> >> > > vxEaYEMCl92elW7kUs5oubE=
> >> > > =hzWb
> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Campaigns-l mailing list
> >> > > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> >> > > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> >> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> >> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chad Lupkes
> >> Democracy for Washington
> >> http://www.democracyforwashington.com
> >> Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
> >> http://pdcw.org
> >>
> >> If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a
> >> pre-July
> >> 4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while
> I'm
> >> still breathing.
> >>
> >> The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
> >> members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin
> >>
> >> Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!
> >>
> >> Anyone want a roll-top desk?
> >> http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Campaigns-l mailing list
> >> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> >> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>



-- 
Chad Lupkes
Democracy for Washington
http://www.democracyforwashington.com
Progressive Democratic Caucuses of Washington
http://pdcw.org

If Democrats have a pre-911 view of the world, Republicans have a pre-July
4th view of the world.  Go back to King George, shall we?  Not while I'm
still breathing.

The purpose of a political party is to turn the views and values of its
members into public policy. - Russel Wallace, Democracy for Wisconsin

Blah, blah, blah!!!  What do we do about it!!

Anyone want a roll-top desk?
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/fur/178052982.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/19347df4/attachment.html 

From seanl at literati.org  Thu Jul  6 21:14:28 2006
From: seanl at literati.org (Sean Lynch)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:14:28 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] "What's YOUR perspective?"
Message-ID: <44AD7D34.3060800@literati.org>

I am not sure how valuable it is to just have a huge list of people's
opinions without any sort of discussion. It seems pretty unlikely that
people will actually read more than the first and possibly last few once
the list gets long, and they will tend to get pretty redundant after a
while. I also think it's very un-wiki-like.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/df80e6a0/attachment.bin 

From stpeter at jabber.org  Thu Jul  6 21:41:21 2006
From: stpeter at jabber.org (Peter Saint-Andre)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:41:21 -0600
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Progressive Thought
In-Reply-To: <op.tcabs3no0wgz6v@desipramine>
References: <e23444c80607061105g55fde04cj5c390b5e3aa558bb@mail.gmail.com>	<44AD5240.90808@jabber.org>	<e23444c80607061139y21420d69wf4f040e924ecc5e2@mail.gmail.com>	<801553ab0607061159lc3f6c82v5187b44599bb5c2e@mail.gmail.com>	<3fdb2c400607061221v7874bbbawc39d5220f38cfb98@mail.gmail.com>	<4720.207.173.201.60.1152215402.squirrel@207.173.201.60>
	<op.tcabs3no0wgz6v@desipramine>
Message-ID: <44AD8381.1000904@jabber.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry, IANAP (I Am Not A Politician) so I hadn't realized the political
meaning of "issue" -- I'm interested in proposals, not issues.

david kilmer wrote:
> There's one aspect of "issues" that's important. I think the main
> barrier to the "smartness" that Mr. Wales spoke of is the difficulty of
> getting to an informed state without doing a *lot* of searching,
> reading, and de-spinning. Rather than murky ideological "issues", I'd
> like to see specific *proposals* analyzed. If someone is proposing a tax
> cut, who is it going to benefit in real numbers, and what are the
> possible effects? I think some ruthless analysis would force politicians
> to speak in a language of specific proposals rather than ideological
> issues.
> 
> -- david
> 
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:02 -0400, Ben Hubbird <hubbird at efn.org> wrote:
> 
>> Politicians love issues (especially bivalent ones) because they are easy.
>> We should hate them because they insult our intelligence as citizens and
>> perpetuate the myth that we are divided by some impermeable ideological
>> barrier.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErYOBNF1RSzyt3NURAt0vAKDhDyurWnjur9TTuKCktqMQM1ynAQCdGApu
prIAA7hDb+wvjPkWIcwFJdE=
=SbKw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/campaigns-l/attachments/20060706/9564bf94/attachment.bin 

From gmunson at haverford.edu  Thu Jul  6 21:45:02 2006
From: gmunson at haverford.edu (Geddes Munson)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:45:02 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] My 2 cents
In-Reply-To: <44AD7F27.6020607@wi.rr.com>
References: <fbb28f290607061207s7b5ccfe0y95919d4f95e2098a@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD7F27.6020607@wi.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9c03bd9f0607061445v189b7148of80db69456fe30cd@mail.gmail.com>

Hi - I am probably not worthy of posting to this list since I don't
maintain a political website, or contribute much to wikipedia, but I
am very interested in improving political discourse in our country,
and see this very exciting wiki as a possible way to do that. I would
like to help where I can.

I also like Jamie's idea, and I think that Dustin is absolutely right
that the separation of fact vs. opinion is the biggest hurdle to jump.
There is of course a gray area between the two, that can't be avoided,
but blatant cases of opinion are already showing up on what one would
think should be factual pages. Look at this for example:

http://campaigns.wikia.com/index.php?title=No_Child_Left_Behind&oldid=2688

The article has a subtitle "Many Children Left Behind" and starts "The
No Child Left Behind Program is an unfortunate program that compounds
what is already wrong with our schools." This is a blatant case of
opinion, and should, in my opinion, have no place in the article, at
least not unless there is a section labled "opinion." The article
should be a summary of what the law actually mandates, a list of who
voted for it and who voted against it, a link to a transcript of the
floor debate, etc.

On the other hand, I really like what I am seeing on this page:

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

With points for, points against, and counter-points. No one has yet
put more than a sentence in for the arguments against, but the point
is the room is there and once this site is more than a day old,
someone is bound to do it. This seems to be a mix of fact and opinion
that gel together nicely.

Is the solution to have two versions for every page : Issue_facts and
issue_opinion? I'm not sure.

 - Geddes

On 7/6/06, alucard996 <alucard996 at wi.rr.com> wrote:
> I absolutely love this idea, even if it is only part of the bigger
> picture. Keep strictly to what each candidate has said (quotes w/
> source) and done (vote records w/source) and let people decipher the
> information for themselves and/or talk about it somewhere else. I think
> separation of fact and opinion is the biggest hurtle to jump over here
> and the best way to do it is to keep the wiki completely factual -
> things that can be proved without a shadow of a doubt via documented
> evidence.
>
> Maybe there should be some sort of explicit distinction between pages
> that contain fact and ones that contain opinion.
>
> - Dustin
>
> Jamie Baswell wrote:
> > I think the wiki portion should be as factual as possible.
> >
> > What I'd love to see:
> >
> > Name
> >
> > Biography
> > -- Written by himself or supporters. Not a political history, which
> > will be covered later, but a simple history, where they're from, what
> > schools they attended, generic stuff like that.
> >
> > Voting Record
> > -- List of voting history, if any.  Each entry can be a simple item
> > number and how they voted.  Each item number can itself be a link to a
> > different Wiki entry containing a summary of the bill and what various
> > candidates have said about it, if anything.
> >
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, New
> > York Times interview, 1997
> > [Bill OU812] - Voted YES
> > "I voted yes on this because I think it's important to save the Alaska
> > Salmon." - Mr. Candidate, Campaign Wikia, 2006
> >
> >
> > If you click on [Bill 90210], you should get at least a brief summary
> > of what it was, and Mr. Candidate's comments should be echoed on that
> > page, along with the comments of every other candidate who had
> > anything to say about it.
> >
> > So we can see what Mr. Candidate said about it on his page or we can
> > click on the item and see what everyone said about it.
> >
> > This list should be a community effort, not just up to the campaigner
> > to post the ones he wants to popularize.  If he voted NO on something
> > 30 years ago and wants to comment about how he would vote YES now if
> > given a chance, he or his supporters can add comments to that effect,
> > but the fact that he did vote NO should remain on the page.
> >
> >
> > Other sections could include memorable quotes (with references) links
> > to speeches, debate transcripts, etc.
> >
> >
> > The bottom line for me is I would love to be able to see that Joe Blow
> > is running for governor or whatever, then go here and type "Joe Blow"
> > and see a list of things he's voted on in the past, what
> > those things actually were about, anything he had to say about it, etc.
> >
> > Comments from random people should be left to the forums.  Comments
> > from opponets should be made on their own page, not here.
> >
> > e.g.
> > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
> > "You voted no because you fear change and you're racist against
> > penguins." - Mr. Opponet, 2006
> >
> > The second comment should be deleted, since creating a Debate Wiki
> > would just be ugly.  Mr. Opponet can write a speech about it and link
> > that seperately on his own page if he'd like.
> >
> > Similarly:
> > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > residents to replace their cars with penguins.  Mr. Opponet has no
> > respect for the rights of modern Californians to not be subjected to
> > the daily abuse of penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
> >
> > That should be trimmed down to read as it was before.  The second
> > sentence is not directly relevant to why he voted NO and just invites
> > a mid-wiki flamewar.
> >
> > The tighter we keep it to the relevant facts, I think, the better.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Campaigns-l mailing list
> > Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> > http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>


From etoainshrd at aol.com  Thu Jul  6 21:45:30 2006
From: etoainshrd at aol.com (etoainshrd at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:45:30 -0400
Subject: [Campaigns-l] Please add to blog list
Message-ID: <8C86F5CA2D9F02A-1E40-BBD@MBLK-M15.sysops.aol.com>

www.TheNewYorkCrank.blogspot.com

This is a liberal-oriented blog that also cranks about non-political 
subjects, from unhappy "poor little rich dogs" to waiters who keep 
interrupting dinner conversations to ask, "And how is everything."

But there are primarily tons of ranks about national security, 
Republicans, overpayed CEOs and more.


________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.



From tom at tompurl.com  Thu Jul  6 21:47:14 2006
From: tom at tompurl.com (Tom Purl)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:47:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Campaigns-l] "What's YOUR perspective?"
In-Reply-To: <44AD7D34.3060800@literati.org>
References: <44AD7D34.3060800@literati.org>
Message-ID: <60123.159.53.78.142.1152222434.squirrel@mail.zoper.com>

> I am not sure how valuable it is to just have a huge list of people's
> opinions without any sort of discussion. It seems pretty unlikely that
> people will actually read more than the first and possibly last few once
> the list gets long, and they will tend to get pretty redundant after a
> while. I also think it's very un-wiki-like.

Right, and since this site is not a blog, it won't work that way.  If
that's the structure the originator of this site wanted, he would have
created a blog.

What's much more likely is that numerous people will edit each page,
and a small number of "moderators" will merge those changes
(or delete unwanted content) if necessary.  So in the end, you have more
of a content "melting pot" (where it's difficult to identify individual
contributions) than a blog "salad" (where the posts and comments are
mixed in a much more atomic way).

Tom Purl



From chadlupkes at gmail.com  Thu Jul  6 21:53:38 2006
From: chadlupkes at gmail.com (Chad Lupkes)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:53:38 -0700
Subject: [Campaigns-l] My 2 cents
In-Reply-To: <9c03bd9f0607061445v189b7148of80db69456fe30cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbb28f290607061207s7b5ccfe0y95919d4f95e2098a@mail.gmail.com>
	<44AD7F27.6020607@wi.rr.com>
	<9c03bd9f0607061445v189b7148of80db69456fe30cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <801553ab0607061453j9f42ebfu730d308b5ff01305@mail.gmail.com>

Eventually, we will need to make a distinction between what goes on the
article page and what goes on the discussion page.  Maybe:

Article
*Background
*Party Positions from platforms
**Democrat
**Republican
**Other Party
*Current Legislation
**Bill 1A
***Supporting statements from discussion
***Non-supporting statements from discussion
*Links to polls
*See also
*External links & references
[[cat]]

Discussion pages will be self generating, I guarentee, but we should have a
system of how long to wait before archiving.

Opinions?

Chad Lupkes
Seattle

On 7/6/06, Geddes Munson <gmunson at haverford.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi - I am probably not worthy of posting to this list since I don't
> maintain a political website, or contribute much to wikipedia, but I
> am very interested in improving political discourse in our country,
> and see this very exciting wiki as a possible way to do that. I would
> like to help where I can.
>
> I also like Jamie's idea, and I think that Dustin is absolutely right
> that the separation of fact vs. opinion is the biggest hurdle to jump.
> There is of course a gray area between the two, that can't be avoided,
> but blatant cases of opinion are already showing up on what one would
> think should be factual pages. Look at this for example:
>
> http://campaigns.wikia.com/index.php?title=No_Child_Left_Behind&oldid=2688
>
> The article has a subtitle "Many Children Left Behind" and starts "The
> No Child Left Behind Program is an unfortunate program that compounds
> what is already wrong with our schools." This is a blatant case of
> opinion, and should, in my opinion, have no place in the article, at
> least not unless there is a section labled "opinion." The article
> should be a summary of what the law actually mandates, a list of who
> voted for it and who voted against it, a link to a transcript of the
> floor debate, etc.
>
> On the other hand, I really like what I am seeing on this page:
>
> http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Gay_marriage
>
> With points for, points against, and counter-points. No one has yet
> put more than a sentence in for the arguments against, but the point
> is the room is there and once this site is more than a day old,
> someone is bound to do it. This seems to be a mix of fact and opinion
> that gel together nicely.
>
> Is the solution to have two versions for every page : Issue_facts and
> issue_opinion? I'm not sure.
>
> - Geddes
>
> On 7/6/06, alucard996 <alucard996 at wi.rr.com> wrote:
> > I absolutely love this idea, even if it is only part of the bigger
> > picture. Keep strictly to what each candidate has said (quotes w/
> > source) and done (vote records w/source) and let people decipher the
> > information for themselves and/or talk about it somewhere else. I think
> > separation of fact and opinion is the biggest hurtle to jump over here
> > and the best way to do it is to keep the wiki completely factual -
> > things that can be proved without a shadow of a doubt via documented
> > evidence.
> >
> > Maybe there should be some sort of explicit distinction between pages
> > that contain fact and ones that contain opinion.
> >
> > - Dustin
> >
> > Jamie Baswell wrote:
> > > I think the wiki portion should be as factual as possible.
> > >
> > > What I'd love to see:
> > >
> > > Name
> > >
> > > Biography
> > > -- Written by himself or supporters. Not a political history, which
> > > will be covered later, but a simple history, where they're from, what
> > > schools they attended, generic stuff like that.
> > >
> > > Voting Record
> > > -- List of voting history, if any.  Each entry can be a simple item
> > > number and how they voted.  Each item number can itself be a link to a
> > > different Wiki entry containing a summary of the bill and what various
> > > candidates have said about it, if anything.
> > >
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > > residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, New
> > > York Times interview, 1997
> > > [Bill OU812] - Voted YES
> > > "I voted yes on this because I think it's important to save the Alaska
> > > Salmon." - Mr. Candidate, Campaign Wikia, 2006
> > >
> > >
> > > If you click on [Bill 90210], you should get at least a brief summary
> > > of what it was, and Mr. Candidate's comments should be echoed on that
> > > page, along with the comments of every other candidate who had
> > > anything to say about it.
> > >
> > > So we can see what Mr. Candidate said about it on his page or we can
> > > click on the item and see what everyone said about it.
> > >
> > > This list should be a community effort, not just up to the campaigner
> > > to post the ones he wants to popularize.  If he voted NO on something
> > > 30 years ago and wants to comment about how he would vote YES now if
> > > given a chance, he or his supporters can add comments to that effect,
> > > but the fact that he did vote NO should remain on the page.
> > >
> > >
> > > Other sections could include memorable quotes (with references) links
> > > to speeches, debate transcripts, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > The bottom line for me is I would love to be able to see that Joe Blow
> > > is running for governor or whatever, then go here and type "Joe Blow"
> > > and see a list of things he's voted on in the past, what
> > > those things actually were about, anything he had to say about it,
> etc.
> > >
> > > Comments from random people should be left to the forums.  Comments
> > > from opponets should be made on their own page, not here.
> > >
> > > e.g.
> > > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > > residents to replace their cars with penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
> > > "You voted no because you fear change and you're racist against
> > > penguins." - Mr. Opponet, 2006
> > >
> > > The second comment should be deleted, since creating a Debate Wiki
> > > would just be ugly.  Mr. Opponet can write a speech about it and link
> > > that seperately on his own page if he'd like.
> > >
> > > Similarly:
> > > [Bill 90210] - Voted NO
> > > "I voted no on this because of a rider that required all California
> > > residents to replace their cars with penguins.  Mr. Opponet has no
> > > respect for the rights of modern Californians to not be subjected to
> > > the daily abuse of penguins." - Mr. Candidate, 1997
> > >
> > > That should be trimmed down to read as it was before.  The second
> > > sentence is not directly relevant to why he voted NO