[Campaigns-l] My 2 cents

Thu Jul 6 21:53:38 UTC 2006

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 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060706/2d7d1bf9/attachment.html 