Jimmy Wales Starting Campaign Wikis

Billosaur writes "Jimmy Wales, self-described creator of the Wikipedia, is apparently trying to bring the functionality offered by the Internet encyclopedia to a new realm: politics and political campaigns. He is starting a new website, the Campaigns Wikia, which 'has the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives who may not share much else, but who share the idea that they would rather see democratic politics be about engaging with the serious ideas of intelligent opponents, about activating and motivating ordinary people to get involved and really care about politics beyond the television soundbites.' Sounds intriguing, but one has to wonder if it will be plagued by internecine feuding, punditry, and political manipulation."

Comments

Interesting, we'll see

[Alpha77]

This kind of thing has been attempted by a Dutch newspaper http://wethepeople.nrc.nl/. The subject under discussion was/is how to go forward with European integration after the people France and The Netherlands had not accepted the proposed constitution. The software used was not really user friendly, and the discussion was channeled by allowing only 3 alternatives to be discussed, but the experiment is interesting, also because some politiicians of name joined it.

At least an initiative like this will bring the discussion more in the open and make the process of policymaking a little more transparent.

Good idea - can we go International with this?

[ma11achy]

I think this is a good idea. It looks to have the potential to raise peoples
awareness of the practise of politics and a central area where peoples opinions
on political issues and agendas can be seen in near real time. Much different
than the "write a letter to your congressman" or (in Ireland), "go meet with
your local councillor", where you have to account for the time it takes for
your opinion/issues to filter up and down the food chain.

There is also the "mob mentality", whereby if enough people have the same
views on a certain issue, then it has the potential to sway political thought.

How about developing this further, into a Wiki for other nations and political
regimes similar to (or dissimilar to) Republican Democracy.
Note: Republican here means the method of democracy practised, not the party.

Re:Good idea - can we go International with this?

[Zaphod2016]

I think we should.

As an American voter, I have found myself in bitter debates with conservatives, liberals, moderates and extremists (my parents were both lawyers- it really messed me up). I find it hard to select candidates who represent my hodgepodge of values and opinions. However, after a civil debate, I often find that my "opponent" and I agree in basic principle, but are hung up on some minor detail or interpretation. Other times, I am ignorant of the whole story, and forced to reconsider my position.

Like I say, I'm an American (and proud of it). I live in a counrty in the midst of an unpopular war with Iraq, and high tensions with Iran. North Korea has started to fire missles towards Japan. You are from Ireland, and our countries trade millions of dollars in goods every day. Politics in 2006 are international. I want to hear your opinion on these matters- they affect you too! We Americans NEED to hear the "international opinion"- not from the media, but straight from the ma11achy's mouth.

I love the idea of a civil international forum that encourages *all* sides (there are *always* more than 2) to be debated with courtesy and common respect. It's probably a pipe dream. Then again, they said the same thing about WikiPedia a decade ago. Time will tell.

Three words to the admins of this new venture: structure, structure, and structure. Unless this forum is given a solid structure, and fast, it is going to degenerate into the ugliest of flame wars. The article on "gay marriage" is already a mess.

Maybe the point is . . .

[dontknowdidley]

to give the people who like to argue about politics a forum to do so.

Why a wiki is a bad choice for a site like this

[Umbral Blot]

I've got bad news: groupthink sites like wikipedia generally don't bring out the best and most intelligent ideas. Generally a new bright idea is only going to be shared by a few people, and a democratic process will squash those ideas. Combine this with the fact that a majority belief in a statement doesn't make it true and you have serious problems for a site that wants to create an intelligent debate. For a more detailed analysis of the failings of sites like wikipedia see this article.