"Wiki the Vote" Project Open-Sources Candidate Info

Gabriela writes "Wiki the Vote was just launched on Congresspedia.org for citizens, professional researchers, and even candidates to collaborate on profiles for each and every candidate for Congress in 2008. The project is non-partisan and, in true open source fashion, is free for anyone to participate — even the candidates themselves. Unlike Wikipedia, people connected to the subjects of articles are free to add to them as long as their contributions are rhetoric-free and comprised of fully documented, verifiable facts. The citizen editors are assisted and fact-checked by professional editors. The project is starting with nearly 300 basic profiles of candidates that 2008RaceTracker has identified as definitely running, and will eventually expand to cover every candidate on the ballot in the primary and general elections next year. When the OpenSecrets.org 2008 congressional campaign contributions database goes online in a few weeks, the candidate profiles will also display live feeds tracking the money race and who is funding them."

Comments

Wikipedia edit wars redux

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I envision each candidate's article eventually looking almost entirely like this...

==Controversies==

Some people say that [candidate X] is misrepresenting [issue A] in order to gain the approval of [group M]. However other people say that this is simply a misrepresentation of the actual issue at hand, [issue B]. However other people say both of these groups are simply resorting to partisan bickering in order to gain approval for [candidate Y], with support from [group N].

These people are all idiots LOL!!11 POOOP

Re:Wikipedia edit wars redux

[Colin Smith]

Unfortunately politics seem to have been reduced to two different spins on any issue which are wholly unrelated to the facts. A feature of all first past the post electoral systems.

So, err...

[Penguinisto]

...how on Earth are they going to insure that the "professional editors" don't insert their own not-so-blatant ideological and political slants into the mix?

I mean, seriously; if the Guardian / Independent Washington Post/Times and New York Times / Wall Street Journal editorial (and I daresay even political news) slants have taught us anything, it is that professional editors can be just as slanted as the amateurs, and even more subtly so.

/P

One word: Awesome.

[NeutronCowboy]

Yes, I know. It will be full of propaganda and one-sided views. Even the most OCD-addled citizen editors will have a hard time competing with the attention of someone who gets paid to do the "right" edits.

However, this will mean that every candidate will finally be in one place. If I want to know Ron Paul's position on abortion and compare it with Hillary Clinton's, I can go to one site (and edit the pages - nyuck nyuck nyuck). Combined with the integration with opensecrets.org, I can do actual, honest to god research on ALL candidates trying to represent me, and vote accordingly.

I welcome our new congress-critter overlords - me, you and everyone else.

A bit rosy? For sure. But it this is a significant development for citizens trying to cast an informed vote. We might be going from totally and utterly craptastic to slightly less craptastic, but it's progress - the first true progress I've seen in ages. Now if we could just get redistricting fixed....

Reversing position 180 degrees

[athloi]

The citizen editors are assisted and fact-checked by professional editors.

Wasn't the whole point of Wiki that professional editors and writers were not needed? Did they just reverse their position 180 degrees?

Re:Future collaboration using Wiki

[NeutronCowboy]

Forget documenting what politicians do and have done. When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be? There's a real challenge for the wiki... creating tools for collaborating on a common view of the future rather than the past.

Rome wasn't built in a day. And neither will a tool that changes our political process.

You gotta learn to crawl before you run... and this is the crawl. Whether we get to the run stage is open for discussion, but this is a crucial step in getting there. Don't dismiss the first steps just because you can't see the destination yet.

Re:Sheldon Rampton is awesome

[Chris Mattern]

'd just like to say that the guy responsible for this - Sheldon Rampton (author of "Toxic Sludge Is Good for You!: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" and "Bananna Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America Into a One-Party State") is awesome.

So good to hear it's not being run by somebody with an agenda to push.

Chris Mattern

Nice.

[dbc001]

I'd really like to see an easy-to-use system that lets me see who voted for what and when. I know that congress already has a system that stores that data but it's difficult for laymen to understand the data (I'm guessing that that's intentional).

I would really like to see a requirement that forces elected officials to explain why they voted for each bill - maybe in 5-30 words. This would give us a great deal of accountability on things like the PATRIOT act. It would be a lot harder for them to justify shady and pork-laden votes if they have to explain themselves.

Stop dooming us all!

[Scrameustache]

could we not think about the future a bit? How many people even like how things are going right now?

Forget documenting what politicians do and have done.
When is someone going to make a forum for discussing what should be?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.