We've got some more stuff in the works, but in the mean time the Sunlight Foundation, which co-created Congresspedia, is doing some pretty cool stuff, like their version of the government site mentioned above, which, unlike the original, doesn't suck: OpenCongress.org
Conor Kenny here, I work on the Wiki the Vote project (it's great work if you can get it!)
This is one of the big problems in political discourse, no doubt. People have found that if you create a political debate about the facts, the media will back off and treat it as an open question. "Verifiable facts," for us, means that there's an outside, verifiable source that is credible. We're a little squishy on what makes a credible source, and leave that up to a case-by-case debate. We have a few advantages, though:
We don't have a "neutral point of view" policy - if your point of view is stupid and intellectually dishonest, we don't have to include it.
Because we're part of the larger SourceWatch wiki, we also have a lot of profiles of those fake front groups (remember those ads talking about how carbon dioxide was natural, so why were people concerned about it?), which means that even if someone quotes one of those groups, we can just wikify the link and let people click through to see that the group is a wholly financed arm of ExxonMobil (as was the case in that instance).
Verifiable means verifiable. It actually creates quite a hurdle to have to go cite something if you're just making stuff up.
But, yeah, it's a difficult business. But it's worth doing, so that's why we're here.
Instead of hating, why not come over and try it out? I'm happy to help out if you want to email me.
Conor Kenny here, creator of the Wiki the Vote project. I agree this is a huge (but perhaps not new) problem in political discourse. One way we avoid having to give respect to all viewpoints, even if they're idiotic, is that we don't have a neutral point of view like wikipedia. If the citizen editors or the staff editors feel that something is obfuscating the facts rather than clarifying them, we'll delete it.
We're not a straight encyclopedia. Wikipedia is great, but is a straight encyclopedia that tries to have "balanced" and authoritative articles on subjects. We don't claim our articles are unbiased in the facts they show or are "authoritative" in that they cover what is important while leaving out what is not. While we'd like the articles to end up that way, all we try to do is have rhetoric-free, verifiable facts. What's important is up to you.
I elaborated on this a little more on a blog posted on the front page of Congresspedia.
Email me or respond here if you'd like to discuss anything.
Well, Congresspedia has been up for about a year and a half and we've been doing alright so far. One thing that really helps keep the flame wars down is that we require people to sign-up for a username to edit and require an outside, verifiable source for all information, so it's fairly easy to contest the assertion that Nancy Pelosi is a cyborg.
Why not come over and dip your feet it the water?
I'm happy to talk to whoever is interested in participating - ckenny (at) congresspedia.org.
Conor Kenny
Managing Editor,
Congresspedia.
Slashdot Mirror
We've got some more stuff in the works, but in the mean time the Sunlight Foundation, which co-created Congresspedia, is doing some pretty cool stuff, like their version of the government site mentioned above, which, unlike the original, doesn't suck: OpenCongress.org
Even though we think they're awesome.
We're just trying to do something a little different.
Until the professional gig pans out, why not come and edit Ron Paul's page on Congresspedia?
"This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact."
Conor Kenny
Managing Editor, Congresspedia.org
ckenny (at) congresspedia.org
Conor Kenny here, I work on the Wiki the Vote project (it's great work if you can get it!)
This is one of the big problems in political discourse, no doubt. People have found that if you create a political debate about the facts, the media will back off and treat it as an open question. "Verifiable facts," for us, means that there's an outside, verifiable source that is credible. We're a little squishy on what makes a credible source, and leave that up to a case-by-case debate. We have a few advantages, though:
We don't have a "neutral point of view" policy - if your point of view is stupid and intellectually dishonest, we don't have to include it.
Because we're part of the larger SourceWatch wiki, we also have a lot of profiles of those fake front groups (remember those ads talking about how carbon dioxide was natural, so why were people concerned about it?), which means that even if someone quotes one of those groups, we can just wikify the link and let people click through to see that the group is a wholly financed arm of ExxonMobil (as was the case in that instance).
Verifiable means verifiable. It actually creates quite a hurdle to have to go cite something if you're just making stuff up.
But, yeah, it's a difficult business. But it's worth doing, so that's why we're here.
Instead of hating, why not come over and try it out? I'm happy to help out if you want to email me.
best,
Conor Kenny,
Managing Editor,
Congresspedia.org
ckenny (at) congresspedia.org
Conor Kenny here, creator of the Wiki the Vote project. I agree this is a huge (but perhaps not new) problem in political discourse. One way we avoid having to give respect to all viewpoints, even if they're idiotic, is that we don't have a neutral point of view like wikipedia. If the citizen editors or the staff editors feel that something is obfuscating the facts rather than clarifying them, we'll delete it.
We're not a straight encyclopedia. Wikipedia is great, but is a straight encyclopedia that tries to have "balanced" and authoritative articles on subjects. We don't claim our articles are unbiased in the facts they show or are "authoritative" in that they cover what is important while leaving out what is not. While we'd like the articles to end up that way, all we try to do is have rhetoric-free, verifiable facts. What's important is up to you.
I elaborated on this a little more on a blog posted on the front page of Congresspedia.
Email me or respond here if you'd like to discuss anything.
best,
Conor Kenny,
Managing Editor,
Congresspedia.org
ckenny (at) congresspedia.org
Well, Congresspedia has been up for about a year and a half and we've been doing alright so far. One thing that really helps keep the flame wars down is that we require people to sign-up for a username to edit and require an outside, verifiable source for all information, so it's fairly easy to contest the assertion that Nancy Pelosi is a cyborg. Why not come over and dip your feet it the water? I'm happy to talk to whoever is interested in participating - ckenny (at) congresspedia.org. Conor Kenny Managing Editor, Congresspedia.