[esocialaction] FW: [DW] Project - Debatepedia.Org

[Dearden, Andrew M]

Here's an interesting idea.

Andy

Andy Dearden
Reader in e-SocialAction
Communication and Computing Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
Harmer Building
Sheffield
S1 1WB
T: 0114 225 2916
F: 0114 225 3161
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steven Clift [mailto:clift at publicus.net] 
>Sent: 21 February 2007 13:02
>To: newswire at groups.dowire.org
>Subject: [DW] Project - Debatepedia.Org
>
>
>*** Democracies Online Newswire  -  http://DoWire.Org ***
>
>   To access links, see Steven Clift's blog:  
>http://dowire.org/notes/?p=334
>
>Post: Project - Debatepedia.Org
>
>I asked Brooks to send along a post I could forward to DoWire 
>about his interesting Debatepedia.Org wiki project. I 
>encourage you to take a look.  I'd be interested in learning 
>about other political wiki initiatives that accommodate people 
>with diverse political views.  I know about OpenPolitics.Ca  
>and Campaigns Wikia.  What else should be on the radar?  Use 
>the blog comments to add more.
>
>Cheers,
>Steven Clift
>http://e-democracy.org
>http://dowire.org
>
>From:	"Brooks Lindsay" 
>Subject: Debatepedia.org - a solution to a question at the 
>intersection of "wikis" and politics.
>
>Dear Steven Clift:
>
>I'm Brooks Lindsay, the founder of Debatepedia.org, an 
>organization of relevance and importance to your mission. 
>
>Debatepedia is the new "wiki" encyclopedia of arguments and 
>debates. It empowers the general public to objectively frame 
>public debates as they exist in the public sphere between the 
>relevant players. It enables users to present all of the 
>*unique* pro and con arguments that have been made by 
>scholars, experts, leaders, etc. It also allows editors to 
>present the overall positions of politicians, think-tanks, 
>interest and activist groups, foreign leaders, etc. It does 
>not allow users to present their own arguments and opinions. 
>
>Debatepedia helps resolve an outstanding question: how can 
>"wiki" technology be successfully applied to politics, which 
>is divisive by nature, when "wikis" are a medium of 
>"consensus". The important insight and bridge is that a public 
>debate and its public arguments can be treated as documentable 
>facts, and that the general public can arrive at a consensus 
>in the framing of these facts.
>
>Under these strict rules, the public can successfully document 
>a debate as if it were an encyclopedic entry, and present all 
>of the information necessary for any individual (citizen or 
>leader) to develop a calculated and rational position. This 
>has large social implications. 
>
>...
>
>Brooks Lindsay, Founder and CEO of Debatepedia.org. 
>bhlindsay at gmail.com 206 406 7558
>
>
>*** Democracies Online Newswire  -  http://DoWire.Org ***
>
>   To comment/for links: http://dowire.org/notes/?p=334
>   To network: http://groups.dowire.org
>   Submit posts: http://dowire.org/submit
>
>
>
>Member profile for Steven Clift:
>http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/stevenclift
>
>
>-----------------------------------------
>
>Group home for Newswire - Steven Clift's blog posts by e-mail:
>http://groups.dowire.org/main/groups/newswire
>
>Replies go to members of Newswire - Steven Clift's blog posts 
>by e-mail with all posts on this topic here:
>http://groups.dowire.org/topic/602395
>
>For digest version or to leave Newswire - Steven Clift's blog 
>posts by e-mail, email newswire at groups.dowire.org with "digest 
>on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
>Newswire - Steven Clift's blog posts by e-mail is hosted by 
>Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
>