WashingtonWatch.com is now a part of the wiki using family. It’s a choice that I believe will have negative effects on the quality of the site.
Washington Watch has been a great place for me to find information on bills. The site tracks bills in Congress, providing a fair amount of sound estimates about costs or savings regarding specific bills and proposed laws.
Until now, the bias has been kept to a minimum. While there has been disputable postings, it’s probably safe to say these debates can be had for all sides of the political spectrum. Generally the site is fair and to date has presented information in an unbiased fashion.
But that all could and probably will soon change. The bill watching giant recently announced its shift to a wiki style format, allowing visitors to edit page content.
WashingtonWatch.com now allows public editing of information about the bills pending in Congress. This is an opportunity for the insiders on Capitol Hill and downtown in Washington, D.C. to articulate what they are doing, and to advocate their positions.
It should read:
This is an opportunity for lobbyists, special interests, and corrupt politicians on Capitol Hill and downtown Washington, D.C. to manipulate public opinion on what they are doing, and to cover up their positions.
Giving those who are responsible for a failing Government power over such a great resource is, in my opinion, a terrible decision.
I fear a once trusted tool will now begin its journey on the downward spiral.
Bummer.
About eric:
Eric Odom is project manager for Blogivists.com. A web strategist by trade, Odom is currently working to develop infrastructure for activists within the liberty movement.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “When wiki is NOT a good thing”
Leave a Reply
When wiki is NOT a good thing…
WashingtonWatch.com is now a part of the wiki using family. It ’s a choice that I believe will have negative effects on the quality of the site….
Interesting commentary, Eric. Thanks. I don’t mind the criticism.
I have more confidence of the benefit of the WashingtonWatch.com wiki, because both sides of every issue will be challenged to confront one another. The contest among them will reveal more information than the public currently gets.
While any one participant in the wiki will seek to bias the discussion, the others will not permit that. I think of it like the process in a courtroom where advocates on both sides make their strongest case – and from that competition emerges the closest thing we’ve got to the truth.
Of course, my job is to foster that competition. Your blogging about WashingtonWatch.com has helped!
Jim,
Thanks for stopping by!
“I have more confidence of the benefit of the WashingtonWatch.com wiki, because both sides of every issue will be challenged to confront one another. The contest among them will reveal more information than the public currently gets.”
Jim, that sounds good in theory, but have you watched some of the wars that take place on Wikipedia? And those wars are started mostly by volunteers. Imagine what it would be like if powerful lobbying firms could PAY people to go in and carefully manipulate content.
“While any one participant in the wiki will seek to bias the discussion, the others will not permit that. I think of it like the process in a courtroom where advocates on both sides make their strongest case – and from that competition emerges the closest thing we’ve got to the truth.”
True. But in this case there is not just one trial going on at a time. In a courtroom the Judge hears just one case at a time. In you’re situation you’ll be hearing hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of cases at a time. As time goes by and growth occurs, how are you going to moderate all of that?
I like the general idea, but personally I don’t find it to be realistic in the long run. Just being honest here.
I do hope it works out though. I love the site and will watch the progress.
-Eric
Thanks for the further comments, Eric. Given the 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia, I think it is a pretty darn peaceful place. We know about the controversies because “if it bleeds, it leads.”
I think about WashingtonWatch.com in comparison to the real, not the ideal. Right now, in all other forums, lobbying firms and other interests are paying to try to manipulate and control. On WashingtonWatch.com, they can try, but they will have to do so under the watchful eye of their opponents – who, likewise, will be watched.
I am not the moderator or arbiter of right and wrong (though I will have to step in if fighting degrades a page). The arbiters will be the public. Editors will learn that to be influential in this environment you have to be fair and accurate. At least . . . I hope so!
Well, I’m not an expert on Wikipedia, but I do know a little about courtrooms.
To just cut through the crap – the bottom line purpose of courtrooms is not just to get to the truth.
Courtrooms are a part of government, and the Declaration of Independence says that the purpose of government is to secure our rights.
“All men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”
Courts have, frankly, done a pretty poor job of securing our rights; so, I can only hope that the process at Washington Watch will function better than the average courtroom ; )