Contributors

Loading...
Username:
Password:
 

Remember me
(Create Account)
Theme:
Search

  
Most recent comments

Loading...
..main..    ..blog..    ..links..    ..top links..    ..members..
Blog posted by Tron on July 6, 2006, 10:44 am
Tron
I saw this on slashdot.

Its a wikipedia but for politics. Wikipedia is always coming under fire for having inaccurate information posted by writers, or even worse bias information. How are they going to know that the person making a post is really a politician? What effect will trolls have on the new era of political media that the founder envisions?

I don't know, but what I do know is I feel sick every time I watch politics on tv. Someone is lieing to me, they know it, I know it, the whole of insightful reality knows it (gotta leave room for idiots). As mentioned in the mission statement generally politics these days have become about presenting the right image.

Well a wiki may contain images, but generally speaking unless I'm reading up on Spaghetti Entities or star charts I'm really not intrested in pictures. No doubt they help convey information, but I want meat and potatoes, I want a description of the plan. Don's spell it out, write it out so I can peruse at my own speed.

What do the the other garbagians (we must name ourselves!) think about a transition or combination of online and televised media for politics?

Comments

Jesse
I dunno... Wikipedia is a great source of information but as a medium for political news I'm not sure. The ability to edit any story by whomever can really jeopardise the whole validity of the site. Blogs on the other hand have been a great medium for political news as long as you find a credible source. The ability to comment on blogs plays a great role as well to express your own opinions on subjects. The fact that someone blogs on their free time instead of being paid to do it really says a lot. Once you start involving money you start to see a more biased view to whomever is holding the paycheck not to mention censorship if you do try publishing something against the will of the money holder.

Posted By: Jesse - http://sunk-my-scrabbleship.net
On July 6, 2006, 6:37 pm
Virtual
You know a politians political agenda (yea, they write those things out.. don't necessarily follow it) and his entire history of how he voted in the past is all public knowledge right? They are all things you can look up, if you so choose to.

So don't say it's not there, it's just that most people are too lazy to look for it.

Posted By: Virtual - http://www.virtuallyinfamous.com/
On July 13, 2006, 3:08 pm