Comment A few clarifications (Score 1) 89
I've read some of the (as usual, freewheeling) discussion of our "Wiki the Vote" project on Congresspedia and thought I'd weigh in with a few points of clarification.
(1) Congresspedia is not a part of Wikipedia and is not formally affiliated with Wikipedia in any way (although we use the same Mediawiki software and appreciate a lot of things that Wikipedia does).
(2) Congresspedia and "Wiki the Vote" are not devoted simply to the 2008 U.S. congressional elections. One of comments here suggested that a wiki devoted solely to that topic would be too narrow, with which I agree. However, Congresspedia and "Wiki the Vote" are both part of Sourcewatch.org, which is a wiki devoted to "the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda." (The current slogan on our website is, "Your guide to the names behind the news.") That's not as broad a scope as Wikipedia, of course, but we currently have more than 30,000 articles, so I think we're a little more encompassing (and hopefully more edifying) than spankingart.wikia.com.
(3) Some of the usual concerns have been expressed that we'll become a repository for flame wars and vandalism. Since we're a smaller website than Wikipedia, our procedures for handling that sort of thing are different than Wikipedia's, but overall I think we handle it pretty well. Unlike Wikipedia, we require people to register before editing, which cuts down on some of the casual trolling/vandalism/spamming. (Registration is free and only takes a minute.) Our paid editors also step in sometimes to nip problems in the bud. Wikipedia's approach is more like an unmoderated BBS, whereas we're more like a moderated one. This means that maybe we get less participation, but the environment is also less combative. (I'm not saying one approach is better than the other, but our approach seems to work for us.) Hopefully the proof of the pudding is evident in the quality of our articles.
(4) Finally, some people have expressed concerns about us having an agenda or bias. Guilty as charged, I guess, but we do try to be fair and not to block people from editing simply because we disagree with them about something. We also try to have a somewhat stricter referencing policy than Wikipedia, on the theory that asking people to source their assertions will limit effusions of pure bias and emotion.
Of course, we can't promise that every article is perfect. (We're a wiki, for Chrissakes!) However, I hope that folks will at least find us useful.
Oh, and thanks to Raul654 in particular for saying I'm "awesome." You're a very astute judge of character...
(1) Congresspedia is not a part of Wikipedia and is not formally affiliated with Wikipedia in any way (although we use the same Mediawiki software and appreciate a lot of things that Wikipedia does).
(2) Congresspedia and "Wiki the Vote" are not devoted simply to the 2008 U.S. congressional elections. One of comments here suggested that a wiki devoted solely to that topic would be too narrow, with which I agree. However, Congresspedia and "Wiki the Vote" are both part of Sourcewatch.org, which is a wiki devoted to "the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda." (The current slogan on our website is, "Your guide to the names behind the news.") That's not as broad a scope as Wikipedia, of course, but we currently have more than 30,000 articles, so I think we're a little more encompassing (and hopefully more edifying) than spankingart.wikia.com.
(3) Some of the usual concerns have been expressed that we'll become a repository for flame wars and vandalism. Since we're a smaller website than Wikipedia, our procedures for handling that sort of thing are different than Wikipedia's, but overall I think we handle it pretty well. Unlike Wikipedia, we require people to register before editing, which cuts down on some of the casual trolling/vandalism/spamming. (Registration is free and only takes a minute.) Our paid editors also step in sometimes to nip problems in the bud. Wikipedia's approach is more like an unmoderated BBS, whereas we're more like a moderated one. This means that maybe we get less participation, but the environment is also less combative. (I'm not saying one approach is better than the other, but our approach seems to work for us.) Hopefully the proof of the pudding is evident in the quality of our articles.
(4) Finally, some people have expressed concerns about us having an agenda or bias. Guilty as charged, I guess, but we do try to be fair and not to block people from editing simply because we disagree with them about something. We also try to have a somewhat stricter referencing policy than Wikipedia, on the theory that asking people to source their assertions will limit effusions of pure bias and emotion.
Of course, we can't promise that every article is perfect. (We're a wiki, for Chrissakes!) However, I hope that folks will at least find us useful.
Oh, and thanks to Raul654 in particular for saying I'm "awesome." You're a very astute judge of character...
