Szeptember 4-én este kötetlen beszélgetés lesz, melyet Jimmy Wales prezentációja vezet be. Helyszín: Stex (pince), Budapest VIII., József krt. 55-57. A pontos időpont még alakulóban van, kb. 19:00 és 23:00 között lesz az esemény. Várható program: 19:00 - 20:00 vacsora, 20.00-20.45 Jimmy Wales prezentációja 20.45-21.30 vita, kérdések angolul 21.30-22.30 magyar nyelvű workshopok, a végén angol nyelvű összefoglalóval.
Javaslataitokat itt tegyétek meg. attacs 2006. augusztus 19., 10:30 (UTC)
Jelentkezés, regisztráció: e-mailben kell jelentkezni a email@example.com címen. A terem kapacitása kb. 50 fő. Helyfoglalás regisztráltaknak érkezési sorrendben.
Eddigi regisztráltak száma: 28 fő.
Questions for Jimmy Wales
What could be the success metrics of Campaigns Wikia? Number of campaigns, projects, political communities?
What could be the relation between wiki and blog considering online politics? Cooperation, competition, combination? There are about a million wiki users, while tens of millions bloggers.
What are the tools of Campaigns Wikia that make politics more intelligent and argumentative?
Which experiences, morals brought from Wikipedia can be used directly in a political context? And how?
Which could be the killer application of C.W.? Mainstream, parlamentary politics, official elections or niche politics and interests, human rights, minority issues, and so on...? How can one website fits for all level and range of politics?
szamomra ugy tunik, hogy a web 1.0/web 2.0/... betor a politikaba. blogon reklamozott amerikai jelolt nagy penzeket gyujtott, youtube-on sok videoval rendelkezo politikus nagyon megverte a nala joval ismertebb tarsat (most volt nehany hete). Ami a kerdes: hogy is illesztheto a politikaval a wiki "stilusa" vegyuk mar vegig a lehetseges eseteket. melyek azok reszei a politikai kampanyolasnak/dontes elokeszitesnek/dontesnek/kommunikacionak, ahol a wiki "eszme" sikeres lehet. vagy majd meglatjuk? ;) Anr 2006. augusztus 19., 18:31 (UTC)
A kötetlen beszélgetés után (kb. 1 óra) lehetne néhány témakörben egyidejű workshopokat szervezni(+1 óra), ahol kisebb csoportokban dolgoznánk fel néhány wikiakampány témát (magyar v. angol nyelven). Ezekről készülne aztán egy 3-6 perces összefoglaló angolul, ahol a vitás pontokról még lehetne beszélgetni.
Pl. blogok vs./ és wikik, wiki a részvételi/ döntéshozatali folyamatban (l. Anr) stb. --Anna Sebestyén 2006. augusztus 20., 09:45 (UTC)
workshop javaslatok: blog/wiki (lásd Anna) együttműködés, parlamenti politika, választások, niche politika. attacs 2006. augusztus 20., 13:57 (UTC)
- Nézzetek rá a Vita:Nemzeti_fejlesztési_terv lapra; nagyjából hasonló dolgot fogalmaztnk meg ott is - szvsz a szempontokat előre is kidolgozhatjuk egy külön oldalon, vagy oldalakon, s ezeket nevezhetjük 'pre-workshopnak' is akár. --Yaanno 2006. augusztus 27., 09:49 (UTC)
- Biztosan vagyunk néhányan, akik nem tudunk ott lenni, de lenne kérdésünk. Azt esetleg össze lehetne szedni és feltenni neki. Persze, ha feltennétek neki. :) Pl. engem továbbra sem győzött meg az angol projekt, hogy hogyan fogjuk meggyőzni a médiát, politikusokat, az embereket általában, hogy fontos, ami itt eredményként születik. Mert pl. nekünk az izraeli-palesztín helyzettel kapcsolatban hozott esetleges javaslatunk nem sok hatással lesz a világpolitikára, míg ha meg csak a helyi választásokkal foglalkozunk, akkor szembesülni fogunk a kemény magyar (netes) valósággal, amire néhányan (akik mondjuk egyáltalán nem vettek részt a wikipédia politikai cikkei körüli vitákban vagy fórumok csatáiban) biztosan nincsenek felkészülve. És pl én egy olyan helyen, ami csak választással, vitákkal foglalkozik, nem szívesen dolgoznék. NCurse üzenet 2006. augusztus 20., 14:59 (UTC)
lesz? Vagy legalább hangfelvétel? --Tgr 2006. szeptember 1., 19:49 (UTC)
hát én lehet, hogy kiteszem az iPod+Talkomat az asztalra, de ilyesmiről nem tudok. Ez nagyon nem egy hivatalos sajtóesemény lesz, hanem egy spontán, informális beszélgetés. attacs 2006. szeptember 2., 12:06 (UTC)
Szvsz egy ilyen találkozónál minden emberre, aki ott van, jut legalább kettő másik, aki nem tud ott lenni (vagy éppen fél évvel később tudja meg, hogy volt ilyen, de szívesen ott lett volna), úgyhogy érdemes szvsz. Ha nem is feltétlen azért, hogy kitedd a webre (az macerás, mindenkitől engedélyt kéne kérni, aki szerepel rajta), de legalább szöveges átiratot/összefoglalót lehet csinálni a felvétel alapján. (A videót én se gondoltam komolyan.) --Tgr 2006. szeptember 2., 14:48 (UTC)
Notes by Anna
Hello everyone. These are my hand notes of the Campaigns Wikia meeting typed in, and as such they are note-like, incomplete or even not exactly understood. Please calculate with this while reading. Feel free to add, modify to make it more precise and richer. When the new, collective version seems to be finished, I will make the Hungarian version, too.
Thanks Jimbo and all of You for coming and having a thought-provoking discussion.
Jimmy Wales's presentation
This is the fourth meet-up in Budapest regarding Campaigns Wikia, and so far the most successful has been the one organized in Chicago. Campaigns Wikia is pivoting around the central question of 'How to make smart politics?' Wiki is a tool that can bring people together, and build a community rather than keep arguing and debating. Political campaigns are mostly about fear-mongering, efficient slogans, who looks good on TV, in short broadcast, traditional politics is more about personalities than issues. Ordinary people cannot act as consultants. The concept is to design philosophy, and the allegory Jimmy used was the 'restaurant.' The web as a restaurant serves us steak but people use knives and sometimes they use it for stabbing each other rather than cutting slices of the steak, so to avoid dangerous behavior in the restaurant, people are kept in cages (that is people are kept away from politics to stop them from hurting each other).
Wiki is a tool that is good for building trust, it is unlocked, thousands of people can use it, and usually there are only a few bad people. By using wiki, we can tell the people in power what to do.
As for Wikipedia, the aim of the online, user-generated encyclopedia is different than with Campaigns Wikia’s: in an encyclopedia we aim to make comprehensive, timeless summaries of certain topics, so it is more like a library.
Wikia is in fact the extension of the Wikipedia model, also, it is educational and non-profit, relying on research. The GPL software is free etc.
Campaigns Wikia is Jimmy's personal project, personal wiki so to say.
There are several successful wikis, like the Muppets (started in December 2005, and already showing more than 10.000 articles on the Muppets Show), Travel Wiki is also offering very good source for those who wish to travel abroad.
What is ideal free culture like? Free is to be interpreted as free to copy, free to modify, free to redistribute, and it can be both commercial or non-commercial. Freedom in GNU (see Richard Stallman)
Will Campaigns Wikia have an impact? Do I know if it works? It is a good question and we will see. With Wikipedia, Jimmy says that he knew that it would be a lot of interest early on, that it would work. It is different with Campaigns Wikia. We have to be patient. Wiki is a huge and influential tool for the Muppets, and we cannot foretell if it is going to be as successful with politics too.
Campaigns Wikia is more than discussion: what we can build to be helpful to others. We need to find better solutions and not inflame emotions.
“I do not expect it to be as popular as Wikipedia.”
According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the 17th most popular website in the world (in fact 7th in Germany, and 30th in the Arab Emirates). It solves the problem of finding unbiased information that is inaccessible on the internet. While the BBC or CNN has got about 20.000 visitors a day, Wikipedia is visited by 48.000 people daily.
Concerning the future of Campaigns Wikia, we still have no answers, there are lots of possibilities. The aim is to enable the community, smart and thoughtful people to come together, and start a constructive dialog. We will see what happens. And this 'I don't know' has a positive tone, I am excited about the future, says JW.
The problem with broadcast politics is that it is much too emotional, and there is no other place for arguing about politics, to inform the general public about all sides of a debate, represent the different viewpoints accurately and thoughtfully.
And here there is more emphasis on the process than the issues in question: that is, it is more important to make the debate better than the particular issues. Campaigns Wikia is a site for everyone, including individual campaigns. Here we can get actual politicians to work for Campaigns Wikia. Of course there is trolling and vandalism, but there is an overall openness in wikia. It is not characteristic to be promptly angry, emotional. Wikipedia is many times criticized for this.
In the history of Wikipedia there were three major eras regarding the protective methods of articles:
- Protection: protect the article, no one can edit it, no one can affect the publicly available version. It turned out to be a bad idea: this way Wikipedia cannot be made better.
- Semi-protection: everyone can edit an article under debate: everyone except for unregistered users (if you are registered for more than 4 days than you can modify the text)
- Flagging: a German solution: by default, the last version reviewed by a registered (and older than 4 days) user will be shown. Anonymous edits only become visible to the public after other editors accepted them.
Questions form the audience
A: What will people talk about?
JW: articles about various political issues, I have nothing particular in mind.
- neutral statements
- for and against positions: article for each of the outstanding position
- topics: e.g. the European Constitution, which is hundreds of pages long, and where people may need a summary, a clear presentation and deep discussion of particular issues
- as local as we can get: let there be a page for each and every candidate
E: What about the policy for Campaigns wikia?
JW: there are copy policies, but only some of them (personality conflict, there is a rule for respecting dialog, and having no personal quarrel; neutrality between both sides is offered: but there is no rule for every page, it is more open-ended in this respect). All in all, we are trying not to make a policy too soon as that would create a cage for thoughts, people.
D: People do stab each other, and it is not an assumption. There are many sites already with hordes of people fighting against each other.
JW: we must find a way if we can do it. We need intelligent, civilized dialog, as that brings followers and traffic. Readers can be difficult people, so first we need to build a friendly community. The solution is
- to block people
- to ignore them (for 3 days)
- to protect pages and people
- to semi-protect pages
There has been frequent criticism to Wikipedia that trolls are too much tolerated. Trolls usually enjoy the process of fighting. The real problem (with Wikipedia) is not trolls however, but issues where every participant is biased in the same direction. For instance the Israel vs. Palestine is a messy business, but there are both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine editors, and after lots of debates, the pages become balanced. But everyone who would collaborate in creating a free encyclopedia is against copyright law, and for free culture on the web. Even with the best intentions, those pages will be biased. It is an echo chamber.
V: Campaign is a misnomer. In campaigns people usually argue for or against something and to persuade people.
JW: agree, Campaigns wikia should not be about campaigns rhetoric, it is best to be avoided. The idea is to use wikis for political campaigns. It would have more accurate to call it participatory politics maybe.
A: Mainstream vs. Niche politics. Can it be a killer application for niche politics? One size does not fit all.
JW: In California I have seen a good system: people put proposition on the ballot, and send out a voter guy. There is a neutral description of the issue on top and under that comes the pro and contra. First I was skeptical about the neutral part, but I must admit it was not so bad. The first thing is that you should be able to come to the site, then write on the site. It is to ensure that those readers that come and have a look at it may get a clear and concise picture before voting on it: they can read the neutral presentation of the issue and the pro and contra too, and arrive at a decision. For example, healthcare is a disaster in the US, there are boring simple reforms
- propose, construct, debate laws for people
- long time. All people think it is good
- politicians beat each other on the head
E: mysociety.org about mainly British politics with a simple interface. People can comment on it, and send mail to their MP. But here in Hungary the critical mass is simply lacking. We need to collect political intelligence, as it is not there, 30% maximum. Next month the elections are coming and we could compare the positions of the coming candidates for Budapest mayor post and people do have a strong opinion about that. The mayor could present the plans, preconditions, consequences and the costs.
JW: We should not underestimate the power of the internet. People are influencers of other people, they build communities. We need to help to build that critical mass in some activist form. So we should say: let's get people involved. The number of bloggers does not equal with the number of influential bloggers. According to a representative of Blogter.hu, there are about 150.000 bloggers in Hungary. There could be a symbiosis between blogs and wikis: the best blogs are opinion columnists: mere opinion, commentary, analysis etc. Wikis could be like news articles that are suitable for softening the edges, as they serve another purpose: reconciliation instead of competition. There is a certain difference between bloggers and Wikipedians: their personalities differ. Bloggers are argumentative and individualistic, whereas Wikipedians do not mind if they are corrected, anonymous, so we need to work towards enjoying a healthier dialog.
D: the wiki is not the best tool for arguments, as there will be arguments. How can be the conclusion on wikia?
JW: yes, we need to be careful and conscious about this issue, so we are adding forums for the wikia. Of course there is a problem with forums too: the healthiest would be an unmoderated forum (if there is a moderator and the posts are filtered beforehand, it slows down the process; if post are selected afterwards, people have already seen them before they were deleted. If the forum is not moderated at all, some jerks, and usually the most annoying ones, may get the dominance.) So we are concerned about forums and wikis.
Á: interesting to talk about participation but the majority has no access to the internet, it is mostly accessed by the upper middle class people.
JW: in this case the aim is not to make people vote, but to engage them in a wikia discussion process. Some of the problems are bigger, and many times only a tiny group of people work for a newspaper, so there is no way to be more democratic with the traditional media (incl. Press) either (note from the writer: I hope I understood this passage right, I need to check it with the podcast yet!).
P: What about using Writely word processor for such campaigns.
JW: I have personally not used them yet.
P: with Writely I can select whom to invite for a certain text to view or to edit, so there is also a way to invite and to make a limited number of contributors. But there is no way to publish it as wikis are openly accessed by readers. Here is a gap among the tools.
JW: It could be a blog then where there is a group of contributors
V: I disagree that forums should be moderated. Moderating is bad. We need to harness IT: e-democracy, e-participation
JW: I am interested in research regarding such issues. I am a carpenter, not an architect. I have no particular opinion.