blog perfect

Our politics need an infusion of hope.

Many people believe and continually reinforce to themselves that life is something that is happening to them, and not something that they can shape and control. They look at the so-called power structures around them, and conclude that society is stacked against them.

That thought sets off a series of self-fulfilling results. People convince themselves that they are powerless. As a result, they are.

I reject the idea that the power structures that exist are impervious to our influence. Sustainable power can never be taken, it can only be granted.

More Perfect was founded on the premise of participation. This presents a conflict for those who are continually convincing themselves that their actions don’t count. Many people just fundamentally believe that they cannot make a difference.

We are building tools that challenge that belief.

We welcome those of you with a positive and hopeful vision of the future to join us in this endeavor. We encourage those of you who are doubtful to lay that aside, and help us to build a better future, a more perfect future.

Tim and I were invited to the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School the week before last to present at a conference sponsored by the Sunlight Foundation titled Local Politics Information in the Internet Era.  We saw a lot of great projects, and got some valuable feedback on the project from the folks at Sunlight and the Berkman Center, including some really great comments in a 1-on-1 presentation we did at the Berkman Center the day after the conference. The piece we presented was called Civics 2.0 and how we’re applying wiki technology to the process of local politics.

If anything, the conference confirmed the importance of something Tim and I have been throwing around called ‘civic networking’ — that is, the ability to connect residents with like concerns — anything from neighbors on the same block organizing and sharing information, to people on the other side of the country with a similar interests, passions and concerns collaborating with one another. Civic networking goes beyond social networking where it’s all about you to collaborative engagement where it’s all about us.  Instead of trying to see who can collect the most friends on MySpace, the goal is to connect and collaborate with others that have similar interests.  The challenge in the months ahead be taking More Perfect to the next level and execute on this vision.  We’ve been toying with several ideas in the space and our goal is to unveil some great new features in the months ahead that get us to that stage where civic networking really takes off.   You can read about them more on the website.  In fact, we want to get your input on what you think we should be doing!

My first post on this blog was addressing the general usage of wiki technology, and how the wisdom of crowds can be leveraged to provide good data.

The question, however, remains: can wiki technology be used in the political arena? Wikipedia has had a few difficulties navigating this topic.

Or, as put directly by one commenter at SLOG (Seattle Alt-Weekly The Stranger’s blog):

you’re going to spend all your time watching the two sides re-edit pages so that they favor one position over another.

Why That Won’t Happen; at least not much
We’re a wiki-based project, and Wikipedia is a wiki-based project, but we do not have the same mission. Our focus will help to avoid the problems that Wikipedia has encountered in it’s politically-focused articles.

Neutral Point of View?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary community ethic there is something called “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV). That means there’s a need to achieve, as much as possible, an objective viewpoint in the writing of articles.

It is precisely for these reasons that Wikipedia, which I’m a great fan of, doesn’t work well in the political arena. Political questions can rarely be NPOV. To be fair, this type of work is also outside the mission of Wikipedia.

Constructive Not Destructive
More perfect doesn’t ask you to leave your political viewpoint at the door when you participate on our site. We want you to bring your unique perspective. Where Wikipedia stresses NPOV, we’ve developed a different community standard called Constructive Not Destructive (CND). In short, we ask that when you participate on a policy project, that your participation be constructive. If you fundamentally disagree with the focus of a given project, we ask you to not participate on that specific proposal.

But, it doesn’t end there. We encourage you to start your own page, your own policy initiative, wherein you can present and refine your own proposal. Additionally, we’ve developed a concept called “the flip side” wherein you are encouraged (Constructively, of course) to explain your disagreement with a given policy proposal (I’ll blog on this in the near future).

This is something that Wikipedia, by it’s nature, is not equipped to do well. In short, the political difficulties at Wikipedia have been created by users wanting it to be a political site, and not an encyclopedia.

We are a political site. Bring your strongly held opinions. Agree. Disagree. Just do so constructively and in the right place, and you will find a home here at more perfect.

People look at something and often see a glass half full or a glass half empty; instead they should be looking at the glass and saying to themselves, “There’s got to be another glass of water!”

That’s always been my take at least.  And so, more perfect is that other glass of water: a marketplace of ideas for tackling a wide range of topics whether it be transportation, energy policy, drug law reform, education, heath care, or the environment.

Look around, viewer-created content is everywhere; there’s a noticeable hunger for alternative media - everything from Current TV, to YouTube, Wikipedia and other pretty impressive stuff. 

On more perfect, viewer-created content is taken to the next level and collaboration placed front and center.  McLuhan was right, the medium is the message.  But in more perfect’s case, the technology takes a back seat to the collaboration and public discourse that develops around it.  The way it should be.

Here’s to that other glass…