techPresident - Wikipedia - Comments

3rd party versioning of change.gov on a wiki

Silona — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:29:17 -0500

We, League of Tech Voters and wikia.com, just launched a new wiki called change.wikia.com where we are regularly scraping and parsing all content from change.gov into a 3rd party versioning system. (Legal because of the CC license!!)

We figure the transition team is under such a time crunch that it is easier (and less liability) if we do this for them. And it can serve as an example to them of how they might redo whitehouse.gov...

What I would like to point out...

1) with unchanging permalinks to content - we bloggers can document content on change.gov without worrying about the page changing

2) we can watch those changes and update our blogs accordingly

3) Or you can comment and document content directly on the wiki too filling in where our scraper fails (like we can't legally scrape youtube content)

It is quite new and I have had the flu ( so it isn't as pretty as I would like)... but I greatly encourage people to come and help us create the structure. A versioning wiki like this is new and we have some kinks to figure out. But Jimmy Wales and staff (Angela and Artur) are very friendly to us coding additional features to mediawiki.

Thanks!
Silona

---
Silona.com
transparentfederalbudget.com
leagueoftechvoters.org
change.wikia.com (a versioning wiki of change.gov)

the game is still bottom-up

MadamaAmbi — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:05:51 -0500

Interview4Obama http://madamaambi.blogspot.com
subversonance http://subversonance.blogspot.com
Patriarchal Disorder http://patriarchaldisorder.com
Feminist Advisory Board for Obama (join us on Facebook)

I'm glad Allison Fine is critiquing Change.gov, and I think she makes some good points. I know that some activists are frustrated that the Obama team hasn't shown the ground game leadership that was the power behind the campaign. I think it's way too early to criticize Team Obama, but not way too early to be floating and discussing ideas.

But here's my meta take on one of the most vocalized complaints I've been hearing: post-election Team Obama (they're not even in the White House yet, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet) has not built the 2-way bridge to everywhere and everyone is stranded on the shores of post-election chaos and confusion.

I don't see this and I think it's a myth being created for good press and/or to push one's own agenda. Activists & organizations exist by the hundreds, maybe the thousands, and they aren't waiting around for instructions from Change.gov. They're doing what activists do. I'm one of them. I'm very busy right now getting back to my regular feminist agenda after having put it on hold for 9 months while I was All Obama All the time. As a result of having joined the Obama community, I am more skilled, more connected, and more activist.

In my opinion, it will take some time before the Obama administration figures out how to build bridges with its grassroots base, but, folks, this is and will continue to be a bottom-up movement, and so should it always be. We, the people, must agitate for what we need, and we, the people, will continue to build our visibility, our agendas, and our collective voice. And we will then invite the O-administration to visit our table...or our tables.

Do I hope that the O-administration will get the bridge thing right? I certainly do, but I'm not holding my breath. We're in an economic crisis. We're involved in two wars. Terrorists sent the world a new message yesterday in India. The unemployment rolls are swelling...in my view, Obama and team will be on ER duty for quite a while. In the meantime, my fellow feminists and I continue to expand the base, to network wildly, to get our agenda seen as a universally applicable set of needs as opposed to being marginalized as "women's issues."

The feminist movement never ended even though the mainstream press reported otherwise. We are not post-feminism. We are not post-patriarchy. There are staunch and stalwart feminists still at work, there are younger feminists emerging as leaders, and there are even younger feminists who are energizing the movement.

We're here, we've been here all along, and we're not waiting for the phone to ring.

An OPEN LETTER TO Barack Obama

excelsior2008 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:24:09 -0400

An OPEN LETTER TO Barack Obama:

>> Recent Press Reports say: Obama ridicules notion of VP slot. It's premature, he said of accepting the second spot on the ticket.

Well not really!!

You are not ready for prime time yet! A powerful VP slot would give you to exposure and maturity you need to EARN your right to hold down one of the most important jobs in the world. You have had a spectacular rise, it is true . . . leap-frogging and eloquently talking your way to where you are now.

Russian, Venezuelan, Iranian, Chinese, and Palestinian leaders will make mince meat out of you !!! If ever you ever get past McCain (which is un likely).

Just sit down and think about what the Republicans did to a true war hero in 2004, and what they did to a future Nobel Prize winner in 2000!

Join an UNstoppable Dream Team!!!

Take a STEP BACK and look at the “big picture”!!!

Barack Obama, you must work out a VP deal with a commitment (written guarantees / detailed working papers) that your role will be MUCH MORE than that of the traditional VP, much more that that of key advisor, much more that just being a key influencer on staffing of Cabinet Slots and Supreme Court appointments. You will be a truly powerful VP!

Your hubris and wit might, at this critical juncture for the Democrats, cause you and your wildly enthusiastic team of supporters to be short sighted.

Just think, if it is change that you REALLY want … would not hooking up with Hillary, bringing a huge majority into BOTH houses of Congress on your joint coat tails be the way to do it???!!!???

It is now YOUR moment . . . either seize it in an intelligent way, as a path to the white house (in 4 to 8 years), or squander it away on a miasmic dream.

For no matter who you choose for a running mate, you are doomed to failure! And even if you miraculously get into the White House, with a split do nothing Congress to work with, you will be just like Jimmy Carter. (By the way . . . I admire Jimmy, and the wild enthusiasm he also generated . . . but Jimmy has been a much better former president then president).

Suggested improvement

David Weinberger — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:34:56 -0400

Very cool and useful tool. Thanks.

As for improvements, how about turning it into audio so we can tell by listening how active and multi-part the edit history has been? :)

Many thanks for blogging about our tool

EdChi — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:56:26 -0400

I read with interest of your take on our new tool. Any ideas for improvements?

doing fine...

jpa — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:25:36 -0400

I think he is doing just fine. He doesn't spend much, he is saving up for a fight in Jan.

He had more cash on hand than McCain. He has had better single day records in Q3 than Q2 ($75k was the single day high in August, then he got $100k in 1 day in Texas). The meetup group contest yielded atleast $300k.
I think he is having another solid quarter, and hopefully will have more cash on hand than McCain & Fred. He is very prudent with other people's money (just like he will be when he is our president)

Remember, he doesn't take PAC money, he doesn't take lobbyist money. He is 100% individual contributor. His support is very broad, but not deep. I think the campaign mentioned the average donor is below $100. Compare that to Rudy or Mitt's donor list.

How come the Ron Paul campaign hasn't taken the next step?

tlsmith — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:14:01 -0400

I've noticed that there is a lot of on-line support for Ron Paul. However, this is not translating into campaign cash, which is critical for a campaign going forward. According to the Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&c...), Paul was able to raise $3 million in the first six months of this year, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama averaged raising that much cash every 10 days over the same six months, each.

While Howard Dean generated a lot of on-line buzz for his campaign, he was at least able to convert his support into actual campaign cash. Of course, Dean was not able to convert, or at least organize, his support in such a way that was able to help him win the Iowa caucuses, and his campaign famously imploded thereafter. For Paul to gain any credibility with the mainstream media, he must demonstrate that he is able to raise money. This is the one measure the media likes to look at to see if a campaign is viable.

For more examples of "Man on the Street" vids...

JeremyDThompson — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:12:58 -0400

...check out San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's site. He's been hitting the streets asking Franciscans their pet peeves with the city for months.

The thing I found very interesting about them - not being too informed about Newsom - is his command of the issues when people bring them up. He wasn't just being open - and opening himself up to the criticisms of a tough town. He was also conversing back.

I watched a few videos where he talked to people about the transit system, and was stunned with his attention to detail in things like citywide bus schedules and rider patterns. And not in a BS talking-point-y sort of way, but actually as a Mayor who seemingly can tell you anything you want to know about the buses.

ActLocallySF is the site. Check out another office holder really hitting the streets and having conversations.

Ron Paul doesn't....

rtester — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:52:02 -0400

...run or hide! That's my response to this. Maybe you don't see him as a "leading candidate," but if you knew the fact that he won 2 straw polls this past weekend by LANDSLIDE proportions(in New Hampshire 73% and Alabama 81%), you might realize what is sweeping across America.....the Ron Paul Revolution! It's based on honesty, transparency, authenticity, and FREEDOM.....and by the way, YouTube is a big part of it, as you can clearly see from the statistics on this website. He never shied away from the CNN-YouTube debate you mentioned, as his "leading candidate" Republican counterparts did, and he has many, many more YouTube views and subscribers than any other candidate, Dem or Rep! No, the only "running" Dr. Paul is doing is for the presidency, and he definitely isn't doing any hiding.

I love your conclusion

cfinnie — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:41:21 -0400

I hope this increase in visibility will lead to candidates who realize that "being themselves instead of being controlled might help them better connect with voters." That's what drew so many of us to Howard Dean. However, I doubt too many of today's politicians have forgotten how much one unscripted "Yeah" cost his campaign less than 4 years ago. How much spin the media put on an essentially accurate 4-year-old interview from Canada about how easy it would be to manipulate the Iowas caucuses. Having been there in 2004, I could really see all the things he talked about and how they could be used just as he said. I also saw how it hurt him.

I would truly like to believe we're moving in the direction you and Gibson posit. But 2004 isn't so far in the past that many candidates are likely to forget it yet.

Invert that panopticon

Josh Koenig — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:39:58 -0400

It's a bit of a horserace at the moment, whether information technology will have a net liberating or oppressive effect. Our people jump at their own shadows and China scares the crap out of me on this stuff, but I'm still optimistic.

None can conceive of a world where being "always on" is anything but a dangerous trap, where being themselves instead of being controlled might help them better connect with voters.

Any articulation of this idea runs the risk of sounding like some kind of starry-eyed hippy jive-talk, but I really think that our ability to deal with most of the crushingly complex problems we're facing pivots on whether or not we can actually be honest with one another. A big part of that is getting past the overt kabuki that passes for most political debate. Here's hoping.

Information Wants to Be Free

Alan Rosenblatt — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:35:34 -0400

Gibson's response is a nice logical extension of his original Neuromancer thme, "information wants to be free."

I agree the truth with come out. That is why in this YouTube world, where we are all under the watchful eye of cameras and wiretaps, authenticity trumps the scripted campaign. People want candidates to speak from their hearts and minds. If they don't, they will be outed.

Also, Micah, I am happy to see you correctly spelled Condoleeeeeeezzzzzza. (I wish I could).

Alan Rosenblatt
Executive Director, Internet Advocacy Center
AKA DrDigiPol (drdigipol.com)

I think you've drank the kool-aid

Liza Sabater — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:13:26 -0400

I don't think Phil DeVellis is just any other voter, much in the same way I dont see myself as any regular grassroots, pulled up the salt of the earth 'netroots' blogger.

DeVellis is political consultant who took a chance at working on his own with a campaign. And I want to stress the phrase POLITICAL CONSULTANT.

I have much more to add to this on my blog and if Micah wants me, I'll add the post here at TechP, but honestly, let's be clear : ONCE A POLITICAL CONSULTANT, ALWAYS A POLITICAL CONSULTANT.

Rolodexes are the measure by which one should be distinguishing a regular voter from a political insider.

=================================
Writer and Publisher
www.lizasabater.com
www.culturekitchen.com
www.dailygotham.com

and contributor to TechPresident.com

Thanks

Fred Stutzman — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:32:45 -0500

Thank you - I am also interested in finding about more about the editors, as it is clear they are playing an important role in constructing the candidate's digital identity.

In the grand scheme of things, it is frankly amazing how much power these Wikipedia editors have.

Really interesting data

Raven Brooks — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:56:52 -0500

It probably isn't possible but it'd be really interesting to know which of these pages is being maintained/monitored by supporters vs. campaign staff.

I imagine once the field narrows a bit on both sides these entries will see more activity.

Really interesting data, thanks for putting it together!