blog bad, wiki good

See Blog Project and economics of wiki for other views. This is a position paper relevant to party internal protocols and platform development processes:

To argue blog bad, wiki good is to argue:

  • contradiction bad, consensus good
  • annotating bad, editing good
  • reading both error and correction bad, reading only corrected version good
  • personality focus bad, issue focus good
  • blogosphere bad, interwiki good
  • personal essays bad, consensed articles good

In politics, there is a strong tendency to investigate personal ideological views and a cult of personality, and to want to know every single question on which someone changed their mind. This is part of politics as usual but there's no good reason to support or sustain these habits by freezing them in software and enshrining all the bad habits of previous politics.

The more difficult thing is to focus on issues, avoid personality politics, work forward from the currently understood reality not trying to "score points" or cast doubt on opponents' judgement by digging up every error and calling them a "waffler" just for making a correction. To look past contradiction to consensus.

While there are attempts to make blog technology work in politics, they are basically unproven and probably doomed. Since party politics in particular is about achieving consensus on what will be written into law and treaties, it is appropriate to focus energy on media (e.g. wiki ) which actually approximate this process in the micro.

Evolving through the five levels of intranet from simple email use and web forms to actually making vital decisions via these media and expecting them to mirror the processes of the organization itself, to finally unifying the identity of the organization with the expression of that identity via its common namespaces, is a difficult process that takes some years. For political parties at least, that process is accelerated by a wiki, and only retarded by a blog.