Collaborative writing is the ability to write with others in an equal power relationship, where no one person has a final say over the output or deliverable.
[+] written consensus
Openpolitics.ca itself supports debate by edit but does not generally seek to support consensus decision making via written means alone. It uses Living Agenda protocol and steering committee methods, which record in writing but don't rely on it for the actual decision.
Since everything on openpolitics.ca itself is editable by anyone, you can actually make changes yourself rather than first arguing with others about what should be written in a proposal, or what information should be included about a certain issue.
If others disagree than a debate by edit proceeds which is far more efficient than traditional debating because you spend all your time "doing" the final result rather then "talking" about what the final result should be.
This is how the collaborative writing process works - you and your peers negotiate and deliberate by doing. Be bold: seek forgiveness not permission:
You make the change you want, then someone else will amend what you have written and so on. By the end of the process, you have not only reached at least a preliminary consensus, but may well have a proposal which can be sent off to an MP or a CEO with the click of a button from openpolitics.ca.
A wiki is only one example of a collaborative writing technology, but a large public wiki involves many standards and constraints that do not apply to smaller projects. senior editors exist for this reason - to help keep things organized.
collaborative editing consensus decision making point of view issue/position/argument open politics itself bad page name.