openpolitics.ca itself

Discuss confusion arising from this page or propose any substantial modification to it at talk:openpolitics.ca itself. This page has reflexive functions and to debate by edit without prior debate in depth can lead to chaotic outcomes.

Any self-claims regarding openpolitics.ca itself must link to this page. This is not the only page where participants can or should discuss what this web service is becoming or should be, but it is the place to summarize any and all such claims made in context on all other pages.

Openpolitics.ca is a more factual profile of what openpolitics.ca is or does at present. Other pages like genuinely open politics, open party, learn open politics, etc., introduce a number of assumptions that should be revisited from time to time.

other missions

Several other missions are presently fused into the mandate of openpolitics.ca itself, and visions or assessments of these are debated on other pages with "itself" in their page names:

Ideally openpolitics.ca itself accepts no mission that is wholly incompatible with any of the above...

setting directions

The main use of this page is to provide input to decide, by consensus, what openpolitics.ca is not, for purposes of mandate decisions:

Ultimately, claims about what this service, itself, "is" or "must be", or "will become", have the long term effect of deciding who owns and controls it.

Putting open politics in force eventually requires that a proposal to remove all control from the Open Politics Foundation must be taken as seriously as any other, e.g. claims such as "a cash donor to OPF is not an insider of openpolitics.ca itself" imply such a challenge. The discussion is so important that it cannot be confined to pages only in OP:namespace, but rather:

This discussion is distributed across all pages that link to this page, which link to openpolitics.ca itself every time they make a normative or prescriptive or controversial claim. By reviewing those pages and editing them directly, you help to define the concepts of open politics itself, not just the role of this web service. Everyone should be comfortable both making and also refuting such claims, on the appropriate page where they are made. Which is not always this page.


The following is the summary of the vision debate for openpolitics.ca itself, ideally drawing on all the pages linked to this page to synthesize two or more positions on what that vision must be:

Standing vision of openpolitics.ca

The standing vision, which is presented mostly for debate, and which you may edit, is fairly simple:

disputing this vision and its requirements

Some major disputes or challenges to the standing vision:

bioregional borders

A bioregional democracy balances the need to
  • accurately reflect natural borders and boundaries, e.g. watersheds, Gulf Stream, continents
  • accurately reflect real world community borders and boundaries within and also across such borders

This is not necessarily implied by the idea of a virtual community which resembles a gang or roving nomadic band or sect than it does a responsible democratic management of natural capital such as a nation-state should or must be.

inevitability of rhetoric

Some claim that the vision requires that politics.ca be "not for debate or rhetoric" but only to reflect issues in non-metaphorical terms. This is very similar to the extreme position taken by Thomas Hobbes who considered metaphors to be an abuse of the rational mind.

application of community standards

A related claim is that "community standards" must somehow apply to an epistemic community that may agree on little or nothing in real life, while encouraging people to "shift from being a critic toward being a leader." There is an obvious question of how many leaders can be tolerated, and how factions form and identify their leader and indeed whether a "community" exists at all in an online forum.

usefulness of tikiwiki

mediawiki is far superior to support social metaphors due to user pages, talk pages and user contributions being much easier to track and having rational user privacy defaults. Support of any social interaction is much easier using that wiki software. Tikiwiki can support debate by edit but not dialogue.

usefulness of trolling and factions

The usefulness of trolling in advancing all of the above goals exceeds that of any "community standards" or social metaphor. Politics itself is an adversarial process inherently. Mirroring actual differences with factions and accepting multiple communities with their own point of view unique to each, and enabling new troll point of view deliberately to provoke debate, is a far better practice than trying to force things into neutral point of view or issue/position/argument too quickly.

OPIF as dissensus position on the vision

To the degree that wiki ideology and mechanistic paradigm as reflected in permission structures and power structures of a tikiwiki-based service represents consensus, then:

The open politics in force ruleset represents dissensus because:

While no web service is a perfect example of putting open politics in force, the gap between this ideal and practices of openpolitics.ca itself can and must be narrowed much more systematically.