See: Wikipedia. The unique role of open politics is to present diverse views on a briefly defined topic. Why waste time encouraging multiple point of view when readers will rarely make an effort to read past 250 words. Senior editors should make a point of pruning overlong articles and hiding extra content.
See spam and talk:spam. Spam must be removed so effectively as to be undone is that the use of delete version and rollback are permitted for this use and this use only.
The prerequisite for evidenceis such that that even trolls show willingness to let what they consider provably true statements, e.g. GFC list of liars, sit only in page history of blank pages, until some cite links can be provided.
a partisan forum for any one party or movement
out of scope.
The description of what openpolitics.ca is not is derived as mechanically as possible from three sources:
- all positive mission self-claims made on any page that link to openpolitics.ca itself, that is, any statement of what we/will/must do via this web service
- an evolving empirical summary of the ruleset implied by a list of what has been deemed out of scope by senior editors after consensus process has been applied
- a deliberative democracy method yet to be fully defined based on agenda protocol involving all regular editors, donors, and insiders - three entirely different groups with different criteria and needs
The problem is no simpler than factions debating to define the direction of a jurisdiction, and should be treated with methods just as robust and resilient.