[GPSCC-chat] Fw: Re: propositions - & wiki.cagreens.org

[Spencer Graves]

PROPOSITION 35


       Regarding Prop 35, human trafficking, I personally agree with 
Drew:  My wife and I both voted "No".


       However, the California and Santa Clara Green organizations both 
took "no position".  The state organization had an extended discussion 
on that issue that, I believe, continued far too long. I could have 
misinterpreted the discussion, but it seemed like at least one 
individual passionate supported it while another opposed with equal 
passion -- and neither seemed to carefully consider the arguments put 
forward by the other.


             * Supporters of Prop 35 say that human trafficking is evil 
and current laws are not adequate.


             * Opponents agree that human trafficking is evil. However, 
they assert that Prop 35 essentially tries to address the problem by 
increasing the penalties in ways that could be miscarried to punish 
excessively people not involved in human trafficking.  It also fails to 
cite relevant research into the reasons the problem persists in spite of 
current laws.  In the latter category, Prop 35 fails to make adequate 
provisions for training a variety of people in different professions who 
could do things to improve reporting and prosecutions under current law.


       A summary of this discussion is available at 
"www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/35 
<http://www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/35>".


OPENING WIKI.CAGREENS.ORG TO MORE PARTICIPANTS?


       I believe the statewide Green discussion on Prop 35 (and 
virtually any other issue of interest) could have been better managed by 
opening "wiki.cagreens.org 
<http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Main_Page>" to many more 
participants.  Doing so, I believe, would likely have produced better 
summaries of the arguments on all sides of the issues involved, with 
fewer problems with people repeating their arguments seemingly without 
seriously trying to understand other positions.


       A more open Wiki could also help attract more people to the Green 
party, just as Wikipedia's success is built on its willingness to permit 
anyone to edit almost anything.


       Moreover, material organized on "wiki.cagreens.org 
<http://wiki.cagreens.org/index.php/Main_Page>" could in many cases be 
ported easily to Wikipedia;  if Green concerns were more appropriately 
reflected there, I think we could have a bigger impact on the body 
politic.  For example, the Wikipedia article on SOPA (the Stop On-line 
Piracy Act) got a million views between Thanksgiving and Christmas last 
year.


       When I first raised this question a couple of years ago, I was 
told that having it open made it too subject to vandalism and posting of 
material contrary to Green values -- and the California Greens did not 
have enough administrators.  I think we could control that by requiring 
everyone to create an account before they can edit anything -- apart 
from the Talk pages associated with existing articles.  If needed, we 
could require everyone to get someone already in the system to vouch for 
each new person before they are allowed to edit anything other than a 
Talk page. This should be enough, because the sources of any vandalism 
and anti-Green messaging could be easily identified, and appropriate 
action could be taken with the perpetrators.


       I'd be happy to volunteer to organize periodic (monthly?) 
Webinars / videoconferences on what we might want to do in this vein and 
how to do such.  I'm a Wikipedian with well over 500 edits, in addition 
to being an engineer and a statistician who has used computers not quite 
daily for almost 40 years.  I'm not a professional software developer, 
web designer, nor sys admin, though I've done a little of all three.


       Comments?
       Best Wishes,
       Spencer


On 11/6/2012 10:06 AM, Drew wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Drew <rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>;
> *To: * edenw at gal3.com <edenw at gal3.com>; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org 
> <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>;
> *Subject: * Re: [GPSCC-chat] propositions
> *Sent: * Tue, Nov 6, 2012 6:05:56 PM
>
> I strongly agree with Eden and urge a no vote on 35.
>
> Green is GO!
>
> Drew
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss


-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20121106/514a684e/attachment.html>