The Round Table

Topics:
Project

Can we have a Round Table for Democracy?

The display, when I enter the site, would be something like this:

                                 King
                               Augustin
                           _______________
                          /               \
                         /                 \
                        /                   \
   Sir William Rickards/                     \
                      /                       \Sir Jameson Quinn (3
                     /                         \
                    /                           \
                   /                             \
                  /                               \
                  |           DEMOCRACY           |
                  |                               |
                  |               0               |
                  |                               |Lady Lyn Carson (2
                  |          ROUND TABLE          |
                  |                               |
                  \                               /
                   \                             /
                    \                           /
                     \                         /Sir Fred Gohlke
  2) Sir Hamid Mohseni\                       /
                       \                     /
                        \                   /
                         \                 /
                          \_______________/

The numbers displayed next to some knights are the number of posts those knights have posted since my last visit. When William Rickards logs in, the numbers displayed for him would be different.

If I click on Sir Jameson Quinn, I get a display showing the threads of Quinn's three most recent posts. They can all be on the same thread, or they can be on different threads.

   Corruption (Attacking)
   Political Parties (Defending)
   Lobbying (Defending)

I can click on one of the links to read the post or I can return to the Round Table. If I click on one of the items, I go to the indicated post. At that point, I can enter a new post on this thread (usually a response to the material just read). When the post is finished, the system asks me if my post is "attacking" or "defending" the theme of the thread, so it can label my post.

While at the chosen post (Jameson Quinn's), I can vote on the poll if one exists. If there is no poll and I think one is warranted, I can start a poll with the differences on the thread's theme as choices. Polls separate the vote totals of knights and guests:

            Favor Lobby Limits          Oppose Lobby Limits

Knights              7                            1

Guests              23                            6

When I've finished with Quinn's post, I can return to the previous page (in which case the link I clicked is gone and there are two left).

At the Round Table, I can click on the button in the center of the table and it gives me a list of active threads. I can choose one of the threads, go to it, and post on it. The number of active threads is limited by the King, and the limit can be changed as the King sees fit. This button also provides a list of current strategy sessions (explained below).

When I'm at a post, whether by way of one of the knight's posts or directly from the Round Table, I can, if the thread I'm following is developing a branch, start a new thread, or ask the king for permission to start a new thread, explaining the branch that makes it appropriate. I may also, when it seems appropriate, ask the king to merge two threads that have developed similar and compatible characteristics.

There are a limited number of seats at the table. At first, we'll invite folks to join us, but, once the table is full, the desire for a seat will increase. Casual guests can navigate and post the same way the knights do, and when new seats at the table are going to be granted, the selection will be based on the quality of the guest's contribution to the active threads.

At the Round Table, I can click on the King and:

  1. request a new thread.
  2. request the merging of two threads.
  3. report an unknightly post.
  4. suggest a strategy session for the knights to plan an actual 'attack', by action in some small town, community, or other venue, to achieve a goal identified in one of the threads and carrying significant poll support. Guests may not participate in the strategy session but may offer suggestions through posts on the thread.
  5. ask the king to order an assault planned in a strategy session. Each knight mounts an attack in any appropriate manner (through the internet, in the public press) to inspire public action to resolve an issue. Knights who oppose the attack should be excused from the assault. The king can encourage guests to join the fray, using tactics laid out in the strategy session.

Of course, all knights can do anything I can do.

Yeah, I know. It ain't democratic. But it ain't a government, either.

Comments

Sir Fred Gohlke

You, Sir, deserve to be called "Sir". But I ain't no King. Simply call me God! ;)

I like your ability to do creative thinking. It shows above and in all your policy proposals, which are all very original and off-beat.

I couldn't implement the interface you suggest above, because, depending exactly on what you have in mind, it would take too much of my limited time in order to develop the necessary software. I am not lying when I say that I work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (that's ~85 hours work week!). Still, the site is not perfect. I see the problems that you are trying to solve, and I agree with you. To a large extent, beside the interface, what you propose above is already what we are trying to do.

I'd like to link your proposal above to your own paper on Practical Democracy. You write: "There are a limited number of seats at the table. At first, we'll invite folks to join us, but, once the table is full, the desire for a seat will increase." That's exactly what we would achieve, using the already existing software, with the proposed online experiment with Practical democracy: http://en.minguo.info/blogs/augustin/online_experiment_with_practical_de... Instead of having a king and a selected few at the round table, we'd have an elected triumvirate. The Practical Democracy experiment is something that we can start right now, with the tools we already have. See my blog.

It occurred to me that I have not clearly written about the various goals that I am trying to attain, with regard to community organization. It's relevant to what you discuss above, because you seem to perceive some of the same shortcomings as I do. Simply allow me to highlight some of the key aspects of the vision I have.

Contribute something positive to our society

This is the end goal. I spent a lot of time, effort and money to develop and maintain this web site, and I did not do so because I seek financial gain, fame nor to boost my own ego. The ultimate goal for this web site is to achieve something significant and positive that would benefit our whole society. This is a very ambitious goal, and needless to say, we are a very, very far way off from reaching it. Still, I perceive many of the same problems as you do and building this web site is my little contribution in promoting solutions.

If we exclude spambots and other kinds of spammers, all the people who have ever joined this site all shared the same desire to improve our society. This is something that makes me very happy. I would like this site to be able to fully harness this strong thirst for actual change in our world.

All of the provisions discussed below are all strategies towards that goal.

Be open and inclusive

Welcome every one, regardless of their political or religious views. Under the provisions discussed below regarding a peaceful, respectful debate, I personally welcome everyone to express itself here. For example, I am not a monarchist at all, but should a monarchist come by, I would allow it to express its views just like everyone else is allowed to, with access to a personal blog, a Personal Book area, etc. Left wingers, right wingers, progressives, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. are all welcome here.

Encourage respectful dialogue

I will not repeat here what is already written there:
http://en.minguo.info/wiki/terms_of_use

Highlight agreement over disagreement

Let me be very clear: it is perfectly OK for any two people to disagree. Disagreement is a natural occurrence and properly handled, it can be healthy.

However, I want to do everything I can to avoid sorry flame wars that are so common throughout the internet, especially on a political web site like this one. A friend of mine, with whom I agree on 99% of the issues, was so caught up in the 1% he couldn't make me agree with him, that he went away from my home, slamming the door, and burning all bridges behind him. It is a strong tendency that we all have, myself included, when replying to someone, to disregard all the points on which we agree, and only highlight the points of disagreement and exclusively reply on those divisive points.

This confrontational attitude helps nobody, only serves to make people upset at each other, and certainly does not empower us to band together to actually make a difference in our fucked up society.

So, again, diverging points of view are welcome, disagreement are expected to occur, but I want to organize the site in a way that helps people to figure out the common ground on which to stand.

I want to unite people. Look at US politics: there is certainly no need for further divisions!

We already know what a liberal and a conservative would disagree on. I'd be much more interested in figuring out how much they can agree on.

Increase the signal/noise ratio

I already wrote about increasing the signal to noise ratio:
http://en.minguo.info/blogs/augustin/focussing_discussion_high_signalnoi...
Just about every web site out there, and search engines as well, favour new content over good content.

Allow individuals to present the best of themselves, for example with the use of personal books, which can be edited, completed and improved over time.

Facilitate teamwork

Allow the community to come together and work in unison, working for common goals.
The use of wiki will be encouraged so that our collectively written articles can be a shining beacon, attracting ever more like-minded users to this community.

Promote better voting system

Here we go back to the very origins of this web site, which was originally created as a voting tool with delegable proxy. The proxy feature is currently disabled but I carry on improving the voting feature, featuring better voting methods (approval voting, score voting, emocracy, etc.) that should replace our current broken system.

Have a bigger, more active community

It's obvious that this site could do with a bigger, more active community. I'll continue working to make it happen, so that a greater number can achieve greater things. I hope that by organizing this site differently than other political blogs, people will slowly start to notice the difference and be drawn to join. Achieving all of the above is also a strategy towards that goal.

Building Minguo

Thanks for your comprehensive comments, particularly at a time when you should have long since been in bed. I appreciate you taking the time to respond so completely.

re: your policy proposals ... are all very original and off-beat.

Thank you, but, I wonder; have I not laid a rational basis for the conclusions I've reached?

Forgive me for the question, but it's very important to me. The heart of all my proposals is that they make sense. I don't understand why they don't 'grab' more people, but the fact is, they don't. So the question is, wherein have I failed? Is it just that the old adage applies? "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." Please give me any guidance you can offer on this point.

re: it would take too much of my limited time in order to develop the necessary software.

I was quite sure that would be the case. As I mentioned, it started in my mind as a joke. When I filled it out, it made a modicum of sense - except that it did not fit with what you have done. I had to describe it, though. It was toooooo kooooool.

re: "... the desire for a seat will increase." That's exactly what we would achieve, using the already existing software, with the proposed online experiment with Practical democracy.

I've read the suggestion for using the PD concept at Minguo. The only problem I see with it is the timing. Choices (election of representatives) are not necessary until there is disagreement.

Right now, everyone on Minguo is happy. As with all the sites we visit, the owner of the site is the sole arbiter of the conduct on the site (which is as it should be). As far as I know, those who visit the site are satisfied with that arrangement.

You want to encourage the site users to participate in setting the goals for the site and the means of achieving them. That's unusual, and, because of the technical implications, it'd difficult. Since it's unusual, it needs a supporting structure.

If we are going to choose representatives, we must first have conflict. We need to know who stands for what, in terms of Minguo and its objectives and operation. I'll admit that I have some areas of disagreement with the current structure, but I lack the technical expertise to suggest alternatives (Round Tables excepted, of course).

If we are to foment dissent (aw, it ain't that bad. I just like the phrase.), we need a point of focus. We come to Minguo with varying interests and flit around to site in response to our own stimuli. There is no focus to our visits. If I'm to know what someone else thinks, I need a place where that person's views are described, and it needs to be a place I'm naturally inclined to visit.

This is one of the weaknesses of the site. As you say on your blog:

However, the downside of this is that a book page and the places where discussion regarding the said book page are dis-jointed. They are not directly linked together. I'd like to make it easy for any member to comment on the content of a book page, and for the author of the book page to be made aware of such comments, and for the discussion pages and the book pages to be somehow linked together. I haven't yet decided on how best to implement this, without sacrificing the original goal of increasing the signal/noise ratio.

What is true for the book pages is equally true for other points of focus. How can we encourage suggestions as to Minguo's goals and operation? I don't really know. I don't think it's the kind of question most folks are ready to jump on. I think it depends on how it's proposed.

re: The ultimate goal for this web site is to achieve something significant and positive that would benefit our whole society.

I can see and understand that. Yet, being all things to all people is difficult (to say the least). At the moment, my primary area of interest is the political degradation of my homeland. I'd like to examine how it happened and discuss ways to correct it. I don't believe there should be revolutionary change; we can't change the whole sysem in one fell swoop. We need to conceive an evolutionary change; something that starts small and spreads.

In terms of Minguo, there is probably only a small portion of the site that appeals to me.

My primary interest is in political discourse with thoughtful people because I believe that is the only way we can address and resolve our political problems. Unfortunately, from your point of view, political discourse is undesirable because it is likely to generate a great deal of noise. Is there a way to mute the noise and enhance the thoughtfulness. The only one I've seen is where users mark offensive posts.

Let me say one thing, right here. What you have done is remarkable. You've built the core and I hope you are successful in building a site that benefits society.

Your provisions for building a useful site are excellent. You are already aware of the difficulties, so I'll confine myself to a couple of comments. To build a bigger, more active community and to have that community come together, we need points of focus - points that attract the interest of the majority of visitors, guests, and, ultimately, participants. Now, here, I'm getting beyond my depth, but I think we need a banner, something that rings a bell in people's minds. Not necessarily the Round Table, but something like that, that everyone recognizes and that excites a vision in their minds. I mention the Round Table because everyone is familiar with it. I think, if we can come up with something like that, that fits easily on the site, it will be a great help in, not only building traffic, but in attracting people who want to help make things better.

Re: "original and off-beat".

Re: "original and off-beat". I hope you didn't take it the wrong way! I meant it as a compliment. You have a lot of imagination and qualities that other people, sadly, lack.

Unfortunately, "making sense" is not sufficient... and is not even a requirement (!!) to succeed in politics in today's world. That's one of the fundamental issues that we are facing today. That's precisely why I want do build this site differently than other sites. I want to make it so that what makes sense becomes much more visible than the rest.

If you have failed, then I have failed too in similar ways. But I am not giving up and eventually, we'll succeed. All the decisions I make with regard to the organization and development of this web site are strategic decisions towards success. I will measure success not in terms of audience, but in terms of meaningful impact on our society. The former (audience) does not necessarily lead to the latter (making a difference), but properly channelled, mass participation can facilitate change. That's what we are working on!

political discourse

You say: "from your point of view, political discourse is undesirable because it is likely to generate a great deal of noise."

That's very, very far from what I mean. I must edit the comment that made you think so: can you point to me where you read that?

On the contrary, I want to enhance political discourse. that's what we are having here and I am happy for it. Increasing signal is not stifling discourse, on the contrary. It is to elevate it.

I'll try to write something to clarify. While future members would be welcome to exchange as many comments as they wish, what I care most is the quality of those exchanges and the outcome. More on this later.

.

Making Sense

Good Morning, Augustin

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the opportunity you've given me and am very grateful for your support. I think you and I have much in common, and I hope to be able to contribute to the work you are doing.

It's sad, to me, that "making sense" is neither sufficient nor even required in attempting to communicate with the world. As a matter of fact I'm working on a new page of thought that examines this phenomenon. Unfortunately, even with the insights I've gained in this regard, I'm unable to reach through them to touch others. On the fortunate side, there are a few people, like you, who understand what I've written, and they have different talents than I. I think, if we are able to combine our talents, we'll be able to reach further than any of us can by ourselves.

Too much to reply to...

Thank you very much Fred for your thoughtful comments. You touch on many topics that are relevant to the core of what this web site is and what it aims to be. To provide a comprehensive reply would fill a whole book, or at least a very lengthy blog entry, which I couldn't write today.

Seeing things from your perspective, you can approach this site in three different ways:

(1) Your personal use of this site. I have already delivered on my promise of offering a repository for all your thoughts and writings. I love what you did with your book so far (I really do!) and I certainly hope you will continue building on it (e.g. import the best articles you've written in your old blog wither-democracy, or some Q&A from Quora). You barely need me any more for that and you don't need a community. As I told you already, I do believe that you have something valuable to share and I'd hate for your thoughts to be lost, even the small parts I do not necessarily agree with. I hope you properly evaluate the long term value of the opportunity you have here.

(2) I think I'll write a blog like "State of Minguo address". I have great hopes for this site, and I know it will eventually be very successful and influential. You might well be one of the key players to help me make it happen. Or not. It's up to you. More on that later.

(3) Another point that I'll address in more depth later: the site is supposed to be organized around "community projects". You and me could work together to build such a project on a topic we both care about. The point (1) above is about your personal use of the site, which is the only thing I promised that I could deliver, and I did. This point (3) is about you and me and others to come to take coordinated efforts to build something that will eventually amount to something. This site aims to facilitate this kind of collective effort towards a common goal. You already have a pretty good idea of the issues we both care about and we both agree on. The question now is: how do we build on this common ground and do something constructive together that will be of value to the larger society?

Working Toward Working Together (if we're not already)

I plan to help you, to the full extent of my ability. The biggest stumbling block I'm running across is our differences, because I don't know how to circumvent them. I'm quite sure they stem from my lack of understanding and awareness of modern communication techniques, which, combined with my lack of familiarity with the site, incline me to duck.

The biggest part of the problem I'm experiencing stems from my anxiety. I'm in too big a hurry. I'm head and shoulders above where I was on January 20th, when I visited Minguo in connection with a search I was doing. We've made pretty good progress since then. I should quit worrying.

You have, indeed, delivered on your promise, and I thank you for it. For the moment, I think the best plan of attack is for me to continue the task I've started. I'm going to get back to working on the new page. It's going to take me a while because I hope to remove an aspect of the basic idea that is apt to confuse the issue.

old articles.

You wrote: "I think the best plan of attack is for me to continue the task I've started."

Yes, I agree. This is your primary "mission": complete the outline of your thoughts, in your personal book, so that it's available for future readers.
Shouldn't older articles that you posted elsewhere be imported first? I can help with that. You'd save time if instead of re-writing everything, you just copied into here the best articles you already wrote and posted at your old wither-democracy blog or at Quora.

In any case, take your time. There is no hurry as far as I am concerned.

Political discourse

First of all: thank you, Fred! Thanks to your participation, this web site is already better than it was a month ago. I always use your feedback to incrementally improve the software, the content and the organization of the web site. Also, you give me an opportunity to clarify my vision for this web site, so that future members understand better what we are aiming for. Here is how I would measure success for this web site:
http://en.minguo.info/book/augustin/the_measure_of_success

You wrote:

To build a bigger, more active community and to have that community come together, we need points of focus - points that attract the interest of the majority of visitors, guests, and, ultimately, participants. Now, here, I'm getting beyond my depth, but I think we need a banner, something that rings a bell in people's minds. Not necessarily the Round Table, but something like that, that everyone recognizes and that excites a vision in their minds. I mention the Round Table because everyone is familiar with it. I think, if we can come up with something like that, that fits easily on the site, it will be a great help in, not only building traffic, but in attracting people who want to help make things better.

Yes! You hit the nail right on the head!
This is what we need to achieve, and unfortunately, I don't have the answer to everything. Your feedback in that regard is valuable.

The Community manifesto was supposed to be one such point of focus:
http://en.minguo.info/manifesto
As of today, the Manifesto is in a very sorry state, neglected. But I still believe that the idea has some potential and I still want to pursue it, one way or another . Do not judge the Manifesto from what it is today, but from the potential that it has. Your Practical Democracy provided me with solutions to stumbling blocks I've experienced. That's why I still think we should still consider the proposed PD experiment: we'd be combining the best of what each of us has to offer.

My primary interest is in political discourse with thoughtful people because I believe that is the only way we can address and resolve our political problems.

Yes, I want to facilitate meaningful political discourse, and elevate the level of debate. I'll write in more details about it later.

I am especially interested in the output or outcome of such discourse: writing meaningful, quotable articles, bringing people together into doing something cooperatively.

As a starting point, I want to denounce what poses as "political discourse" nowadays : bickering, name calling, finger pointing, divisive comments, misrepresentation, lies, etc. Minguo, as a political web site, has the sorry potential to become the venue of such destructive discourse. That's why, from the get go and before the crowd arrives, I would like us to address the fallacies found in political discourse. I will post a quote from an email from Jan Kok which exemplifies what we are up against and what I would like to prevent here.

At the moment, my primary area of interest is the political degradation of my homeland. I'd like to examine how it happened and discuss ways to correct it. I don't believe there should be revolutionary change; we can't change the whole system in one fell swoop. We need to conceive an evolutionary change; something that starts small and spreads.

I totally would like to support you in this . It is right along the lines of what this web sites aims to achieve!

Practically speaking, with regard to the two of us, the most important question now is: how can the both of us use this web site to start working on something small, a stepping stone for something bigger and meaningful?

A Possible Idea

Good Afternoon, Augustin

Your message deserves a long and thoughtful response, but I spent so much time on another post this morning, but I'm going to cut it very short. It is clear that there are a multitude of topics open before us. I'm going to take your closing paragraph as a starting place.

Please consider a slightly different approach on the Home Page. At present, it's laid out like something this:

Express your opinion better, and vote using better voting systems

minguo.info is promoting democracy and better voting systems.
Visit your personal polling station, vote and express your opinion on issues you deeply care about!
The whole site and its content is being shaped by its members.
People of all political persuasions are welcome.

As a community, we try to explore answers to the following three questions:

    What are our society's current problems and challenges?
    What do we want instead?
    How to get from here to there?

    Read more

Would it be more appealing to newcomers if we greet people with something like this:

Welcome to Minguo, the Realm of the People

Can you help us piece together the keys to a better society. We've started, but we need fresh minds to uncover errors we've made and to open new vistas we haven't imagined.

It's not easy. Your contributions will be examined, just like ours are. If they stand the scrutiny of thoughtful people, you will soon be ranked among the thinkers who are helping create a better world.

Here are a few of the things we're working on, right now:

The Meaning of Democracy            Threats to the Environment
The Flaws in Party Politics         Companies Too Big To Fail
Harnessing Self-Interest            Separating Political Power

Not verbatim, you understand. I'm just trying to outline an idea. It's going to need a lot of thought and work. For example, my use of 'errors' is very poor. I just couldn't come up with a better term on short notice. The six items at the bottom would be links to threads focused on the listed topics.

The idea is to invite, intrigue and challenge newcomers. We aren't telling them, we need them to tell us. At the same time, we lay the implication that we don't want nonsense (and will delete it????), we want thoughtful people. We also hint that there's an 'innner circle'(??) they might be invited to join.

Among the problems I anticipate are the fact that you prefer blogs to threads. I don't like blogs. They strike me as egocentric. I'd rather focus on ideas. However, the site is structured around blogs and changing that may be non-trivial.

Wikis!

Your suggestions are good and I am considering them.
Meanwhile you still don't realize the potential of wikis.
Blogs are just that.... discussion threads on a topic started by one member.
But if you don't like the egocentric nature of blogs, you should delve into the wiki, which in the least egocentric content type there could be, and also the content that I intend to emphasise and put in front as I hinted here: http://en.minguo.info/book/augustin/the_measure_of_success

Discussion threads are part of the process through which wiki articles get build. The wiki articles are the useful, informative outcome of members' discussions. Wikipedia became one of the 5 most important web sites on the web for a reason!

So, using your proposition, I'd link not to discussion threads, but to wiki pages.... which in turn can link to all the discussion threads there exist on the topic.
But the wiki pages must be well developed first, inspiring and informative.

I think we can start a community project around the idea of "Political discourse", and start developing relevant wiki pages on the topic. Given our conversation above, I think we both are onto something. Most people are disgusted by politics nowadays, not just the two of us. If we point out the flaws of political discourse, and offer an alternative, I think people might notice.

Hmmmmm...

You're right. The following page is completely uninspiring:
http://en.minguo.info/node/27
I'll get something started soon so that we can start improving it together.

Redesigning the introduction to minguo

Fred, you made some good observations above.
I'll get to it:
http://en.minguo.info/blogs/augustin/redesigning_the_introduction_to_minguo

Action Planning?

Good Morning, Augustin

You're right. I don't understand Wikis. Fortunately, I don't have to, because you do. I do understand Meaningful Success, as you describe it, and think it an outstanding goal. Even so, it's important to catch folk's eye - and their thoughts.

One thing I failed to mention yesterday is 'action planning'. I'm not quite sure how to say this, but I believe you want the site to be more than 'just talk'. Once an idea gains sufficient justification, would it be a good idea to talk about how it can be accomplished?

from blog to wiki to action

Hello Fred!

A wiki article is an article that is collaboratively written. It has no single author, but is authored by all the members who participated in writing it. Wiki pages start small and uninteresting, but build up value as they grow older.

Do you ever consult Wikipedia?

Re 'action planning': yes!
The workflow would go from discussing ideas in blogs, to drafting and improving wiki articles, to including action plans, lobbying ideas, outreach strategies, or whatever we come up with...

But we can only start where we're currently at, so catching folk's eyes is primordial, especially at this stage.

Do you ever consult Wikipedia?

Do you ever consult Wikipedia?

Wikipedia

Yes, I read things in Wikipedia, but I don't write anything there. What I write are opinions, they cannot be considered valid until they are examined, critiqued, and molded by thoughtful minds.

wikipedia

Yes, our content is not suitable for wikipedia. I was curious to know if you ever used it to get information.

My point was the point I was making there:
http://en.minguo.info/blogs/augustin/the_potential_potency_of_a_wiki_as_...

It is not by chance that the only non-commercial web site among the top-ten web sites (or even the top 20 or more) is a wiki. Depending on sources, wikipedia.org is ranked 5th or 6th by traffic of all web sites on the internet. The only web sites that consistently rank higher than wikipedia are internet giants: Google, Facebook, Youtube and Yahoo. Some sources put baidu.com, a Chinese-language search engine intermittently ahead of wikipedia.

In terms of traffic, Wikipedia comes way ahead of twitter and many other commercial giants.

Wikipedia is competing amongst giants. Yet, is is owned by a non-profit organization. It never carried any paid advertising. It solely owes its strength and survival to countless anonymous supporters and wiki-editors worldwide: they are the unsung heroes who have contributed the entirety of the Free Encyclopedia's content. They also support the wikipedia foundation and keep the whole structure afloat with donations.

This is the power — not potential but fully realised — of a dedicated community of selfless individuals working for a common good: the provision of a universal encyclopedia freely available to all.

But:

Although Wikipedia is a wiki and a very popular one, it is completely the wrong medium for activism. It is regimented by a series of community-approved rules which include such strictly enforced guidelines as:
- Neutral point of view.
- No original research.
- Dubious rules regarding notability (with, as we have seen above, a very strong US bias).

So, what we need is
a strong wiki with a positive agenda;
a wiki with a very strong pro-humanitarian point of view;
a wiki where original research is the rule rather than something forbidden;
a wiki where lack of notability is good reason to cover the topic even more (See the Forgotten Ones project);
a wiki where fleeting information can be permanently stored.

discussion

The workflow would go from discussing ideas in blogs, to drafting and improving wiki articles, to including action plans, lobbying ideas, outreach strategies, or whatever we come up with...

Again, discussion is an important starting point, but if we stop there, we'll miss our goals.

Who suggested stopping?

Of course the goal is productive action, but deciding what that action should be comes first, and that takes discussion.

In short...

... we fully agree!

:)