Tools for a more pragmatic website

I believe one of the biggest problems about Internet is that there is too much information, and it is hard to find what is really good. When we come to build democratic plataforms, like this website, we have to deal with one of the main problems of democracy: too much people speaking (or writing), and no one listening. The consequence is that no real action happens. This website already has some tools for evaluation of ideas, so that we can highlight the ideas that seem better. But I think we could improve that. There´s an idea that can be a little anti-democratic, but it can help building a more pragmatic website: having some professional selection: specialists in several areas (but specialists with broad-minds, of course) to select good ideas and talk about them. We don´t have to end the completely democratic and open area, it could be just a new area, a new link, on the website. Other idea is to make a tool to put similiar ideas together, by tags or anything similar. No one, when submitting an idea, will read everything that was already submitted, and it´s very likely that somebody have already posted something similar. Of course that´s already a division by Categories, but improving that division would be helpful. Maybe we could open discussions about specific issues too, so everyone can post ideas, comments, as well as evaluating and voting the ideas already posted.

Vote
66%
34%
Votes
3
Views
3497

25 Comments

  • I would like to add that there are lots of posts that aren´t actual proposals, but just some reflections, thoughts, criticism. Thoughts are important, but I guess the main idea of this Website is to build real, pragmatic proposals, for a better world. We cannot get lost in thoughts. Maybe we could divide the Website in two areas, one where people are free to discuss everything they want, and a diffrerent area where people submit concrete proposals. Or maybe we could make a campaign, in the Webiste Home, for people not to submit thoughts that are not concrete proposals. By the way, I´m very sorry for any mistake made in the English language.

  • Oh, I think the Website could also include a "Report this idea as inappropiate", a tool that we can find in Youtube and other Websites ran by open public participation. On Youtube, for instance, we can Report that a video has a misleading text". This could help to avoid that ideas are posted in the wrong place, with a different goal than the proposed by this Website, and also helps avoiding Spam, inappropiate advertising, prejudice, etc.

  • Agree. Thank you. Working on it. (We are all volunteers with other jobs, so it takes time. Your comments certainly help us move things forward, faster.)

  • Thanks for your reply. I have a strong interest in this topic, I´m always thinking and researching about that. So, if you guys want me to help thinking ways of improving that areas, the pros and cons of every manner of doing this things, I would be happy to work along with you. But I really think that you´ve already made some very innovative tools.

  • One more thing: I´ve just realized that when we vote "NO", we can explain our reason, so, this is already one of the tools that I´ve proposed. Still, a "report inappropriate content" would be useful, maybe.

  • I object because... well, to tell you the truth, I nearly voted yes! I agree strongly with some of the ideas and sentiments expressed; but I think it's important, one thing you're leaving out guilhermearbache, that we not detract from the democratic nature of the process. I disagree with the notion of specialists guiding discussions UNLESS those specialists are democratically nominated, but if nominated by other specialists/site representatives, then the Web in the first place was a democratic medium of unprecedented caliber and this becomes a step down instead of a refinement and a step up. If you're proposing that everything be done democratically, let me know, and I will actually switch my vote (since, conveniently enough, I can actually do that, good decision, methinks, by the mods). I just wanted to make sure on that.

    By the way, a true democracy acknowledges the place of the common idiot in the public square. That is one thing I want to spell out here and now. There is a lot of talk by some of the site's more intelligent, educated commentators about the problems presented by people who are not posting things that don't meet the qualifications for an actual idea, or in general not understanding logic as well as the person who is posting the complaint. Be it said, as someone who qualified for MENSA on exactly one IQ test, I understand frustrations.

    But saying something against the participation of people we perceive as having less right to an opinion than us, as I sum the general nature of the complaint to be, is, apart from being the fallacious thinking of the human ego, a GIGANTIC step AWAY from democracy, global, national, or absolutely ANY.

    Personally, and because this is a recurring issue I may need to make this a separate thread more in favor of maintaining the status quo than anything else as far as legitimate ideas go, I would rather know that everyone counted, and deal with the fact that not everyone commenting can think on my level, know whether they're actually posting an idea or not, or recognize a hallmark of bad political or logical thinking than I ever would want to undermine everybody's ability to participate to the point of a noticeable difference in regards thereunto.

    Nevertheless, I applaud most everything else you had to say; yet while your notions are laudable, I will cite that I do find people comment on ideas; I do myself, matter of fact.

    And if I just took you the wrong way, and everything I've been saying in this exchange seems like things you agree with-- you read and you say "That's not what I meant!" - I actually strongly encourage you to clarify your arguments, as some of it sounded really good; the parts about threading ideas mirror closely my own post on a very similar note. I think I may have found someone I want to interact with a bit; but clarify your position concerning democracy, say you believe specialists should be elected out of the common pool or by some specific means you would specify at this point; say:

    1) You agree that all appointments should be democratically made, at the very least excepting site admins; (I am in favor of POW being an electable position)
    2) You agree that all people should be allowed to contribute, even if they do not comprehend the basics of debate, site infrastructure, logic, the modern political world, or any other intellectual object of understanding;
    3) You further agree to the effective equality and democratic nature of site members, whether or not they are granted extra powers and/or responsibilities for a period of time that supersede the de facto rights of other members as a result of democratic vote;

    (Say you agree with those three points wholly and without restraint, and I will switch my vote when I read your words and keep it that way as long as you do not contradict those points or argue something strongly to my disliking that is extraneous to what we've discussed here, which I have no reason to,

  • and keep in mind I am the second person to vote-- major vote-- or at any rate your own indication of agreement with the above three points will suffice)

    I agree that the site needs consolidation, and I can tell you're a new member b/c some of your ideas (i.e., "junk"/"inappropriate") are already in place, but you do seem to have some solid insights into how to move the site forward. I think it is important, nevertheless, in moving forward, to make sure we make solid strides toward ground we want to occupy.

    Thank you for your thinking; it was worth the time to consider, definitely.


    - PeaceandRightsHawk (name meant as an inversion of the American historical-political term "War Hawk," for a politician who believed in nationalism and aggression; I like to think I am as much a "hawk" for liberty and rights, which beget peace, as the Wark Hawks were in seeking war)

    the message this is a continuation of is as well written by PeaceandRightsHawk, who wrote his first novel, I will say as a matter of jest though it is true, at the age of 10

  • Excuse me if I seem a little disturbed by your dissertation. I do agree that this site is to propose and initiate global awareness and change. However, I joined because it was not subject to the usual "experts" in the arena being discussed. Elitist, and so called educated opinion have contributed to the global problems we are encountering. Maybe it will take a layman to take an unbiased look at the issues and propose simple, unaffected ideas to actually effect change. I notice you are studying political sciences. Already you are discounting the opinion of people within the geopolitical community.

    I joined this forum tonight and yes I have posted a couple of replies to well meant proposals. I agreed to disagree on an issue, and agreed with another proposal. I do intend to give great thought to practical solutions to some of the statements and when I am ready will publish them within this venue, a venue to which I feel privileged to belong. There will be many more members such as I and to discourage their ideas by relegating them to a separate forum on the site will denigrate the values the publishers were trying to elevate.

    I looked through the site and noticed that you have not proposed any solutions to the worlds issues. Maybe you should check your attitude at the door and start to participate instead of segregating the members in the same way governments ignore their electorate.

  • I object because of the reasons noted above which were posted as anonymous instead of my member number.

  • guilhermearbache, Kind Sir, I did believe you have been notified of the Global Democratic Constitution, IN FACT did you join this sight to support that in totality or make up more laws? Why do you continue to assert control and continue to provoke without disclosure of any real human constructive platform without thought to the whole rather than your own agendas. I have to ask, is this a class project of yours Sir? I have a need to understand your superiority complex and exactly what that is based on... I am not judging you, I am saying that your choice of platform here is welcome yet you choose to stand apart. Why? Please won't you join us in the solution and once we all acquire the wisdom and peace we have have longed for then the world will be a happier place. Question: Do you wish to be right or be happy? Do you wish to not ask your detailed questions if your needed to be part of the team to solve an issue? Are you willing to be whatever is needed for the greater good? I ask because I am. I wish and also have a need to understand you my fellow Global Democracy constituent.

  • My reply was noted above, but being new to the site I did not realize I was logged out, therefore my comments were as "anonymous". My member #000001666 and my post started with "excuse me if I seem". I stand by my comments & would never post as anonymous.

  • by actually using this site you are helping to solve the worlds proplems. Good ideas are being presented and you have the chance to vote on them. Have a look at most votes. If x number of people join and vote, those with power to change will sit up and take notice. The promo video on youtube makes this point loud and clear. The more poeple that stand up for a cause the more chance of it being heard and acted upon. With this site people from all over the world can vote at once. You can post your idea and get feedback from anyone around the globe. How good is that! Tell your friends.

  • also I just worked out that if you click on a persons name or number you get the profile of that person so you can see how old they are or where they are from as long as they included those deatils. If you click on Global Democracy at the top of the page you get information about yourself and your posts.

  • Canucky, I didn´t understand why you´ve said those things. Really. I´m posting some ideas, it´s not a class project, in fact, I´m spendig time in this. I want to be happy, as and end, and everyone to be happy (this should be the end of everyone), but being right is a way to get to that end (truth is not an end for me, is a means for that)... .I might have said some unnecessary things, but I don´t need anyone to bring those emotional speeches about "needing to do whatever it takes for the greater good". I ask you back: have you ever get into a "favela"? Do you know what is a "favela"? Have you ever seen a kid with a gun in his hands? Don´t come to tell me what I should be, only because I´ve, respectfully, talked about some ideas. You doesn´t sound like the same "CAnucky" that posted positive, pragmatic things in other topic (I´m not saying that just because you´ve criticized me, but because your critics went far beyond my ideas, and you´ve started to do some deeply wrong judgments about someone that you don´t know). Don´t say things about what you don´t know, this is one of the biggest problems of our planet. And don´t try to guess what are the real intentions of people that fast, with that superficiality. I´m sorry for writing that much about a personal issue, and I´m sorry for arguing, but I really didn´t see anything good, useful, on what you´ve just said. It distracted me from a more positive critic that someone else did (I´m not against critics, in fact, I´m a scientist, so I live to critic and be critiqued, including criticizing myself - if you see in the "Air purifier" post that I´ve made, I just made two possible objections about my own idea). Well, sorry for saying that much about myself, no one is interested, but at the moment that you, Canucky, started saying about me, I had to reply.

  • That’s not what I meant.

    First of all, I´m posting ideas that I, myself, have some doubts about. I´m not prepotentious or egocentric to think that my ideas can have limitations. This is, first of all, a kind of brainstorm.

    Second, I´ve made the mistake of not reading that Constitution (but that might be a mistake of the Website as well, because I haven´t found it here).

    Third, saying that this idea is anti-democratic is not right. I think this happened because of three main reasons :1- you guys got my idea wrong, 2- I didn´t do well on explaining it ( probably because my English skills are poor and I´m very prolix), and 3- you guys don´t seem to have a real notion of what is democracy and what are the boundaries of this website on making a democracy.
    This website will never be the “one” that represents all the world. First, you might be speaking from countries where everyone has Internet, everyone is literate and have computers. But check how many people have Internet, and how many people can write, in Brazil. Check the same numbers in Bostwana, and you´ll get what I´m trying to say.

    I know that this is not a reason for stopping the struggle for MORE democracy, and if I didn´t believe in that I´ll be telling my ideas for some political leaders or other people, not for the entire community (that we hope to grow until it becomes more CLOSE to represent the entire world).
    There´s not a real trade-off between “keeping idiots apart” and being more democratic. There is not, as well, any division between “idiots” and “clever” people. I´m not talking about IQ, I hear what homeless people have to say about politics, I hear people at the bars, I hear illiterates, I hear EVERYONE that I knew until this point, trying to figure out what they think, WHY they think that way and what can I learn from that. That includes a belicist crazy US soldier and a racist drunk men that I met in California. That includes billionaires and hobos. I´ve never underestimated anyone, not even those totally crazy people that come to us in the streets (that is very likely to happen in some streets of my city, Sao Paulo).
    This idea of making a board of “specialists” is just ONE of billion ideas that me and any of you guys can have to IMPROVE the WEBSITE, not to destroy it and its democratic goals. If the idea destroys these democratic values, I will be the first one to vote AGAINST it (in this case, I would just delete the whole idea, because it was posted by myself – and I will probably delete this post, maybe I will make another one, more well-written, after we finish that discussion and you guys have the opportunity to act on your right to answer me). It is a problem of all Internet and all COLLABORATIVE WEBSITES that people post things that are not related, that are not useful, that doesn´t have anything to do with those issues. And some ideas can be worse than useless. Have you guys already thought about what will you do when somebody come with racist, belicist,discriminating ideas? In Youtube, this can be reported as “inappropriate content”. Is Youtube anti-democratic for that reason? I don´t think so.
    The idea of having that board of “specialists” might no be good. But we should, as DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE, at least think about it. Will that be anti-democratic? Maybe. That´s the first problem of that idea, as you guys said, and I had said the same thing before you guys made all those unnecessary accusations. Who would be those guys, is the second problem. When you say they could be elected, it might be a good idea, and it would be the only way to do that, if this should be done at all (I have to say again: I just sent the idea, I´ve never said that it would improve the website instead of worsening it). The main topic of my post is : “Tools for a more pragmatic website”. If you are afraid that being pragmatic can be undemocratic, well, that´s what Websites like this, democratic political

  • .......(CONTINUING)..... systems, and every means of collective decision are made for: a way of making decisions with PARTICIPATION OF EVERYONE (or what they call “representativeness” in political science), at one hand, and USEFULLNESS (or what they call “governability) at the other hand. If you forget about one of those two because you’re afraid that it will harm the other, you won´t get nowhere. If it really harms the other, okay, let´s make it another way, I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO AGREE WITH THAT.
    Is important to say, as well, that this board is made to HIGHLIGHT good ideas, not to take bad ideas to the THRASH. AND EVERYONE, WHEN COMES TO THE WEBSITE, CAN CHOOSE: will I see the highlighted ideas by the board? In fact, we could make personal profiles of EVERYONE where they could HIGHLIGHT good ideas that they´ve seen (so, . Can we be more democratic than that?
    We could build alternative ways of RANKING and HIGHLIGHTING ideas on the website. Why not at least think about that?
    So, it almost offends me when you ask me if I have any kind of compromise with democracy. I have to say: there are two types of democracy. One is the DIRECT, PARTICIPATIVE DEMOCRACY. The other one is the REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
    I end asking: why would someone try to turn this website into a less democratic thing? Just to get criticized (and maybe coursed) by the other participants? If I´m provocative, it might be good, because I´ve experienced other tries of DIGITAL DEMOCRACY that, for lack of provokeness (probably a word that doesn´t exist, but you got what I mean, right?), and lack of a more complex view of DEMOCRACY (that is never, never, against democracy, on the contrary, is to strengthen it). I don´t want this to happen with that website, and I´m not doing this for any selfish reason like self-promotion, and I will simply not answer anymore to anyone that insinuates that again. Discuss my ideas, don´t try to guess the intentions behind them, neither the person behind those intentions. If the ideas are bad, I´m humble enough to understand it, for sure. I didn´t ask for a psychologist, nor I´m here to be interrogated about my commitment to democracy). I just put some ideas and we should discuss them. Okay? Thanks for the remarks (for the ones that weren´t unnecessarily aggressive and discriminating). And I´m sorry for any mistake, I´m just trying to help .

  • Two more things: for the person that said that I haven´t posted any ideas for improving the world, I think you could explain that. I´ve posted two ideas besides that one, and they seem to be in the right place. They might not be good, but a democratic FORUM (because that´s is what this site is, first of all - is not an instance of DECISIONS, but an instance of IDEAS), is made exactly for discussing ideas. Second, the "Peace and Rights Hawk" was contradictious, because at one hand you require that I READ THE CONSTITUTION (that I still haven´t found), and at the other hand you require me to agree that everyone have the right to post their ideas, even when they don´t know about the website. So, what kind of democracy are you guys planning to do? Is it a democracy where people can write everything that they want, but nothing happens? A democracy where you can post, but people will course you, accuse you, because you haven´t read the god damn CONSTITUTION? And what the hell were your "conditions"? I´m not a politician asking for votes, I´m a human being trying to COLLABORATE. I don´t care if you vote for my idea, I will care if it is a good idea, if it´s proven not to be, I prefer that you keep your vote against it. But if your vote is predicated on what you think about me and the commitment that YOU think that I don´t have with democracy, I think you´re deeply wrong my friend. And what the hell is "PeaceandRightsHawk, who wrote his first novel, I will say as a matter of jest though it is true, at the age of 10"... Self-promotion?

    I´m sorry if now I´m being aggressive, but I think I´m not the one that should be told to "check your attitude at the door and start to participate". I entered here with an idea, in fact, with a group of ideas that I put together in this post. I offered myself to help. Someone was very kind, others hade made some good remarks but have accused me unnecessarily. Canucky just accused me. I´m tired of that. Now is your time to explain what you guys have said and what did you guys think about my replies. I´ve read everything that everyone of you wrote down, and I´m getting late to do other stuff that I should be doing. If you guys really know what is a democracy, you will answer me appropriately, without trying to judge and accuse somebody that you don´t know at all and we can finish that arguing. Peace and happiness for all of us! And I hope we can start a better relation after this crazy discussion.

  • Oh, just to make clear, all the 4 messages above are from "guilhermearbache (Brazil)".. I think it is easy to notice that, but just to make it sure.... Have a good night (or a good day)!

  • Guilhermearbache- No, no. First of all let me cite you positively for standing up for yourself so well; you stood down a good many people who in my own opinion were going too far bashing you, and so far no one's answered, albeit, this is the first day I've checked the post since, myself, so, maybe they will too.

    No hard feelings; I think you misunderstood some of the things I said. As I said, if I had you wrong, please let me know. You have gone a long way toward that, though you did not answer directly; I take it at this point that you do want the positions to be democratically elected, which was my main point; and in answer to your question about what would require me to vote in favor (I still haven't voted, Guilher):

    1) You agree that all appointments should be democratically made, at the very least excepting site admins; (I am in favor of POW being an electable position)
    2) You agree that all people should be allowed to contribute, even if they do not comprehend the basics of debate, site infrastructure, logic, the modern political world, or any other intellectual object of understanding;
    3) You further agree to the effective equality and democratic nature of site members, whether or not they are granted extra powers and/or responsibilities for a period of time that supersede the de facto rights of other members as a result of democratic vote;

    and there you go. All I did was copy and paste; it was the end of the first message.

    As to the bit about having written my first novel at age 10, you're misunderstanding me again, albeit this time more understandably: it was not self-promotion, but rather an attempt at making light over having answered at length what was then about as long as my own posting total. I can overwrite something easily, and I was poking fun at myself to make it easier; no pride there, believe it or not. You'd have to get to know me.

    But don't go so hard on ME; my comments were all fair, as far as I'm concerned. I really did need those things addressed, and yeah, as a whole everyone went too hard on you, the moralizing bit I would rather think I had not contributed to myself; but on the positive note, your rating will go up if you say you agree with the three numbered points up above there a little ways.

    By the way, I wish I hadn't gone into as much detail about letting anyone answer; I took you to be somewhat of an elitist snob, one arguing against everyone's participation, but if you'll agree to my three points I'll call it good as said even if I don't bother (I probably will to try to finish glossing things over here), I'll consider myself to have taken you wrong and just tell you now in advance not to worry about it, as that's what I care about. You do yourself a credit talking to homeless people; I have a homeless friend, and it's a long story I might save for another time if you have interest on another occasion, whom I don't even know for sure is still alive, but long story short, I never knew a stronger or more positive-thinking man: anyone who smelled half as much so smelled falsely and had a golden life and was usually such a one that I had doubts that positive talk would last in the midst of any actual strife; but Jack, my friend from the streets, was surely no quitter, and I have treasured the something-like yearly occasions on which I've run into him, though now it has been two.

    Still do want to bounce ideas off you, Guille. Most people may have trashed you, but in my defense I challenged you, and I think you might have taken it better if it hadn't been an onslaught after that.

    The three points above you have but to say you agree to, they're there, I think you were tired or something, save for how well you were writing at the time, because they couldn't have been but hard to miss; and by the way, it is nice to meet someone else who can write a novel, I say with tongue in cheek. No hard feelings, Guille.

    Thank you for participat

  • (cont'd) participating in a democratically traditional fashion: in answer to a brawl, you started brawling.

    - PeaceandRightsHawk (it's almost certainly logged me out by now)
    mentalhealthcivilrights.com
    mentalhealthcivilrights@yahoo.com

    By the way, if you have any further questions you'd rather address privately, shoot me an email. There's a reason I almost always list it. Feel free to in the future, too. Anyone else feel free to check into me too; same info is on my profile.

  • No hard feelings from me as well.. I just needed to address all the critiques. I do agree with those 3 points. More than that, I didn´t say clearly, in the former posts, that I agree, because I´m still not sure if the idea of having people selecting ideas is a good idea (if it was so clearly a good idea it wouldn´t be so trashed by everyone.... But the most important for me is not to vote up that specific idea, or the whole idea in this post. The main argument is that we need to address the difficulties that I´m pointing here. I don´t have all the answers for those problems. I wasn´t even thinking about clever people against the "dumbs", or any kind of intellectual elite against the illiterates... I´m thinking about trying to highlight good ideas and making them happen, because if we don´t do this, this whole Website will be useless... Thanks for your answer, and I´m sorry if I misunderstood some things you´ve said, but all you guys pissed me off for accusing me, totally in advance, of trying to destroy the democratic basis of this website, since it is the main value of it. I never said about people being forbidden of participating. At most, what I´ve suggested, is that some people could have more power to select the best ideas in a SEPARATE AREA (without destroying the main area where everyone posts). Besides, I think all of you have focused too much on this specific idea of having "specialists", without paying attention to the whole idea, the bigger issue about having a better web-site.

  • I will get back to you on all that when it is no longer 4 am and my head has cleared up, but for now I was just going to let you know that in response to your assent to my conditions, as promised, I voted, and I voted for the idea. I also changed my rating up two more notches, though I need to re-read everything before I can say that's final. But you'll note your ratings went considerably up on this post; while lots of people tore you down in commentary, I am only the third person to actually vote.
    Good luck with your endeavors on this site. I will say for now that your exact last comment raised some worthy points, and the concept of making the site more organized and less of a jumbled mess does seem like a worthy point. Thanks for your reply, I am glad we got that straightened out guilher.

  • Yes, I'm glad for that too and I thank you for your replies as well. There´s a liong way until a real global democracy, but it starts with discussions like those.

  • Woot, I will ceartinly put this to good use!

  • Last one to utilize this is a roettn egg!

Similar Ideas: