WashingtonWatch.com
Washingtonwatch.com is a site I became privy to by watching the Geekbrief.com video podcast. This site may be old news to some, but WashingtonWatch now offers up congressional bills and information in wiki form where users can edit, discuss, vote on and basically do other Web 2.0 things to the content. It is actually reminiscent of OpenCongress.org which was previously posted about on PoliticalReps.But the crux of WashingtonWatch.com is the fiscal impact of congressional bills on "our nation's budget - and yours". Two tabs in the middle of the page -- "Greatest Cost" and "Greatest Savings" -- break down certain bills into how much money they either cost or save each family. While the figures are not exact, and it is unclear as to how many constitute an "average family", it is interesting to see possible government expenditures broken down in this fashion. For example, Senate Bill 509, The Aviation Security Improvement Act, would cost the average family $66.59. When the bill is clicked on, more details -- like how much it would cost an individual or a couple -- are available from a drop down box.
Michael Arrington from TechCrunch.com offers this comment about the site's new wiki form:
I expect lobbyists, lawyers and congressional staff will get heavily involved in spinning legislation according to their own agendas, and we’ll soon see the beginning of a Washinton D.C. version of Wikipedia wars. This should be fun.-Dippold
Political Online Reputation
3 Comments:
I think I have to agree with Mr. Arrington of TechCrunch. As with OpenCongress I'm suspicious about who is behind this site. I imagine one would have a hard time in Washington trying to be independent, and if you're a Dem or a Pubbie there is a distinct possibility that your reporting is biased. I'm open to the idea of these sites, and I find them both to be informative, but I would like to have more information regarding the owners and their agendas. Add to that the fact that WashingtonWatch is a wiki means it can be hijacked for any political agenda. If the site does in fact become popular and frequently used, it will become a crucial battlefield in the 08 Presidential Election.
Hi, Jim Harper here. I'm behind WashingtonWatch.com. That info is on the "about" page of the site.
I am a libertarian, and work for the Cato Institute, but my purpose with the project is to create more transparency and let the chips fall where they may.
It's funny - I took Mike Arrington's comment as a positive one. It'll be good to see interests duke it out on WashingtonWatch.com. Both sides of every issue will be challenged to confront one another on the site, visibly to the public. The contest among them will reveal more information than the public currently gets.
While any one participant in the wiki will seek to bias the discussion, the others will not permit that. I think of it like the process in a courtroom where advocates on both sides make their strongest case - and from that competition emerges the closest thing we’ve got to the truth.
Of course, my job is to foster that competition. Your blogging about WashingtonWatch.com has helped!
Jim, I think you've got a great idea and I hope the site works out well for you. My beef with politics in general is that there are so many people weighing in on everything it is hard to figure out what is fact. When I hear about sites that are like yours I inherently expect their goals to be to simplify the topic and give us the facts, straight up. Your is a different tactic to reveal the truth and I think you're right that challenges on every opinion will present the large amounts of factual information.
As for the TechCrunch quote, I found it to be mostly complimentary, but Mike mentioned "spinning legislation" and I think the public is frustrated with "spin." We want a (I can't believe I'm quoting O'Rielly) "No Spin Zone"
P.S. I didn't mean to challenge your integrity. I mean I guess I kind of did, but I didn't think you were going start commenting on here, so I'm sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home