[edit: VoteGopher has updated the page I referenced — see my comment]
So, various spiffy people in the wider blogosphere have been talking about how great this site is. The idea is that all the editors of the site have to take a vow of non-partisanship (presumably this applies to their editorial practices only, and not the rest of their lives) and so the information presented about each candidate and his/her stand on the issues won’t be biased. Anyone who’s tried to live with someone who’s passionate about their particular candidate will understand why this might be appealing — my senior year of college, I lived in a dorm in which, at least by October, everyone was vocally in favor of Bush, Gore, or Nader; I’m not sure I was ever able to get any actual information out of anyone.
This website is also somewhat Wiki-esque — though there is that gate-keeping vow, as far as I can tell the postings aren’t being actively monitored (at least, not for things that aren’t obvious: I doubt anyone could post a “X is running for office at the behest of Satan” sort of statement and have it up for very long.) This application process, on top of Wiki style editing for those on the “inside,” has the practical effect of… losing one of the safeguards that makes Wikipedia work (over the long term): when anyone who passes by can edit, and everyone is held to a non-partisan “result” standard, anything that’s controversial will get lots of attention, and will balance out to a neutral (and informed) point of view.
An example — this is the current VoteGopher statement on Mitt Romney’s faith:
Romney belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormon Church. Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1830. The Church has its headquarters are located in Salt Lake City, Utah and is attended by 13 million people. In many ways, Mormonism mirrors the Christian faith. The chief difference lies in its three additional scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, which lays out a series of laws and practices exclusive to the LDS.
Like all other Mormons, Romney served his church on a mission to spread the word of the LDS scripture, a trip which took him to France in the middle of his university studies. Romney’s family originally immigrated to America because of similar missionary work.
Romney remains active in the church.
I have a couple of objections to this particular passage. ^_^
Probably the biggest concern I have is actually that it’s just too short, especially considering what it’s trying to convey. It makes seriously inaccurate assumptions that it probably wouldn’t if it wasn’t also aiming to be three paragraphs long: “like all other Mormons” is the kind of fragment that ought to be followed by “Romney breathes air,” “Romney has been baptized by immersion,” or perhaps “Romney professes a belief in a higher power.” If I could add words like “in good standing” or “temple-worthy” or “active” or change that “all” to “most” I could say a lot more, though given that we’ve only just reached the millionth missionary (ever) a few months ago, and we have 13 million members on the rolls, I’m afraid there’s no way of ending that sentence with “Romney served his church on a mission.” And “to spread the word of the LDS scripture” is an even bigger symptom of this problem (and a handy reminder that “non-partisan” does not translate into “well-informed” or “well-spoken.”)
There are other problems, none of which seem to have been caught by the folks who monitor the site for partisanship — Mormonism mirrors “the Christian faith” but isn’t part of it because of the Book of Mormon. You have to wonder if the author knows about the Apocrypha, or that most of the “rules” for our “unusual” practices are found in the D&C and handbook of instructions and not in the Book of Mormon at all. To say nothing of the Community of Christ, which has the Book of Mormon and shares few of our practices. At the same time, I’d be thrilled if all “Mormons are cult” types would restrict their criticism to the Book of Mormon itself, as apologetics would take far less effort. And I think administrative types in the Church are surprised to learn that 13 million people attend our services every week — at 50% activity rates that’d be 26 million members! We’d be jumping ahead of the Seventh-day Adventists, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Sikhism!
Ahem. As a comparison, the Wikipedia page (the continuing product of lots of behind-the-scenes discussion & arguing) makes up for its failures in terms of length (they’re trying to shorten it) with accuracy and, more or less, a neutral point of view. It takes more space to say “[t]hough these are fundamental Christian beliefs, Latter-day Saints do not consider themselves part of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions,” but it’s more accurate than “Mormonism mirrors the Christian faith.” “Young men between the ages of 19 and 25 who meet minimum standards of worthiness and preparation are encouraged to serve a two-year, full-time proselytizing mission,” also gets my vote in favor of any sentence that starts “like all other Mormons.” As a bonus, the Wikipedia article has pretty transparent links to a full-length article on… the missionary program of the Church.
Most of this is just a really long way of saying that it’s awfully tricky to look for a labor force that promises to be non-partisan — argument and consensus may be a lot messier, but at least in this case, it’s a lot more accurate. My test for any new information source is to see what it says about something I know a lot about; this is why I don’t trust TV news or even newspapers very much (they’ve never even gotten a story that I participated in correct — and I’ve been misquoted every time I’ve been quoted, so far.) VoteGopher and its “we promise to not let you know we care about the issues” stance aren’t exactly impressing me either, today. ^_^
(Note: before I wrote this, I emailed VoteGopher about the Romney article; I’m not sure I’m comfortable taking a non-partisanship oath, since I do have biases and they tend to show in ways I don’t expect. And it seems more than a little disingenuous to register and take that oath when my only purpose would be to fix one page on a particular candidate’s profile. Anyway, they might very well fix it by the time you click on the link.)
Does the non-partisan vow say anything about knowing what you’re talking about? Apparently not.
What’s most troublesome to me about statement is that it makes assumptions that are wrong, or at least not accepted facts. It’s one thing to say, “Mormons aren’t Christians because…”. It’s another thing (and worse, in my opinion) to say “In many ways, Mormons mirror Christians.” The latter statement implies that it is an accepted fact that Mormons aren’t Christians, but the former statement at least states it as a assertion that can be argued against. It’s harder to argue against implied facts than against assertions.
I hope the VoteGopher people change it.
And also, I think the only way you can truly be non-partisan is to not speak. As soon as you open your mouth (or type on your keyboard), you take a side. It’s possible to be bi-partisan or multi-partisan by giving multiple sides to an issue, but I don’t think it’s possible to be non-partisan.
I agree, Mike. My email to VoteGopher brought that up as a main point. ^_^
I strongly suspect it will be changed — if for no other reason than that almost everything on the site is pretty new (that page appears to be about two weeks old; nearly every submission was made on October 4th.) It also looks to have been touched by one person, which seems typical for their minor pages (the faith & values section on most candidate pages being a prime example) — Liz from California did most of the Romney stuff, while Bob from Massachusetts did most of Hillary Clinton’s stuff. They’re encouraging participation, though you have to be a member, and the “non-partisan” barrier still stands.
(Note also that I’m violating their terms of service by linking to them. My feelings on that issue are best summarized here.)
My test for any new information source is to see what it says about something I know a lot about
It’s a bit problematic, though, to expect an information source to be an expert on everything, without it devolving into a wiki model (which has its own flaws).
Is it acceptable to be generally correct?
Um, there is no such thing as non-partisanship.
I suppose “generally correct” is all right, queuno, but then you need to define what you mean by that. Is the statement “Most Mormons serve missions for their church” acceptable? What if I changed it to “most active, male Mormons who are baptized before the age of 21 serve missions for their church”? Still not quite accurate, but getting warmer anyway. “Romney, like many Mormons, took two years out to serve a mission for his church” would have been fine by me, but that’s just correct, rather than “generally” correct… ^_^
VoteGopher has changed a couple of the sentences I quoted originally to say:
“Mormonism bases its central tenets on the life of Jesus Christ and incorporates three additional scriptures into its canon, including the Book of Mormon, which lays out a series of laws and practices exclusive to the LDS.”
and
“Like many other Mormons, Romney served his church on a mission to spread the word of the LDS scripture.”
Better, anyway.
If I receive a divine visit from God himself…..find and/or translate another book of scriptures…..create temples……establish church leadership……profess to be the only true church……am I still a “Christian?” The answer is, I’m only a Christian if it’s true. Therefore, Mormons can profess to be Christians because their church believes in “Christ” and because they believe it’s true. But Mormons belive a whole host of things about Christ, God and heaven that I don’t believe…..and volumes of customs, rituals and beliefs that I don’t believe are true. Therefore, they’re not Christians by my definition. Christians fundamentally are followers of the Bible and the Mormons have taken far too much latitude to still be considered just another sect of Christians.
If it’s true, good and right then why do you have to spend so much time making it sound “o.k.” and acceptable? I’ve never met more defensive people that Mormons….
Topover — Have you ever met a more attacked people than LDS?
And then to state “too much latitude”… Welcome to the Nicene council, let’s make a definition of the character and attributes of God that are not only the most confusing religious diatribe produced but has the additional fault of having not ONE supporting scripture in all the Old and New Testament, which is their only source. Now that’s latitude!
Off central topic, but on the meta-topic: I know this is days old now but I’d be very interested in how you think the wiki model will compare to the new familysearch.org model. I, personally, am concerned about the moderation standards. The discuss-and-revert, and flagging of a wiki would be much preferable imo.
On topic: I would agree that *unbiased* or “agenda-free” is impossible, but I’m not sure that non-partisan is impossible. For example I am strongly opinionated, but I haven’t found a home in any of the parties–not just any of the major parties–non of the parties.
Oh, Understated, remember, don’t feed the trolls.
I tried to quell State’s/the Fray’s flame fest of Romney and the inherent conflict of temple covenants last week. You should have read the vilification of evangelicals. Wow, I thought we were discriminated against.