Hey – how would like to write a constructive post for us (not some scary “US”, just the few of us who are hangin’ out by this blog) reviewing the best use of wikis for democracy & political action? Please include openpolitics.ca.

However, the “Manifesto” over here:
http://redliberals.ca/about-liberal-20-manifesto/
seems not to. It doesn’t allow comments. It asks good questions, then forbids answer:

“What do you want to see the Liberal party change, in terms of how they connect with you?

What do you see as the key technologies to employ, why and what are good examples to point to?

Did you work on Obama’s campaign? Are you a Politics 2.O expert in Europe? Anywhere … have read a great article or book recently about how Obama overcame the conservative organisation in some of the most difficult to win areas of America or another success story? Please post a link and if possible share some insight on how the approach can be applied in a Canadian setting?”

I’d love to answer these questions, but, I’m discouraged by the inability to comment immediately after that very post. Then there’s this demonstration of cluelessness and good old top-down-we-see-you-you-dont-see-us Panopticon/1984 ideology:

“If you do not share your authentic identity, we are unlikely to publish your comments.”

Um, why is that? Anonymity is considered a right by almost all advocates of e-government and e-democracy and citizen journalism, and we enshrine it in the secret ballot and the journalists’ tradition of anonymity of sources (at least). To assume anonymous comment is mischievous is disabling to any democracy. I’d remind any Canadian, especially, that Rene Levesque broke from the Liberal Party of Quebec over exactly this issue: It refused to allow a secret ballot vote on his “sovereignty-association” proposal, opening the door to a witchhunt. I’ll say this for the first time: When do you people learn?

“If you clearly do not share our enthusiasm for the Liberal Party, then there are likely better places for you to express that then here.”

Again, you discourage input from exactly the people you need to hear from. Clearly people who share enthusiasm for any party in its current form are not those who can tell you what is truly wrong with it or why they can’t work for it or advocate it. So I’ll ask the second time: When do you people learn?

“If you consider yourself non-partisan or a worthy opponent and you have a great idea for us that will make the country better in your view then you are welcome!”

It seems you have intentionally excluded any “worthy opponent” and take procedural positions that further exclude them and have historically driven them out of the Liberals’ fold. Yet you ask for a great idea “for us”? So who’s “us”? Your party, as opposed to the country? I repeat for the third and last time: When do you people learn?