posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Odium
But for the sake of time, why not just use Wikipedia and most of the official home pages of these figures?
For the most part there is very little disadvantage to that. Wikipedia has certainly been a godsend for me. I've learned not to cite them directly
since the establishment doesn't like the idea that somebody without letters after their name and no book deal could possibly commit an act of
scholarship, but Wikipedia has nevertheless been quite useful for me as a starting point, and I don't hold their wiki status against them.
The big advantage to creating resources on selected subjects here is that we can dictate the focus.
Even simple things can take time on Wikipedia. I recently had to work my way through some 28 articles just to look at the trend of house and senate
control between the two parties over the last 28 years. I had to look at each election for each chamber separately. Once I had all of that
information, I wrote two sentences about it in a post.
Another example would be if we were to discuss what the electoral map would look like in 2008. You'd have to look through several pages on the
political history of each swing state.
With a PTS article, focused the way we want it, we can boil all that searching down into a paragraph or so on a given subject for easy access by
PTSers who want to discuss this with respect for the facts, but don't necessarily know everything off the top of their head or have 30-120 minutes to
research their post.
Wikipedia and the sources it cites would probably be a major resource for building PTS fact files. We'd just be filtering the broad coverage into
mainly politically focused articles and attempting to concentrate related information in one place for easier access.
Besides the user-friendliness of it, it would also be a minor image perk; like putting a bookshelf in a law office even though there's a law library
full of research flunkies down in the basement. It just looks good.