Vote Fraud: Need suggestions(or help!) on organization for Demopedia info

I've been trying to get my head around the massive amounts of information on vote fraud in the 2004 election in order to reorganize the pages that are up on Demopedia.

I would like some suggestions.Better yet would be to have some more people join in the editing process. I am far from an expert myself, but I would be glad to answer what questions I can. Useful pages to get started are Formatting and Help

The pages up on the 2004 election can be found here.

The best organized pages seem to be the one seeded from Wikipedia and a page that links to Eloriel's compendium threads

The pages Ohio seem to have the most information but it is not well organized. Ohio Election Fraud and Current Events

Some random ideas I had:

• reduce content of the general 2004 election fraud page and reduce it to a summary
  
• provide links(and new pages) for individual states, specific events, and activism (basically pretty similar to the structure Eloriel used).
  
• use the category feature to cross-reference the individual new pages. (e.g. the Ohio page and any new sub pages off of that would be in an Ohio Election Fraud category and also categories for each type of fraud, suppression, machine malfunction, etc)
  

If you have a suggestion on how to organize this information please post it. I would request that you keep the suggestions simple if possible and perhaps use one response post per suggestion to facilitate easier discussion here.

about the Conyers' hearing about voting problems in OH. Or, you may not have noticed. I don't know how easily other people have been accessing the Demopedia pages. I started transferring all the statements of the Conyers hearing into text files and posting both the text file and the pdf (all you can find on the Judiciary Dems site). Unfortunately, I have zero experience with wiki, and now that the news cycle has moved on, so I don't know if its worth pursuing.

It seems to me it would be useful to have more information about how to use Demopedia better. I wasn't really too certain about how to incorporate what I wanted to do into what was already there. I felt funny about changing something that someone else had done a bit (nota lot). Also, what happens if you disagree with somebody about FACTS. That's where the fur is gonna fly, imho.

Don't worry so much about that, that is how Wiki works for the most part. Also, the folks editing the fraud pages so far are aware that it is mostly data dumps at this point.

If there are disputes over facts then you just have to be careful with wording (try to be neutral). For example I created a stub page for Hugo Chavez. Knowing that there is some controversy surrounding him I used the following wording in one paragraph:

He has been a controversial President even among those on the left of the political spectrum where the bulk of his international support comes from. Most of his detractors tend to focus on his economic and political ties to Cuba and a fear that he may follow the repressive tendencies of Fidel Castro.

That was extremely difficult for a strong supporter like myself not to just write something like "but they are just a bunch of whack jobs" haha :)

As brought up by SarahLee on the wiki, there needs to be some discussion on how to name pages related to the election and fraud claims.

Each page has a discussion page that accompanies it. For simple discussions they work just fine. For this more complex issue, I personally felt that it might be easier to do it here; with software that everyone is familiar with, and that is geared toward discussions. I linked to this post from the discussion page where sarahlee brought up this naming issue. It is late though , so I think I will kick this in the AM and wait to see what the demopedia editors think about using the DU forum vs using the discussion pages.

Although I know they haven't really wanted to start any new forums, it might be a good idea in this case. There is also a sort of Intro (with some Q&A) thread that Skinner posted in the "2004 Election Results and Discussion" area. I suppose that could be used as well. I have checked a couple of times and it doesn't look like there has been much posted there recently, but that's no reason why we should not make use of it. It has the advantage of being locked in place, so it would be easy to find.

Here's the link, if you want to take a look: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=124227&mesg_id=124227

Actually, the more I think about it, it might be a good idea to discuss things there, as others might have a chance to get involved if it is in an area that they might come across more easily.

to tell you that I found this discussion - had just popped into the wiki to see if anyone had responded to my queries re a naming scheme - and you had.

I kind of prefer keeping the discussions in the wiki so that others can see what is being dicussed while working, but don't have a real issue either way.

However, I should mention that I have a load of work to try and get done by Sunday when I leave for a couple of weeks of holiday traveling. I will have to do some paying work while on the road so not certain how much time I will have until I get back home in January.

Too bad there is not a diagraming program that could be used inside the program to help outline the flow of pages.