How the Internet is like the CIA ?

This includes the democraticunderground. The CIA accumulates tons and tons of information and facts. But their problem lies in the analysis of that information. For example, all the information they had before 9/11. If it had been analyzed properly, there was a good chance 9/11 could have been prevented.

Likewise, the Internet, and DU, accumlate tons of information. However, we also have our problems with analyzing the information. One person may post an excellent, fact-filled thread and it drifts off into the ether. Another may post something about "Ann-the-Man" and it stays up much longer and gets more responses. But it is the natural inclination to respond to "personal" posts, rather than ideas.

How could we improve on that deficiency? Perhaps if a few people could choose the top dozen or so stories each day in degree of importance and archive them daily, that might help? Just a thought.

Select 15 moderators who are the only ones who can start threads. Everybody can post on them, but only a few can start them, and straying from the topic will get your posts deleted.

Of course we'd want to select wise upstanding people who would post on good subjects and not on bad subjects. And therein lies the rub - who decides what a good topic is?

Where do correct ideas come from?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Newbies and oldies. The idea is not to let them disappear so quickly and to offer more time for analysis, if possible. But we are like butterflies, flittering from one flower to the next, generally speaking. Maybe you are correct? It is not possible?

on edit:

Perhaps the Greatest Page is the best we can hope for? When I'm away for a whole day at work, I always scan the Greatest Page to see what most deem important. And I trust the judgement of DU as a whole more than I do individually.

The free-form think tank that is DU doesn't need more micro-management. As one of the people who nearly always posts positive stuff and has, on occasion, gotten a lot of acclaim for it, the last thing I'd want is for people to be stifled.

Yeah, some of the threads are a waste of time. This is true. But the alternative you suggest is something that is nothing like DU and a place I might visit, but never stay for any length of time.

1. To be able to catch up on 'issues' and 'atrocities' in a hurry for issues and atrocities that I've prioritized.

For example, I'd like to go right to the latest post on xxxx and be able to read down on what was posted that day and to fill in gaps, catch up, or even re-find a link. Of - if I've ignored an atrocity previously, but now want to catch up, I can go there and read down, chronologically by listing.

I have less and less time and when I do get to open DU, I rarely pass the first screen.

I'm left with a scattered feeling. It kind of equates to needing a secretary.

I know I can go to dedicated websites that focus on certain subjects, but I'd prefer and do often just stay on DU.

I'm not complaining about anything DU has done or its structure. I'm just always thinking about how I can conquer all the stuff to be a good enough spokesperson and to be sure I'm up-to-date, and that I know what has to be asked or stated.

2. I wish I had time to create documents. But, for those who have some time, it would be great to be able compile facts in a way that could be used to a) 'see' the issues more clearly; b) create fact ammunition that can be printed and given to interested people 3) educate newcomers.

For example - it would be interesting to create side-by-side lists. One could show on one side a list of leaks that the George administration has purposely generated and on the other could be the leaks by others that have resulted in prosecution, legal entanglements, or punishment by job/attack press/distortion.

Another example, would be a list of all the Swiftboaters dirty tricks.

Another could be a list of all the flip flops of this administration. Or a 'Which Is It' list for those days where George says one thing and someone on his staff says the opposite.

The more serious and complex atrocities would be easier to understand if the data is organized for a handout.

The best use is to be able to look at something for ourselves that would help our memory for an occasional encounter requiring rebut, but a permanent handout to help other sympathizers fight or to convert rational Repubs.

_______ IN OTHER WORDS... we need to do some things that the press used to do. Something condensed with links for the person to learn more and to back up where the information comes from.

I have more thoughts, no time right now. But I equate the struggle to keep up on the news and atrocities with watching a protest march where everyone's sign says something and I can't read them all. However, one day, I watched a group who coordinated their signs to make a great continuous statement that I wanted to read all the way through and which the camera caught just right, maybe just because of the curiosity it raised and satisfied.

any announcement about it and flew right over it. Maybe this is what I had in mind. I'm going there to take a look.