1/ “Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation” - by Stephen Coleman and John Gøtze
2/ "A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective-Taking" - by Joseph Reagle Jr.
====================================================================================
1/ “Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation” - by Stephen Coleman and John Gøtze
Object of the essay: relationship citizen-governement in the information age
crisis in the democratic
cultures: distance between citizens and institutions. a decline in membership
of civic networks has resulted in a precipitous a drop in political
engagement. the model of democracy should be improved, though the idea
is still valid. new age (of information): new frame: moderl should be
developed within the frame of digital technologies: e-democracy &
the “netizen”. Not only about giving a better hearing to the citizens
but giving them an ownership of representation through online deliberation
contexts.
made me think about what
CAE says about the inefficiency of the old modes of revolt (strikes
in the street, unions); they call for a new mode of resistance, online,
based on hacking practices. in the age of information, if CAE define
the new modes of being outlaw/revolutionary, this article tries to define
the new modes making the law/reforming society.
ICTs = Information &
Communication Technologies --> reshaper of democracy
the article suggest a
new policy-making process: the online public engagement in policy deliberation;
deliberation seen as encouraging to scrutinize, discuss values and policy
options. it is a method that is supposed to go further than the already
implemented online communities (autonomous civi networks, but disconnected
from the governments) or online techniques of opinion survey (fail to
report a real public opinion formation).
needs: access to information,
open agenda (allowing discussion and negotiation), frame of rules for
debating, recognizing differences between participants and creating
opportunities for the marginalized.
we need to get over the
belief, entertained in political elite, that popular opinion is worthless,
mediocre, tyrannic. there has been some progress since the birth of
modern democracy in 18th: from "virtual representation" (the
many is represented by the votes of the better: not everybody was able
to vote), to "virtual deliberation" (what we have now (still
a narrow political elite). fear of populism. but populism is a reality
when the people is not given the possibility to think/to debate
online engagement light
be the answer to the intricate problem of including the majority in
public debate. John Dewey criticizes the lack of information: it is
not the public who is to blame but the politic mechanism that is not
adequate for spreading information. 'eclipse of the public' : an answer
to political complexity (intricacy, specialization). consequence: formation
of simplistic, & manipulated public opinion. solution: creating
"rational filters" (truted medium) through which public information
and communication can be channelled. converting the Great Society into
Great Community.
dichotomy between experts
and ignorant mass is sterile: experts are found in the mass; it has
to be drained into the decision-making process.
--> model of two-way
governance against bureaucratic elitism
online technologies: facilitate
the connection between the representatives and the represented. But
facilitation does not come from technology (positivism), but is a cultural-deomcratic
function: to provide discursive focus, stimulate groups into interacting
constructively, build a sense of community/team.
====================================================================================
2/ "A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective-Taking"
Joseph M. Reagle Jr.: was a researcher at MIT Lab for Computer Science, chair and editor for the WWW Consortium (a group collaboration for open standards, guidelines and software developing W3) dedicated to "Web interoperability", directed by Tim-Berners Lee. He published other articles such as "democracy in the Digital world" and "Market demand in the Digital World".
Also has a blog: reagle.org/joseph/blog
where he talks further on about Wikipedia
Object of the essay: Wikipedia as an interdependent structure for decision-making based on the ideas of
- "mutual aid" : in economy: libertarian socialism or anarchism: voluntary reciprocal exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit (devlped by Proudhon and Kropotkin - "anarchism communism"): cooperatives, unions.
- self-regulation
--> example of working
community based on cooperation: different goals, different degrees of
involvement, but a common feature: the belief in the ideals of Enlightenment
: common participation to the edification of knowledge
utopianism/idealism
Point of the article:
not questioning this idealist perspective, but trying to show that the
critics of the project who say it is a structure of conflict are wrong.
There is no essential difference between conflict and agreement in this
context. Resolves this dialectically by suggesting the notion of "interactive
integration" that leads to "productive interaction".
Based on the Wiki software
invented by Ward Cuningham: name chosen in 1995 "Wiki Wiki"
(Hawaiian for super fast): one of the most simple editing process. Markup
language easier than html.
First project: Nupedia:
high standard, expertise-based, free Encyclopedia (free documentation
license); started in 2000 by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. Reorientation
to the Wiki process after experiencing the slowness of Nupedia. A "populist
offshoot"? or a modern online implementation of anarchist principles?
Quotes Kropotkin: “harmony in such a society being obtained, not by
submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements
concluded between the various groups.” --> faith in a common intelligence;
people just need the occasion, the tools, and a challenge.
Reference to the old idea
of what a republic is: a public space where everyone can come and discuss,
bring knowledge, participate to the policy-making (legislation) and
eventually, to the decision-making (executive). a forum. quote: "Wikipedia
is itself, really, a continuing discussion."
newer idea, in the newer context of the online social spheres. there is a shift from the broad frame of political responsibility to specific economic (how to agree on a deal) and legislative (how to defend a cause and to claim rights/rules) strategies. proposes the concept of "integrated potential": options capable of integrating the interests of the parties such that joined utility can be increased (Carnevale and Pruitt 2004).
--> mode of participation
in Wikipedia is integrative : like an ant colony, everybody builds a
little piece of a larger work that will profit to everybody. Integration
as opposed to concatenation: the end-result has a coherence as whole.
How does work this micro-society? What are the rules for cooperation? They are integrative:
- inclusive --> an "egalitarian" environment ≠ MUD/MOO who are exclusive (small groups who define their identity by opposition)
- conflict-resolving:
presented as a contentious community (edit wars), but actually everything
is regulated in order to not be stuck in conflict
defines an "art"
of dispute that is identified by several features, each displaying a
number of "negotiation strategies"
- history (transparency of edit choices & archives of all the versions)
- talk/discussion (a space dedicated to arguing over the method and the content of the article; defining the terms of the debate, a common ground; possibility for deciding a truce when the debate is stuck)
- an informational/advising board is constituted by the user themselves with alternative strategies: polls, inviting comments from the larger community into the specific debate
- requests for arbitration/mediation
(possibility to refer to administrators: protect/lock the page for a
period; call a third-party or an advocate on one's behalf: joint decision-making.
vandalism: petty, easily
accomplished, easily reverted: some noise. no big hacks/attacks, but
little pranks.
resolution is based on the agreement over an etiquette, similar to the netiquette found on bulletin boards, but much more urban/civilian (sounds like a British Gentleman's club): among which apologizing, avoiding irony, "forgive and forget" motto
--> "perspective
taking" / group learning concept: understanding the interests of
each other: negotiation with a proble-solving orientation --> encourage
productive interdependent collaboration.
If one is involved in
an edit war, is there such a thing as a BATNA: the Best Alternative
to a Negotiated Agreement (Fisher, Ury, Patton 1991)? (I believe there
is, but the options are mostly the same for the participants: exit.)
from community to "communion" = Rheingold : "a gift economy in which people do things for one another out of the spirit of building something between them, rather than a spreadsheet calculated quid pro quo”. utopian definition of the gift economy // Enlightenment.
In terms of communication
theory: "inter-subjectivity = awareness of the others' need for
information and intention to convey this information to the other -->
psychology-driven notion of empathy (projecting in one another's conscience).
Yankelovich: dialogue // empathy
//
"positive thinking" taught in corporations. in another article, Reagle
talks about how cooperation in collaborative online culture (Wikipedia
still) provides models for leadership. link between integration and
corporate strategies for increased efficiency: developing the social
value of the company environment helps production increase in quantity
and quality.
Leads to a relativistic perpective: Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV): a recognition of multiple viewpoints more than a claim for neutrality. This relativism needs only to be framed in a set of rules that are not oppressive but that aim at a process of self-regulation:
Describes a deontology of writing, an ethical relationship to knowledge:
- explanation (≠advocation)
- characterization (≠engagement)
- independence (≠dogmatism)
--> should be representational of the state of knowledge in society, and not ahead or below. consequently, any "original research" is banned. there is a series of entries which are dedicated to the exposition of these rules (if followed closely, the encyclopedia would drastically altered). i guess the problem here concerns the determination of the threshold of knowledge: different for a scholar or a non-scholar for instance. it is definitely based on an academic ideology of rigor and truth.
ethical implications:
minority views? every theory argued should be acknowledged and certified
according to wikipedia; what about debates over regionalism or ethnicity,
in region of the world where they are still submitted to war conflict?
In order to give a rational perspective to this issue, Wikipedia has developed several branches:
-Wikisource: collecting primary source materials
- Wikiresearch: collaborative project
- Wikinfo: opens the academic rigor to another way to discuss information: "sympathetic and critical" articles on specific topics
- cf. also Wikia
critical perspective on Wikipedia: read this speech: http://www.cow.net/transcript