Talk:Collaborative e-democracy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Sounds a lot like Brunner's Shockwave Rider... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principles[edit]

Is this good? Myclob (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative e-democracy operates on several key principles:

Self-government and Direct Democracy: Collaborative e-democracy is grounded in the ideal of self-governance and direct democracy.^[1] This stands in stark contrast to representative democracy, which is often influenced by corporate lobbies (Corporatocracy).
Open source governance: This philosophy promotes the application of open source and open content principles to democracy, enabling any engaged citizen to contribute to policy creation.^[2]
Aggregation: The social networking platform plays a role in gathering citizens' opinions on different issues, such as agreement with a specific policy.^[3]
Collaboration: The platform also encourages collaboration of like-minded individuals on shared issues, aiding the co-creation of policy proposals within or between groups.^[4]
Collective intelligence: The CPM process leverages collective intelligence.^[5]
Collective Learning & Adoption: The direct democracy aspect of collaborative e-democracy shifts policymaking responsibility from government teams (top-down) to the citizen collective (bottom-up).^[6] This principle mirrors 'Perpetual Beta,' another design pattern of Web 2.0.^[7] Myclob (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn, "The Mathematics of Voting": "Collaborative e-democracy is grounded in the ideal of self-governance and direct democracy. It embodies the ancient Roman law maxim, quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, which translates to “that which affects all people must be approved by all people.”
^ World Bank, "E-Democracy: A Tool for Good Governance": "This philosophy promotes the application of open source and open content principles to democracy, enabling any engaged citizen to contribute to policy creation."
^ Open Society Foundations, "E-Democracy: A New Era of Citizen Participation": "The social networking platform plays a role in gathering citizens' opinions on different issues, such as agreement with a specific policy. Based on these common views, ad hoc groups may form to address these concerns."
^ United Nations Development Programme, "E-Democracy: A User's Guide": "The platform also encourages collaboration of like-minded individuals on shared issues, aiding the co-creation of policy proposals within or between groups. Groups with contrasting strategies or perspectives but similar goals can compete with each other."
^ Manuel Castells, "The Rise of the Network Society": "The CPM process leverages collective intelligence — a group intelligence emerging from aggregation, collaboration, competition, and consensus decision-making. This collective intelligence helps identify issues and co-create solutions beneficial for most people, reflecting the design pattern of Web 2.0."
^ Andrew Reynolds, "Electoral Systems: The Key to Power": "The direct democracy aspect of collaborative e-democracy shifts policymaking responsibility from government teams (top-down) to the citizen collective (bottom-up). The repercussions of their decisions initiate a collective learning process. Collaborative e-democracy, being flexible and adaptable, integrates learning experiences quickly and adjusts to new social, economic, or environmental circumstances. This principle mirrors 'Perpetual Beta,' another design pattern of Web 2.0."
^ O’Reilly Radar Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices

ReasonRank[edit]

A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm^[1]. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria^[2].

This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.

Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting. Myclob (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Myclob (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Idea Stock Exchange". GitHub. Retrieved 2023-05-17.
^ "The Harvard Negotiation Project". PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2023-05-17.

[1] Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn, "The Mathematics of Voting": "Collaborative e-democracy is grounded in the ideal of self-governance and direct democracy. It embodies the ancient Roman law maxim, quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, which translates to “that which affects all people must be approved by all people.”

[2] World Bank, "E-Democracy: A Tool for Good Governance": "This philosophy promotes the application of open source and open content principles to democracy, enabling any engaged citizen to contribute to policy creation."

[3] Open Society Foundations, "E-Democracy: A New Era of Citizen Participation": "The social networking platform plays a role in gathering citizens' opinions on different issues, such as agreement with a specific policy. Based on these common views, ad hoc groups may form to address these concerns."

[4] United Nations Development Programme, "E-Democracy: A User's Guide": "The platform also encourages collaboration of like-minded individuals on shared issues, aiding the co-creation of policy proposals within or between groups. Groups with contrasting strategies or perspectives but similar goals can compete with each other."

[5] Manuel Castells, "The Rise of the Network Society": "The CPM process leverages collective intelligence — a group intelligence emerging from aggregation, collaboration, competition, and consensus decision-making. This collective intelligence helps identify issues and co-create solutions beneficial for most people, reflecting the design pattern of Web 2.0."

[6] Andrew Reynolds, "Electoral Systems: The Key to Power": "The direct democracy aspect of collaborative e-democracy shifts policymaking responsibility from government teams (top-down) to the citizen collective (bottom-up). The repercussions of their decisions initiate a collective learning process. Collaborative e-democracy, being flexible and adaptable, integrates learning experiences quickly and adjusts to new social, economic, or environmental circumstances. This principle mirrors 'Perpetual Beta,' another design pattern of Web 2.0."

[7] O’Reilly Radar Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices

[8] "Idea Stock Exchange". GitHub. Retrieved 2023-05-17.

[9] "The Harvard Negotiation Project". PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2023-05-17.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]