Author of machiavelli.net, proud father of three, interested in shaping network society. Welcome to my blog.Quick Book Review: WikiGovernment
I just started reading it, but I have already been using the core argument of Beth Noveck’s WikiGovernment: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful (Brookings 2009) several times in conversations, so let me put it down in writing. Beth Noveck argues that we are at a point in history where we can move from antiquated modes of collective governance (representative democracy) to a more effective mode (collaborative democracy). This goes beyond the Habermasian notion of deliberative democracy, because it assumes that the there is excess capacity in citizens that can be utilized not just for public decision making (governance), but for the creation of public value (goods and services). Public value creation processes must be designed with the following issues in mind:
a. Egalitarian self-selection: anybody can participate, but only the experts in a specific field will. This is “democratic” because as humans we have the capacity to work together and bring our specific skill sets/knowledge/experience to the table.
b. Visual deliberation: the processes of collaboration must be distinctly designed to further the ex-ante defined goal. The visualization of the collaborating group becomes a governance tool, insofar that it provides an outside perspective on the group for the group.
c. Collaboration: in democratic practice, collaboration is under-appreciated. Participation today can go beyond once-a-year elections.
Read the book and come back here to discuss it. I hope to post a full review later in the week.
thanks for the tip! This seems to be exactly what I need for the final arguments in my thesis. Ordered and looking forward to read it)
thanks for the tip! This seems to be exactly what I need for the final arguments in my thesis. Ordered and looking forward to read it)
watching Google’s video where they walked around TimeSquare asking people what a “browser” is, I just have to continue be very sceptical: how many citizens really know what a wiki is and how to use it?
watching Google’s video where they walked around TimeSquare asking people what a “browser” is, I just have to continue be very sceptical: how many citizens really know what a wiki is and how to use it?
you don’t need to go as far as TimeSquare to become sceptical if this entity called web 2.0 and by that any web-based transparency-approach really is that big a deal, or if we just think of it as bigger than it actually is… (the german discussion about web-censorship within the blogosphere itself is just as sufficient).
another interesting aspect, of this whole new democratisation is, that nowadays even (cyber-) war can be lead by virtually anyone. (some thoughts on that one: http://meinungsproklamation.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cyberwar-when-freedom-is-just-another-word-for-nothing-left-to-fear/)
you don’t need to go as far as TimeSquare to become sceptical if this entity called web 2.0 and by that any web-based transparency-approach really is that big a deal, or if we just think of it as bigger than it actually is… (the german discussion about web-censorship within the blogosphere itself is just as sufficient).
another interesting aspect, of this whole new democratisation is, that nowadays even (cyber-) war can be lead by virtually anyone. (some thoughts on that one: http://meinungsproklamation.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cyberwar-when-freedom-is-just-another-word-for-nothing-left-to-fear/)
The first thing that came to my mind was, that this evolving democracy seems to be based a lot on economic principles: as everyone is contributing in his area of expertise, one is contributing according to the marginal costs of participating. Therefore those who cannot perform as much as others gain less power than the stronger ones. One might argue that this is already happening these days, but still your share of contribution (your vote) is protected by law. Will it be this way in a peer produced democracy / public value creation, too?
And we might rethink our idea of justice: is it the best way that everyone can influence the way where our society goes by an equal vote, or would it be better if an elite would lead the way? Just thinking of less dependency on voters, which would decrease the incentive to decide in favor of interest groups, less transaction, decision and information costs…The question is: Can democracy be sustained in a peer produced society?
The first thing that came to my mind was, that this evolving democracy seems to be based a lot on economic principles: as everyone is contributing in his area of expertise, one is contributing according to the marginal costs of participating. Therefore those who cannot perform as much as others gain less power than the stronger ones. One might argue that this is already happening these days, but still your share of contribution (your vote) is protected by law. Will it be this way in a peer produced democracy / public value creation, too?
And we might rethink our idea of justice: is it the best way that everyone can influence the way where our society goes by an equal vote, or would it be better if an elite would lead the way? Just thinking of less dependency on voters, which would decrease the incentive to decide in favor of interest groups, less transaction, decision and information costs…The question is: Can democracy be sustained in a peer produced society?
@Sebastian: I also don’t believe the hype. Yet I can’t help to be sceptical about scepticisms as well:
Only 8% of the people they asked knew what a browser is, and most couldn’t distinguish between search engine and browser. Okay. But is that relevant? How many people know what money is? How the price system works? Cars function? What is electricity? Why does a plane fly??? Or more basic: How to grow food? The beauty of modern society: One can profit from all these things without understanding them.
If you see it like this the interview shows that the internet accomplished an important step in its evolution: You don’t need to understand it at all to use it. Seen from this perspective egovernment might not work because its too complicated, not intuitive. There some private sector innovations could really lead the way.
@Sebastian: I also don’t believe the hype. Yet I can’t help to be sceptical about scepticisms as well:
Only 8% of the people they asked knew what a browser is, and most couldn’t distinguish between search engine and browser. Okay. But is that relevant? How many people know what money is? How the price system works? Cars function? What is electricity? Why does a plane fly??? Or more basic: How to grow food? The beauty of modern society: One can profit from all these things without understanding them.
If you see it like this the interview shows that the internet accomplished an important step in its evolution: You don’t need to understand it at all to use it. Seen from this perspective egovernment might not work because its too complicated, not intuitive. There some private sector innovations could really lead the way.
@justus, @sebastian: great points. For a more developed version of Justus’ “skepticism of skepticism” argument, see Kevin Kelly’s “Increasing Ubiquity” at http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/05/increasing_ubiq.php
He argues
In the course of evolution every technology is put to the question of what happens when it becomes ubiquitous? What happens when everyone has one?
Usually it disappears. Electric motors, born large, rare and obvious, quickly became invisible and everywhere. Shortly after their invention in 1873 modern electric motors propagated throughout the manufacturing industry. Each factory stationed one very large expensive motor in the place where a steam engine formerly stood. That single engine turned a complex maze of axles and belts, which in turn spun hundreds of smaller machines scattered throughout the factory. The rotational energy twirled through the buildings from that single source.
By the 1910s electric motors started their inevitable spread into homes. They had been domesticated. Unlike a steam engine, they did not smoke or belch or drool. Just a tidy steady whirr from a 5-pound hunk. As in factories, these single “home motors” were designed to drive all the machines in one home. The 1916 Hamilton Beach “Home Motor” had a 6-speed rheostat and ran on 110 volts. Designer Donald Norman points out a page from the 1918 Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog advertising the Home Motor for $8.75 (which is equivalent to about $100 these days). This handy motor would spin your sewing machine. You could also plug it in to the Churn and Mixer Attachment (“for which you will find many uses”), and the Buffer and Grinder Attachments (“will be found very useful in many ways around the home”). The Fan Attachment “can be quickly attached to Home Motor”, as well as Beater Attachment to whip cream and beat eggs.
One hundred years later the electric motor has seeped into ubiquity. There is no longer one home motor in a household, there are dozens of them, and each is nearly invisible. No longer stand-alone devices, motors are now integral parts of many appliances. They actuate our gadgets, acting as the muscles for our artificial selves. They are everywhere. I made an informal census of all the embedded motors I could find in the room I am sitting in while I write:
5 spinning hard disks
3 analog tape recorders
3 cameras (move zoom lenses)
1 video camera
1 watch
1 clock
1 printer
1 scanner (moves scan head)
1 copier
1 fax (moves paper)
1 CD player
1 pump in radiant floor heat
That’s 20 home motors in one room. A factory or office build would have thousands. We don’t think about motors. We are unconscious of them, even though we depend on their work. They rarely fail. We aren’t aware of roads and electricity because they are ubiquitous and usually work. We don’t think of paper and cotton clothing as technology because their reliable presences are everywhere.
@justus, @sebastian: great points. For a more developed version of Justus’ “skepticism of skepticism” argument, see Kevin Kelly’s “Increasing Ubiquity” at http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/05/increasing_ubiq.php
He argues
In the course of evolution every technology is put to the question of what happens when it becomes ubiquitous? What happens when everyone has one?
Usually it disappears. Electric motors, born large, rare and obvious, quickly became invisible and everywhere. Shortly after their invention in 1873 modern electric motors propagated throughout the manufacturing industry. Each factory stationed one very large expensive motor in the place where a steam engine formerly stood. That single engine turned a complex maze of axles and belts, which in turn spun hundreds of smaller machines scattered throughout the factory. The rotational energy twirled through the buildings from that single source.
By the 1910s electric motors started their inevitable spread into homes. They had been domesticated. Unlike a steam engine, they did not smoke or belch or drool. Just a tidy steady whirr from a 5-pound hunk. As in factories, these single “home motors” were designed to drive all the machines in one home. The 1916 Hamilton Beach “Home Motor” had a 6-speed rheostat and ran on 110 volts. Designer Donald Norman points out a page from the 1918 Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog advertising the Home Motor for $8.75 (which is equivalent to about $100 these days). This handy motor would spin your sewing machine. You could also plug it in to the Churn and Mixer Attachment (“for which you will find many uses”), and the Buffer and Grinder Attachments (“will be found very useful in many ways around the home”). The Fan Attachment “can be quickly attached to Home Motor”, as well as Beater Attachment to whip cream and beat eggs.
One hundred years later the electric motor has seeped into ubiquity. There is no longer one home motor in a household, there are dozens of them, and each is nearly invisible. No longer stand-alone devices, motors are now integral parts of many appliances. They actuate our gadgets, acting as the muscles for our artificial selves. They are everywhere. I made an informal census of all the embedded motors I could find in the room I am sitting in while I write:
5 spinning hard disks
3 analog tape recorders
3 cameras (move zoom lenses)
1 video camera
1 watch
1 clock
1 printer
1 scanner (moves scan head)
1 copier
1 fax (moves paper)
1 CD player
1 pump in radiant floor heat
That’s 20 home motors in one room. A factory or office build would have thousands. We don’t think about motors. We are unconscious of them, even though we depend on their work. They rarely fail. We aren’t aware of roads and electricity because they are ubiquitous and usually work. We don’t think of paper and cotton clothing as technology because their reliable presences are everywhere.
Pingback: Shaping Network Society » Blog Archive » Structuring Deliberation 2.0