Talk:Collaborative e-democracy

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

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

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. 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.
 * Aggregation: The social networking platform plays a role in gathering citizens' opinions on different issues, such as agreement with a specific policy.
 * Collaboration: The platform also encourages collaboration of like-minded individuals on shared issues, aiding the co-creation of policy proposals within or between groups.
 * Collective intelligence: The CPM process leverages collective intelligence.
 * 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). This principle mirrors 'Perpetual Beta,' another design pattern of Web 2.0. Myclob (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ReasonRank
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. 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.

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)