User:Vero ALO/sandbox

BLOG
WEEK 5

Wikipedia Project: Article Evaluation

Choose an article on Wikipedia related to your course to read and evaluate. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):

Article Title: Wave of Democracy The sections of the article seem to be relevant to understanding the concept of "wave of democracy". However, where the Fourth Wave is explained, there is a couple of lines that may be ommited, they represent the opinion of an Egyptian blogger rather than a theoretical explanation of the topic. It reads as follows:
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

A concrete example is provided by the story of Maikel Nabil, an Egyptian blogger convicted to be imprisoned for three years for “insulting the military establishment.” The main causes of the regression and crisis in all the affected countries are attributed to corruption, unemployment, social injustice, and autocratic political systems. The article is neutral enough to be informative abouth the topic. The explanation for the First Wave is underrepresented compared to the Fourth. The latter focuses more on speculations and explanation of a specific event (Arab Spring) rather than in the generality of what the Fourth Wave is considered to be. Yes, they do work. Most of them support the claims. They are taken from scholar articles, other Wikipedia articles and official documents. I would only be worried about a small bias in articles of published magazines or journals, such as Foreign Affairs. The former because authors usually make a judgement about the topic they are investigating. One could add the process of democratization in North Africa and the recent elections in the continent. The last line about the Arab Spring is meant for two years ago, it reads: "As of 2016 (...)" There are no ongoing conversations. It is rated as Start-Class and it is a part of WikiProjects but has not received a rating on the project's importance scale. We have not dealt with this topic in class yet.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Reflection: While I was analyzing this specific Wikipedia article I noticed several things. First, that most articles writen in English have mostly US or Western-centered examples. This is problematic due to the fact that talking about democracy should not be constrained only to certain parts of the world. Second, that there is a difference between the English and Spanish version of the article; it is then harder to tell which has the most reliable sources and is more objective. Third, the talk pages of articles are helpful to see what is being discussed but in this particular article there were no comments, which makes me think that there may be a biased opinion even if the information if fairly neutral.

--

WEEK 6

Wikipedia Project: Add to an article

Reflection: Talk pages are useful to know what should be analyzed more in an article, specifically what can of information should be added or revised. In the article I chose to modify, users of the talk page insisted on a more neutral revision of certain sections and suggested that more sources were needed in order to have more concrete information. I find it concerning that if one of the editors is biased towards something, he or she may not accept the suggested edits, may erase them or not take them into account. On this, I also believe that cognotive diversity is important as long as such pluralism translates into better information sharing and a neutral revision of the articles.

--

WEEK 7

Wikipedia Project: Choose possible topics

Narco Kleptocracy: Kleptocracy
 * Exand the examples and worldview.
 * Review the examples, especially by eliminating bias that kleptocratic leaders or regimes can only be found in developing countries.
 * Deepen the analysis of elections and its relation with kleptocracy. As well as the role of corruption.
 * Update case studies due to developments in recent years.
 * Narcokleptocracy as a sub issue

Delegative Democracy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy
 * Identify the types of deliberative democracy and if they should be considered as such (liquid democracy, proxy voting)
 * Broaden examples of how it is applied.
 * Focus on proxy voting
 * Add relation with proportional representation

Publicly funded elections:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections
 * Review title, focus could be more on how political campaigns are funded and not elections as a whole. Make the difference clear.
 * Add examples and case studies on a worldwide view instead of leaving a constrain of American politics. The article only includes non-American issues when stating: “The United Kingdom, Norway, India, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, Sweden are some jurisdictions where methods of publicly funded election legislation and the reasons for the need of alternatives to privately funded campaigns have been considered.“
 * Revise idea on Clean elections
 * Add criticism arguments, for example individual financing or social funding.

Reflection: I went through several articles in order to choose my topic, and to do so I looked at several things: the length of the article, the rating of the article, the biggest controversies in the talk page, the examples and the quality of sources. In the end I picked three options, the first has no Wikipedia article byitself but is in fact an important topic with the current rise of anti-corruption movements and legislatures. The second topic lacks broader examples of how delegative or liquid democracy works, it is very US centered and this is not enough for a concept that is gaining relevance. I chose my third option due to the fact that, again, examples are both constrained and not explained. Also, sections need revising and updating. I believe that it also lacks a section to compare arguments for and against.

--

WEEK 8

Wikipedia Project: Finalize your topic/find your sources

Delegative / Liquid Democracy: Liquid Democracy is an interesting and relevant topic to describe the current approaches to democracy, especially new systems in which votes can be cast. The Wikipedia article is still missing some general descriptions or definitions as well as sources cited. Adding to this, the examples presented in the article should be better organized and deeper insight added. I also plan to add a section on the Origins of the concept and another on Criticisms. I believe my contributions will enhance the value of the article as well as better illustrate how Delegative Democracy works.

Possible sources:


 * Gascó, M. (2012). Social Media and Perspectives on Liquide Democracy: The Examples of Political Communication in the Pirate Party in Germany. ECEG2012-Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Government: ECEG
 * Hale, H. & Michael McFaul & Timothy J. Colton (2013) Putin and the "Delegative Democracy" Trap: Evidence from Russia's 2003-04 Elections, Post-Soviet Affairs, 20:4, 285-319, DOI: 10.2747/1060-586X.20.4.285 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2747/1060-586X.20.4.285
 * Kubicek, P (1994). Delegative Democracy in Russia and Ukraine. Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109 USA.
 * Larkins, C. (1998). The Judiciary and Delegative Democracy in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 30(4), 423-442. doi:10.2307/422332 http://www.jstor.org/stable/422332?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
 * Panizza, F. (2000). Beyond ‘Delegative Democracy’: ‘Old Politics’ and ‘New Economics’ in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(3), 737-763. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-latin-american-studies/article/beyond-delegative-democracy-old-politics-and-new-economics-in-latin-america/EB0557BC279D525C0A3B13585A33ADA8
 * Peruzotti, E. (2001). The Nature of the New Argentine Democracy. The Delegative Democracy Argument Revisited. Journal of Latin American Studies, 33(1), 133-155. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-latin-american-studies/article/nature-of-the-new-argentine-democracy-the-delegative-democracy-argument-revisited/06086E7036EEEBC0F5C64D254E278671

Reflection: The topic of Liquid Democracy has mostly been researched through empirical experiments rather than theoretical or conceptual analysis or papers. Encountering this type of sources has been difficult. However, the experiments and empirical papers are very useful to present examples and real life cases of how Delegative Democracy works.

--

WEEK 9

Wikipedia Project: Expand your draft / Peer review

(Expansion of draft is copied below)

Peer Review to the article “Economic Democracy”: I had written some suggestions in the 'Comment' section next to each article but I actually don't know what happened. I don't think they got published correctly. I feel your article is pretty well thought out. The language you're using is understandable and easy to follow. However, just a few comments. Both in the paragraph about Ferrera's claims and those of Rawls, I believe you could look into some contrasting thoughts to their statements. Even though both authors try to prove a specific point, as a reader it is always important to have a more objective look and sometimes that means comparison.

I also believe that you could, perhaps, be more illustrative with your examples. Specifically in the paragraphs of Workplace as a political entity. In this same section you can include previous ideas to Ferrera's, this might be useful just to know what others are saying about it: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199330102.001.0001/acprof-9780199330102-chapter-2 // http://jarche.com/2012/01/democratization-of-the-workplace/

Lastly, I would encourage you to deepen the section "Critiques" in the original Wikipedia article. There is but a few lines there and I believe you can successfully contribute to this.

Reflection: This week I encountered some problems with the online platform. While posting my peer review in the comment section, my comments never went through and could not be published. This was problematic because my reviewee couldn’t get the comments right on time. Later on I was able to copy such suggestions directly into his sandbox and could then engage more thoroughly with his article.

Regarding mine, I started writing the independent sections of the article: Origins of Delegative Democracy and Criticisms. Each one has required at least three sources and gives a decent amount of insight on what authors have expressed regarding the topic.

--

WEEK 10

Wikipedia Project: Respond to peer review

Review to my article:

''Hi Vero, these edits are certainly needed on such an important topic. I have a couple of suggestions that I think will help make your edits and the article stronger. Try to simplify the first paragraph of your article as much as possible, avoiding getting too theoretical. One thing that helped me understand a simple way of explaining economic democracy was youtube videos on the subject. Usually Wikipedia writers are experts that like to get technical, try consulting some youtube videos such as this one to see how you can balance that line between accurate and too technical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya1dNNzkQTE Regarding your "Origins of delegative democracy" edit. I don't know how much value you get from quoting an anonymous user on the web. Although it is important to give credit where it is due, unless you have a source and a good argument for this anonymous user being the best presenter of the idea that liquid democracy straddles the line between representative and direct democracy. I suggest putting this argument into your own words or finding a more credible political science source for this argument.''

Response to review:

·       Simplified first paragraph: ''Delegative Democracy or Liquid Democracy lies between direct and representative democracy. It does not depend on representatives but rather on a weighted and transitory delegation of votes. Voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to other participants; voters may select a delegate for different issues.[1] [2] In other words, individual A of an X society can delegate its power to another individual B – and withdraw such power again at any time.[3] Delegative democracy through elections should empower individuals to become sole interpreters of the interests of the nation. [4] Most of the available academic literature on liquid democracy is based on empirical research rather than on specific conceptualization or theories. Experiments have mostly been conducted on a local level or exclusively through online platforms, however polity examples are listed below.''

·        About quoting an “anonymous”: since Liquid Democracy happens mostly in within the online world, hackers and internet users are some of those directly involved in creating the platforms where liquid democracy works. The importance of citing this character is the understanding of how these platforms work, especially because there is null or very little theoretical information on such.

--

WEEK 11

Wikipedia Project: Move article to Wikipedia

(Final draft copied below)

--

(Add to first paragraph of concept meaning and explanation)
Delegative democracy, also known as liquid democracy, is a form of democratic control whereby an electorate vests voting power in delegates rather than in representatives. The term is a generic description of either already-existing or proposed popular-control apparatuses. Voters can either vote directly or delegate their vote to other participants; voters may select a delegate for different issues. In other words, individual A of an X society can delegate its power to another individual B – and withdraw such power again at any time.

Delegative Democracy or Liquid Democracy lies between direct and representative democracy. In direct democracy participants must vote personally in all issues, while in representative democracy participants vote for representative once in certain election cycles. Meanwhile, liquid democracy does not depend on representatives but rather on a weighted and transitory delegation of votes. Delegative democracy through elections should empower individuals to become sole interpreters of the interests of the nation.

Most of the available academic literature on liquid democracy is based on empirical research rather than on specific conceptualization or theories. Experiments have mostly been conducted on a local level or exclusively through online platforms, however polity examples are listed below.

(Add section on Origins of Liquid Democracy)

Origins of Delegative Democracy
The origin of the delegative form and the concept of liquid democracy remains unclear. However, Bryan Form in his paper Delegative Democracy explains the main principles of how it works. Based on the work of Jabbusch and James Green-Armytage, liquid democracy can be traced back to reports of William S. O’Ren who in 1912 demanded interactive representation, where the elected politicians’ influence would be weighted with regard to the amount of votes each had received. A few decades later, around 1967, Gordon Tullock suggested that voters could choose their representatives or vote themselves in parliament “by wire”, while debates were broadcasted by television. James C. Miller favored the idea that everybody should have the possibility to vote on any questions themselves or to appoint a representative who could transmit their inquiries. Soon after Miller argued in favor of liquid democracy, in 1970 Martin Shubik called the process an “instant referendum”. Nonetheless Shubik was concerned on the speed of decision-making and how it might influence the time available for public debates.

In the early 2000’s an anonymous user of the web known as “sayke” argued that “liquid democracy can be thought of as a function that takes a question as an argument, and returns a list of answers sorted by group preference […] as a voting system that migrates along the line between direct and representative democracy”. This idea resulted in a concept that a decentralized information system could enable citizens to participate in political decision-making, which would push parliaments to become obsolete.

(Add to The Delegative Form)
For Guillermo O’Donnell, an Argentinian political scientist, representative democracy as it exists is usually linked solely to highly developed capitalist countries. However newly installed democracies do not seem to be on a path of becoming fully representative democracies. O’ Donnell calls the former delegative democracies, for they are not fully consolidated democracies but may be enduring.

For a delegatve democracy to exist, there must be an important interaction effect. The successful cases have featured a decisive coalition of broadly supported political leaders who take great care in creating and strengthening democratic political institutions.

(Add in Examples section)

Examples
Pirate Parties Pirate Parties in Germany,[10] Italy, Austria, Norway, France and the Netherlands[11] use delegative democracy with the open-source software LiquidFeedback,[ citation needed] while members of the Belgian Pirate Party have developed their own software called Get Opinionated.[ non-primary source needed] Specifically in the case of the Pirate Party in Germany, the communication with citizens uses tools and platforms similar to conventional parties – including Facebook, Twitter, and online sites – however they developed the “piratewiki” project. This is an open platform opened to collaborative contributions to the political deliberative process. 'Liquid Feedback' was the platform used by the German Pirate Party since 2006, which allowed users to become a part of inner party decision making process.

Russian Federation Early Russian Soviets practiced delegative democracy[8][9] but as the Bolshevik majority was reached, this system gradually eroded in favor of more representational forms of governance. Russia’s electoral law stipulates that half of all parliamentarians will come from voting on party lists, it aims to encourage the formation of political parties. In order to look for political partners and confront skeptical voters, parties must focus on introducing legislation, public opinion campaigns and political education.

Argentina

Christopher Larkins argues that due to the impact of the 1980’s crisis, delegative democracy originated in Argentina. The economic crisis was used to justify a centralization of executive authority which would begin with Alfonsin’s administration and continue with Carlos Saul Menem ascending to the presidency. Larkin's arguments exemplify political outtakes on delegative democracy.

Recently, virtual platforms have been created in Argentina. Democracia en Red is a group of Latin Americans who seek a redistribution of political power and a more inclusive discussion. They created Democracy OS, a platform which allows internet users to propose, debate and vote on different topics. Pia Mancini argues that the platform opens up democratic conversation and upgrades democratic decision making to the internet era.

Other Systems

(Add Criticisms)

Criticisms
Liquid Democracy has been critized to resemble an authoritarian state in practice, while meeting the formal requirements of democracy. It has also been assumed to be partially democratic, for the ruler has a free reign to act and justify his or her acts in the name of the people. O'Donnell considered delegative democracy to be close to Caesarism, Bonapartism or caudillismo.

Bryan Ford explains that some of the current challenges to Liquid Democracy include the unintended concentration of delegated votes due to large amount of people participating in platforms and decision making; building more secure and decentralized implementation of online platforms in order to avoid unscrupulous administrators or hackers; shorten the thresholds between voter privacy and delegate accountability.

Another disadvantage or criticism against liquid democracy is the lack of access to digital platforms by the widespread population. In most developing countries, not every citizen has access to a smartphone, computer or internet connection. This technological disparity both in access and knowledge would result in a more unbalanced participation than what already exists.

In additon, liquid democracy may evolve into a type of meritocracy because decisions are usually delegated to those with knowledge on a specific subject or with required experience.

Possible sources:

Hale, H. & Michael McFaul & Timothy J. Colton (2013) Putin and the "Delegative Democracy" Trap: Evidence from Russia's 2003-04 Elections, Post-Soviet Affairs, 20:4, 285-319, DOI: 10.2747/1060-586X.20.4.285 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2747/1060-586X.20.4.285

Peruzotti, E. (2001). The Nature of the New Argentine Democracy. The Delegative Democracy Argument Revisited. Journal of Latin American Studies, 33(1), 133-155. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-latin-american-studies/article/nature-of-the-new-argentine-democracy-the-delegative-democracy-argument-revisited/06086E7036EEEBC0F5C64D254E278671

Panizza, F. (2000). Beyond ‘Delegative Democracy’: ‘Old Politics’ and ‘New Economics’ in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(3), 737-763. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-latin-american-studies/article/beyond-delegative-democracy-old-politics-and-new-economics-in-latin-america/EB0557BC279D525C0A3B13585A33ADA8

Larkins, C. (1998). The Judiciary and Delegative Democracy in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 30(4), 423-442. doi:10.2307/422332 http://www.jstor.org/stable/422332?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Kubicek, P (1994). Delegative Democracy in Russia and Ukraine. Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109 USA.

Gascó, M. (2012). Social Media and Perspectives on Liquide Democracy: The Examples of Political Communication in the Pirate Party in Germany. ECEG2012-Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Government: ECEG

Revising proposed edits - Topiltzin
Hi Vero, these edits are certainly needed on such an important topic. I have a couple of suggestions that I think will help make your edits and the article stronger.

Try to simplify the first paragraph of your article as much as possible, avoiding getting too theoretical. One thing that helped me understand a simple way of explaining economic democracy was youtube videos on the subject. Usually Wikipedia writers are experts that like to get technical, try consulting some youtube videos such as this one to see how you can balance that line between accurate and too technical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya1dNNzkQTE

Regarding your "Origins of delegative democracy" edit. I don't know how much value you get from quoting an anonymous user on the web. Although it is important to give credit where it is due, unless you have a source and a good argument for this anonymous user being the best presenter of the idea that liquid democracy straddles the line between representative and direct democracy. I suggest putting this argument into your own words or finding a more credible political science source for this argument.