Can you apply wikis to democracy?

by Mathew on May 7, 2006 · Comments

Courtesy of Umair at Bubblegeneration.com, I found something called Wikiocracy, which appears to be an attempt to apply the “open-source information” principles of Wikipedia to the various laws and statutes that form our society (or in this case, U.S. society), including the Constitution. This is an idea that I find kind of intriguing, especially since we are looking at how Web 2.0 affects politics and society as part of our mesh conference on May 15th and 16th. I wrote a bit about that here.

Given the kinds of errors that have crept into Wikipedia in the past, and the varrious controversies over people editing their own entries or being blocked from editing entries, I’m sure a lot of people would argue that the idea of a Wikipedia of politics or democracy would make no sense whatsoever. And yet, democracy in its purest sense is supposed to be representative of its citizens — and not just its smart or well-informed citizens. If everyone had the chance to write the laws, what would they look like? Would the numbskulls take over, as Nick Carr has suggested?

An initial look at Wikiocracy isn’t likely to fill anyone with confidence in that respect. One of the more recent changes proposed altering the U.S. Constitution to create a 58th Amendment, being the “Establishment of a solely Taters Based Economy.” It included a section which reads “The United States shall establish the Office of Taters through which it will promote its chief and only export, Taters, better known as potatoes,” and a link to an external site which features nothing but a looping video clip of Sam Gamgee’s character from Lord of the Rings saying the word “potatoes” over and over. The voice of the people? Perhaps not. Still, an interesting experiment nevertheless.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • Jorge
    The reason Wikipedia is so successful is because its articles are descriptive. While there can be disagreement over some particulars, generally it is pretty easy to achieve consensus on a descriptive article.

    Politics and governance are pro-active, not descriptive, so the wiki model is much more difficult to implement.

    However, it appears that there is now a new approach addresses this downfall of a completely open government. The main thing they add is to provide for a very sophisticated scoring mechanism, whereby users can be ranked by other users. Basically, the more that people respect you, the more say you have in governance. It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the idea.

    Have a look at the project:
    http://www.metagovernment.org

    It is just starting up, and they haven't even developed the scoring system, but they do now have a roadmap for how they intend to proceed.
  • Mathew Ingram
    Fair enough -- although I'd like to think I put a little more thought into my average post than it takes to say (or type) "Bah, humbug" three times in a row. You may disagree.
  • Well, not to be rude, but how often do you have the same type of content in the post (more or less)? [i.e. Web2.0/blogs/wikis ...]
  • Mathew Ingram
    Thanks, for the comment Rod. And I think you are right -- that's obviously one of the big threats to that kind of model.

    And Seth, thanks for your comment too -- although you seem to have the same type of comment (more or less) regardless of the content of the post.
  • Problem: The most vocal/participatory members of society don't always/usually represent the mainstream. Its not the numbskulls that will take over, but anyone with a specific policy agenda.
  • Bah, humbug.

    Bah, humbug.

    Bah, humbug.

    I could write more extensively, but I think that's the gist of it, and nothing more would do any good.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: