Talk:E-democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] Internet democracy

Term internet democracy has at least the same legitimacy to be linked to this page as term liquid democracy. So, leave it there. Yet, if you do not find internet democracy has an adequate explanation, than you have to concern about starting understanding that term, not this one.

Nonsense. Term removed again. "Internet democracy" is not a widely recognized term at this time, esp. with the definition provided on that page and esp. since it only refers in a self-serving way to one external site.

Stevietheman 21:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Liquid democracy is neither, nor open source government or anything like that.

"Liquid democracy" is mentioned in various spaces, and also has a clear, acceptable definition.

By the way, please sign your comments. Without a signature, they are not considered by many to be legitimate.

Stevietheman 12:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Haha. One blog and two wikies are enough? You are funny guy Steve. Acceptable definition? You mean, definition you will understand? Well, Steve, some people understand things you do not. Do not put yourself between those people and Internet democracy.

If you want to do smart things in your life, do them, but do not ruin my work. Work on the piece of software I gave you to work on, or something else. There are many things where you could use your creativness.

Legitimacy of my comments? Legitimacy is in the words I write, not in some virtual name that means nothing to the public.

A legitimate definition of "Internet democracy" is as a variant of e-democracy and follows:

Internet democracy is the utilization of the Internet to enhance democratic processes. Usually, the enhancement comes in the form of making the processes more accessible and public participation more direct so as to enable broader influence in public policy outcomes.

Your description of "Internet democracy" is of a concept that 1) requires a more specific name (that you refuse to admit, even when that should be obvious), and 2) requires acceptance and usage by a broader community (which it does not--it is a concept invented by you and used by nobody else).

No further "understanding" of your coined term is necessary.

Any further attempts to include your unencyclopedic entry will be turned around so as to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia.

Stevietheman 20:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you find that lame definition to be Internet democracy, put it there. I have nothing against it, because I do not own that term. As you do not own that term.

BTW, your atttempt of implementing Newspeak on this place, where any dangerous idea for indoctrinayted soul needs to be eliminated, is something that can not survive on this open project.

God bless the Internet :)

I'm sorry that you don't comprehend the rationale behind exclusion of a unique coined definition of "Internet democracy". An encyclopedia is not a place to throw in pet conceptual ideas by various individuals. If it were, I'd place my coined concepts of "pervasive democracy" and "microparticipation" here... but I won't, because I _know_ they will not be accepted as proper encyclopedic entries.

By the way, strangely enough, I actually generally like the concept you describe in your definition of "Internet democracy", but one cannot be biased against the Wikipedia's proper purpose.

Again, all you need do is:

  • Rename your concept to something less general than "Internet democracy".
  • Get others on the web to reference and discuss it (so you can have more than one "external link").

Then, you might get a listing here, and deserve it.

Stevietheman 21:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well Stevie, I have spent pretty much time on finding the new term that would suit the whole concept. I know what I am talking about. If you like it, great, if you do not like it, I will live with that in the same manner you have to live with the fact you are not the one who can decide what is the legitimate term and what is not. Especially in the moment when it gets too obvious the newspeak is here for a while.

So, let the new concepts get the space in the mind of the new generations. Do not be the one whose narrow mind decided to stand between this revolutionary concept and the people who have to realize it.


The latest description for "Internet democracy" rings accurate, so the link to it from here now makes sense.

Further, there are a lot of "revolutionary" concepts being touted by many in these fast-changing times, and some are very interesting and useful, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia until they meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Stevietheman 15:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go 'day all. I have modified some parts of e-voting as concerns user ID. The idea - nicely expressed incidentally - touches upon a wider range of poltical transaction in the polity - e-gov, e-discussion etc. Every transactions where authenticity is an issue.

Not very happy baout the single-headed nature of e-dem either. Several different models of e-dem have been porposed, and consesus is that there are at least three: liberal, communitarian and direct. No time to amend though.

Wainer

[edit] 27th August change

I've edited the article very heavily; I apologise in advance if I've annoyed anyone by the edit; I've tried to preserve the sense of eveything that was there before me ... clearly I live in hope that we'll continue to edit the article to, say, featured article status. We have a way to go yet. I anticipate I'll be back :) --Tagishsimon

Thank you for your efforts. It is much appreciated. I just took some time to do a round of editing on it. -- Stevietheman 22:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think the introduction needs to be split into sections and reformatted now that we have the section on EDD. I may look at that tomorrow. I just found this link on e-voting in swizterland (included in the text). The full pdf is here and is an interesting read. Barnaby dawson 12:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started this effort by consolidating the Ross Perot content under EDD. -- Stevietheman 15:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved the practical considerations paragraph and added some material. I had to change linking text but I think it wasn't that linked to the previous paragraph really. Maybe the note about the internet could be done next. Barnaby dawson 12:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymity

Re: "The need to allow anonymous posting"...

It's arguable that some aspects of e-democracy should require people to publicly identify themselves, like in petitioning, or is alluded to in the article, when a discussion panel of experts is ongoing. That is, the public has the right to know who the experts are.

Further, in cases where a vote works like legislating, or a discussion works like pre-legislation deliberation, and especially when a participant acts as a proxy for others, it's important for that participant to act as a representative, with their identity known. It is arguable that people need to publicly stand behind their positions in a "more direct" e-democracy.

I'm not sure if this debate belongs in the article, but I think the subject is going to come up periodically. -- Stevietheman

  • "The need to allow anonymous posting" was not meant to apply to all aspects of e-democracy. I think we can safely say that anonymous communication/posting is necessary in certain circumstances (ones which often appear in political life). Examples include whistleblowing and other situations in which people may be intimidated by the state, buisness or some other group. I am thinking of creating an article to discuss the uses of cryptography in online decision making (e-voting, forums, discussion groups...) perhaps titled Cryptography in online decision making. The articles remit would cover more than just e-democracy of course. Barnaby dawson 14:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I take issue with the entire paragraph about anonymity and how it should be achieved. The solution lies (in my experience/opinion) in the same direction as taken by encryption software such as PGP/GPG. The identity problem is solved by going around the Internet, by meeting people face to face. It is also possible to derive an electronic identity from PGP/GPG signatures, which is only as good as the encryption and (also) derived from face to face contact. I have some experience on this subject, since I'm author of an e-democracy computer program facing this exact problem, (see http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/sede ). In my humble opinion this program solves the technical/practical problems of electronic voting. E-democracy with sede works like this: register voters off-line (or in some other trusted way), and then contact the voters through the communications channel that has been agreed during the voter registration. That way the communication channel and its encryption properties, become the "identity check" and anonymity for the voter, the anonymity is achieved because nobody knows who is behind a certain channel (depending on proper use, of course), and security through encryption. There are all kinds of set-ups possible, simultaneously, on and off-line (no tech-owners voting elite). Verification of votes (trust from voters in the proces) is achieved by (optional) anonymous publishing of all votes (at a cost to voter on voter pressure and vote-selling). I'd rather have someone else change it, thanks, because otherwise I'd have to talk about my own work, which is not good for objectivity/trust (Linux Magazine published a column in part about the system). Sede also adds some (probably new?) goodies, such as a completely free vote and free comment (which enhances voter power and security). Sede is free[soft]ware, GPL. Joshb2 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] e-democracy conflated with direct democracy

I'm afraid that I'd take issue with a good deal of this entry. That 'e-democracy' is necessarily an adjunct to direct democracy is very questionable. Firstly, the objections to e-democracy could be expanded. One of the most important objections to Direct Democracy is that it is thought to lead to sub-optimal policy outcomes. In addition, it is argued that Direct Democracy increases the power of pressure groups and the media at the expense of elected representatives - and that it removes the element of 'concience' from policy-making. I'd suggest that Internet technologies and designs could actually enhance Representative Democracy and further weaken the case - and practical scope - for Direct Democracy. It could do so in the following ways.

1. To improve the quality of dialogue between candidates / elected representatives and the general public, thereby reducing the influence of political parties - and ultimately, creating an environment more conducive to decentralisation. 2. To reduce the influence of the mainstream media from the equation where public policy is discussed - instead allowing policy-makers to market their views directly to the public without the mediation of the newspapers. 212.158.252.130 11:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Paul Evans

[edit] About adding external link information to a concerned subject page

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to E-democracy. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Natalie 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Very sorry, Natalie...I didn't realize we were violating a lot, any, rules and regulations...I know, ignorance of the law is not an excuse:)

I just wanted to attach what, from work involved in it and my development work over the past, I thought was useful and directly relevant information to the subject areas of eGov, eDemocracy and the Digital Divide on Wikipedia: I am certain that no other listing of worldwide eGovernment sites ( and/or their eGov portals that are deemed comprehensive and user-friendly ) is presently more complete than that provided in eRepublic.org, nor are other eGov directories and associated sites concerned with promoting country development in these areas from what I have seen, from Google and Yahoo directories to small sites providing some government websites resources. This stuff is not spam and the site is certainly not out for monetary profit...even just paying its operating costs is nice:)

Anyway, we'll just continue to use Wikipedia as a resource from time to time. By the way, Xenia is my home town and I have always held a bit of fondness for Yellow Springs and Antioch College, despite what my grandmother use to say au sujet des "hippies" there when I was a little kid back in the 60's :)

Best, galanv - Gary Vizzo (Galanv 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC))


[edit] "Practical issues with e-democracy" section

in this section the last line on one of the paragraph states "In the United Kingdom there is much contention about the introduction of the British national identity card." Can someone please either remove or expand on it to fit into the context of the rest of the paragraph? It doesn't seem to fit, like its been slapped on the end. What has the UK ID card got to do with wether you're a biologist or not?

The section on practical issues mentioned about "The need to allow anonymous posting while at the same time giving certain contributors extra status such as biologists can be solved using certain cryptographic methods." Why biologists? It is pointless and out of context. Perhaps, it should read "such as biologists at a conference on bioethics", even then it is not fully justified.Avman M 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open institution democracy

A new form of democracy was proposed and publicly debated this month (August 2007). Two institutions were proposed: 1) open electoral system; and 2) open legislature. For details and references, see: Talk:Participatory_democracy#Open_institution_democracy.

I am wondering, should we describe this on Wikipedia? And where, exactly? --Michael Allan 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [2]. --Stwalkerbot 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)