Shaping the idea: what this thing doesn't look like
Today, I look at an early book on online politics:
3) Davis, Richard. "The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System." 1999.
The book's introduction by Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute starts out with a doozie:
"Passive individuals who today consume news inadvertently or intermittently are unlikely to change into policy wonks no matter how convenient the Net makes it to access information or play a direct role as policy actor [italics added]."
True enough. However, I don't think that the goal of the website should be to change people into policy wonks. People should be able to access multi-partisan viewpoints quickly, though, and I don't know of a way to do that now. Wikipedia? Google? Try to look up the key issues in the abortion debate, and see how long it takes you to get the gist. Too much information, too little structure (or at least not a conducive structure for comparing and evaluating). The goal of this website is to lower the barrier for quick reference and understanding, and also serve as a portal into deliberation. Secondary goals include self-education among those creating content.
Here's another quote from the introduction: "Deliberation and cyberdemocracy are not easily compatible." I agree with this, but I also want to note that this website will not attempt to expand political powers to the citizen. I'm not a huge fan of the referendum/initiative process as it is being used today anyway, and I sure wouldn't want it to expand (not that I think people are seriously suggesting implementing e-democracy.
Some of the book's topics are dated, but Davis' central thesis is worth looking at:
"The Internet is destined to become dominated by the same actors in American politics who currently utilize other mediums."
Despite all the hoopla about bloggers today, that thesis remains largely true. News organizations and various political interests (govmt, candidates, think tanks) put out the vast majority of information out there. I think that there is also truth in Friedman's idea of superempowered individuals / organizations in his recent books The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat. Internet 2.0 applications that emphasis social networking and dynamic content are growing rapidly, and there's no reason why there couldn't be a version of Slashdot or Flickr or MySpace that focuses on political issues. One of the main questions that I need to look at is who else is trying (or has tried) to do this already.
Davis conveniently breaks down the ideas for Internet political participation into three categories:
Finally, I take from Davis' book some must-haves for the website: trustworthiness, flame control, and low tech literacy threshold for participation.
3) Davis, Richard. "The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System." 1999.
The book's introduction by Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute starts out with a doozie:
"Passive individuals who today consume news inadvertently or intermittently are unlikely to change into policy wonks no matter how convenient the Net makes it to access information or play a direct role as policy actor [italics added]."
True enough. However, I don't think that the goal of the website should be to change people into policy wonks. People should be able to access multi-partisan viewpoints quickly, though, and I don't know of a way to do that now. Wikipedia? Google? Try to look up the key issues in the abortion debate, and see how long it takes you to get the gist. Too much information, too little structure (or at least not a conducive structure for comparing and evaluating). The goal of this website is to lower the barrier for quick reference and understanding, and also serve as a portal into deliberation. Secondary goals include self-education among those creating content.
Here's another quote from the introduction: "Deliberation and cyberdemocracy are not easily compatible." I agree with this, but I also want to note that this website will not attempt to expand political powers to the citizen. I'm not a huge fan of the referendum/initiative process as it is being used today anyway, and I sure wouldn't want it to expand (not that I think people are seriously suggesting implementing e-democracy.
Some of the book's topics are dated, but Davis' central thesis is worth looking at:
"The Internet is destined to become dominated by the same actors in American politics who currently utilize other mediums."
Despite all the hoopla about bloggers today, that thesis remains largely true. News organizations and various political interests (govmt, candidates, think tanks) put out the vast majority of information out there. I think that there is also truth in Friedman's idea of superempowered individuals / organizations in his recent books The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat. Internet 2.0 applications that emphasis social networking and dynamic content are growing rapidly, and there's no reason why there couldn't be a version of Slashdot or Flickr or MySpace that focuses on political issues. One of the main questions that I need to look at is who else is trying (or has tried) to do this already.
Davis conveniently breaks down the ideas for Internet political participation into three categories:
- citizen information
- interaction between citizens and government
- policy making
Finally, I take from Davis' book some must-haves for the website: trustworthiness, flame control, and low tech literacy threshold for participation.
posted by Southwest DC new parent at
10:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home