|This WebDB contains 115 items. (111 to 115 shown)|
Always-On Panopticon...or Cooperation Amplifier, How to Recognize The Future When It Lands On You, Sharing Economies, Technologies of Cooperation, The Evolution of Reputation
Wikipedia:Zephyr_Teachout, Director of Internet Organizing for HowardDean’s presidential campaign, posted an election day blog posting to New Assignment with some suggestions about how politicians can engage networks of citizens (quoted from Blog posting:
I would also add that local groups can be given access to easy ways of accumulating their own data, and accessing data accumulated by government about their local area, and inserting it into these engagement platforms.
Also, alternatively, recurring telephone conferences are very inexpensive, and can give an access outlet for people who are not computer literate, or who do not have access to computers. These calls can be recorded and uploaded to websites as well.
For number 5., Post the bill onto a Wiki, and allow people to directly edit a copy of the bill, or place comments on or near it.
A message board or forum, or comment section in ThreadMode, with the document at the top, and a discussion at the bottom allows you to discuss what is wrong with the document at the top. a threaded conversation can become very difficult to read, and possesses a low SignalToNoiseRatio. A wiki page allows you to actually make the change (referred to as DocumentMode). Of course, a wiki also allows the freedom of a MixedMode (threaded discussion, and editable documents). The point is, don’t limit people to just talking about what is wrong. Give them a way to change it, and a way to PeerReview those changes.
Wiki-enabled feedback can help familiarize people with the language and processes of legislation. It would attract people who have expertise in the area of legislation and legal matters, as well as people who have no such expertise. MixedMode talking about, and directly changing proposed legislation in wikis can both generate debate and give people ways to demonstrate exactly how they would like to be governed.Explore and add to these concepts more at CitizenEngagedGovernment
Original Location: http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2006/11/11/citizenengagedg....html
|20512||Open the Future: Second Life, Economic Evolution and the CopyBot - Add Feedback||25/11/2006 - 20:16:09|
The Second Life internal economy was predicated on the notion that designers could produce in-game objects that they could then sell; these objects would ostensibly be scarce (in the economic sense) because the designer could put limits on how many copies s/he would sell, and because -- in principle -- other residents couldn't make copies except by tedious efforts to reproduce a design by hand. Although the only "raw material" involved in the creation of Second Life goods is the memory & storage space needed on the SL server, the capability to design desirable objects serves as a market-generating form of scarcity. No matter that everyone can have the capability to make limitless numbers of in-game objects -- unless you can design something that other people want, you're just making digital junk.
But with CopyBot, these limitations are less meaningful, because it eliminates the barriers to making your own duplicates of other people's designs. It's not tedious or challenging, it's a click of a button. As a result, apparently over a hundred in-game designers have shut down in protest, and threats of lawsuits and copyright-infringement actions are flying.
If the ability to make copies continues to exist, these vendors argue, the basis of the SL economy will be destroyed. And since there's a direct conversion between in-game money and real-world money, anything that weakens the SL economy threatens the real-world economic livelihoods of many SL residents. They're right -- but is the Second Life economy worth saving?
What Linden Lab has tried to do is replicate the atom-world scarcity rules in a bit-world environment. Nobody should be surprised in any way that this doesn't work for long. It is the nature of bits to be easily copied. Even if Linden manages to shut down CopyBot, it will arise again in another form, and probably as something much harder to squelch. The death of Napster becomes the explosion of Gnutella and Bit Torrent; the death of CopyBot will mean the emergence of something more powerful and less easily eliminated. It's delightfully Darwinian.
Original Location: http://www.openthefuture.com/2006/11/second_life_economic_evolution.html
ThomasKalka: Comments are atomic, have a date and an author. Just allow these as seperate, nested micro-content, for wiki-pages also. benefits:
what kind of technical support would i like to have for reworking
Lion mentions taking notes while reading. I try this out here. (I could also try out in emacs, which would allow me to also try ZergCreep) “CommentGranger?” or a “WikiGranger?.” That is what I am doing with this post to my WebDB, which I am typing in a small window that comes up when I click on a bookmarklet in my browser.
Lion also explains why technology is a bigger factor in LackOfReworking than social issues.
Huge contribution by Lion, see his BulletedSummaryBlocks on the page.
We need to, as a community, I think: Smash the ideal of simplicity.
When the ideal of simplicity serves us, as it did with the birth of wiki, it is a great thing. But that ideal is not serving us any more. Instead, it is controlling us.
ThomasKalka: LackOfGranularity seems to be the main problem. So SupportGranularityInWiki.
BillSeitz: When discussions are about abstract ideas not intended to lead toward short-term WebSeitzWiki:DAndD, then it’s hard to evaluate whether a ReWork? has improved clarity (or any other metric of good-ness), and at what cost.
AlexSchroeder: on Community Wiki we have a lot of explorative or philosophical pages. They are subjective and tentative by their very nature. There’s very little refining to do, unless you agree with the basic idea. he benefit of reworking is too small -- I'd rather work on something new!
So basically I think our current format doesn’t require a lot of reworking.
Lion: It would be nice to get summaries of our conversations. Reworking is not necessarily about converging on opinions; A simple “conversation highlights” would be interesting, a convergence on what was said and notable being all the necessary convergence that’s needed, then.
Mattis: Whatever probably takes a community closer to the point to be able to write a good three line summary of a page, reacting fastly on developements of a path of thoughts (summary on recent changes and in the rss-feed) is good.
Helmut: Wikis do not give much technical support for reworking and it is makes sense to think about TechnicalSupportForReworking
AlexSchroeder: I like to read web pages that have key points in bold.
Zby: I am not sure how much you can compress a conversation before you lose something from it, see Conversational writing kicks formal writing's ass.
Lion: The point of compressing conversations is “to lose something.”
In this perspective I do agree with Thomas that we need a forum for the conversation part and only use wiki for the refference with easy interlinking and attaching of conversations to documents.
Keith: As a fan of design’s role in problem-solving, I believe there is an affordance for everything (WhatIsAffordance)! I have considered this problem of LackOfReworking, and tried to design a widget that encourages reworking.
There are several barriers to reworking:
The thing that drew me to wikis intitially was the potential to use the tool to synthesize knowledge.
I think, after reading this page and taking quick notes on it, that the LackOfReworking problem is both a technical (Lion), and a social problem(Helmut). ("It's a floor wax!", "It's a dessert topping!", you're both right!).
LackOfReworking is a techno-social problem. A set of problems that stems from the way that we collectively solve problems through technological mediums.
We desire more ordered DocumentMode pages for future readers and future reference.
Yet, in the more immediate, closer-to-bounded present, we function and flow more loosely in a conversational pattern.
We use wiki technology here as a techno-social attempt to weave together the past, present and future.
The CommunityWiki HiveMind is close to creating a sustainable techno-social system here for doing this past/present/future weaving. LackOfReworking can mean a LackOfWorking in the present for the future. Why should you have to re-work? (I know that these points have already been made in different ways by others). You are already working. DoItOnce. DoItOnce to weave together the past, the present, and the future, and be doen with it.
So, my contribution to LackOfReworking is:
* How do we DoItOnce within the bounds of the current technology?
* How do we change the technology to let the machines do the work for us?
Original Location: http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LackOfReworking