Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger and Citizens more Powerful by Beth Simone Noveck (2009)
The book Wiki Government provides an inspiring dialogue concerning the current limitations in the government’s conceptualizing of democratic representation and efficient and effective service delivery in the information age. Noveck provides well thought out conjectures of how the government could shift their focus from deliberative forms of participation to collaborative forms utilizing (1) collaboration as a distinct form of democratic participation, (2) egalitarian self-selection, and (3) visual deliberation.
A discussion of the author's main contentions:
Noveck provides three main points in her book which will be addressed and within each the sub-context will be noted to flush out micro concepts.
Collaboration as a Distinct Form of Democratic Participation
This first idea is what I consider the seminal argument in this book. Noveck juxtaposes citizen participation efforts into acts of deliberation or acts of collaboration in order to stress the different approaches in utilizing technology as an effective medium of participatory democracy. She strongly suggests that considering deliberation as participation is insufficient since it consists of passive involvement in the political process through voting, consensus building and policy debates. Collaboration on the other hand, is noted as active participation through the co-creation of policy alternatives by which a potentially diverse set of individuals are able to contribute to a solving a common problem. Noveck proceeds to emphasize the distinction by suggesting deliberation is the practice of self-expression while collaboration is true participation. Currently, technology enables both these forms of “participation” to be utilized, and thus the question posed by Noveck is which of these two forms more appropriately advances governance. She concludes that collaboration brings new stakeholders to the table which provides the opportunity to lessen the burden of government while increasing diversity of knowledge, skill and passion in decision making. Moreover, such an approach changes the tenor of policy conversations in the same manner adding a person to a dinner party changes the group dynamics. She sows this seed in the beginning chapters, advocating for collaborative problem solving which capitalizes on our interdependencies and the creative forces of the collective.
Furthermore, Noveck recommends that government officials determine the policy problem and provide a structural framework for expert citizens to engage in policy review, idea gathering, solution building and possibly resolution of the issue. I agree with her logic why government officials should determine the problem of interest. She claims persuasively that crowdsourcing and decentralized citizen involvement requires structured objectives and role differentiation. This allows for citizens to efficiently provide solutions to a shared problem, rather than addressing disparate issues which lead to independent work and the absence of group dynamics. The central example of this is Noveck’s Peer-to-Patent pilot study for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) where citizens are invited to work together with government officials in reviewing patents.
Noveck purports that collaborative efforts of activities such as Peer-to-Patient are possible by eliciting support of citizen experts. Importantly, she defines experts as to include both scientific knowledge and popular experience. Interestingly, expertise is conceptualized as recognizing the priority for scientific and technical knowledge (quantitative in nature) while also validating the experiential which is more qualitative. The former conveys notions of statistical reliability, validity, and directly observable and measurable phenomena while the later espouses passion, interest and first-hand knowledge. The fusion of the two is necessary to create a full-bodied solution for governance—incorporating both the rationale and emotional. Within the scientific framework, Noveck brings forth the idea of the micro-elite. This untapped knowledge base consists of professors, scientists, enthusiasts who can assist with the analysis and conceptualization of a solution, and thus tap into a cognitive surplus. However, I found that Noveck overemphasized the technical and scientific opportunities gained which may undervalue artistic and first-hand contributions which equally advance the creation of a holistic solution. Moreover, devaluing the qualitative and experiential capital of collaborators could limit the inclusion of the broader public in resolving issues which directly affect them and thus lessen participation in democratic governance. Consequently, the micro-elite could become another faction of special interests groups and government would lose out on incorporating the diversity of social capita available in the U.S.
Egalitarian Self-Selection
Noveck conceptualizes egalitarian participation as each individual in society determining their participation based on their expertise (scientific knowledge and popular experience) of the issue and effort they are willing to invest. Interestingly, this contrary to the notion of equality assumed within the democratic voting system where everyone can and is encouraged to vote. Noveck assumes that everyone does not want to or should participate in every discussion. She proposes self-selection is preferred to full participation as it provides few incentives to individuals who are neither interested nor knowledgeable about the issue of interest. Noveck suggests that collaborative decision making can fall victim to over-participation if everyone is expected to contribute—a form of tacit mandated participation. She purports that each individual has unique skills and experience and theses talents should be utilized in those endeavors where they are best suited. Thus, the barrier to entry is the individual themself; resulting in a system which is egalitarian by nature and practice.
Visual Deliberation
Wiki government, which is enabled by the advancement of technology namely cyberspace, only achieves its aim if the medium through which technology operates is able to simulate the interactions of the in-person physical world. As noted by Noveck, the medium matters which includes visual demonstration of the structure and rules. This allows for groups to develop norms and boundaries for participation. She also draws from the work of Joan Morris Dimicio who promotes the building of social translucence in order to reinforce the group identity. This assists with building trust and relationships among collaborators. Furthermore, visual deliberation is necessary to assist with the limitations of the online environment as cyberspace has redefined space in terms of proximity and contiguity. Sites such as Second Life attempt to bring the richness of 3D contact into online interactions. Additionally, Google earth does this for the mapping platform. Noveck recommends the use of distributed moderation (categorize data and reduce noise), rating and reputation systems (promote community policing and reducing individuals from gaming the system), task differentiation (encourages collaboration) and social media (garner interest) in order to exploit technology collaboration.
Transparency is enhanced through visual deliberation and is necessary to enable public participation in governance. Noveck recommends decreasing barriers to transparency of through the reduction of technical and legal jargon, presentation of data through meaningful structures which can analyzed by the public and the improvement of search methods in order to cultivate an informed citizenry who can utilize their expertise in government collaborative action.
Slight Objections
A central tenet of Noveck is collaboration will derive “its egalitarianism through many small venues in which a large number of people engage” (p.14). This prompted me to question if the online environment is the optimal location for governance? Though Noveck did not suggest that cyberspace is the sole location of political organization, she hinted at it being the ideal medium for such action. Understandably, our burgeoning population will require new technologies to retain our connection to one another; however I question if the internet best medium only because it is the easiest or fastest. In other words, are we enamored with the online experience due to the speed, immediacy and self-directed nature of the feedback it provides. Though these appear to be positive advancements, I suspect the unintended consequences may promote impatience, intolerance and short-term thinking. Overreliance on the online experience will have its drawbacks as well that were not fully addressed by Noveck.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that Noveck stated: “Cyberspace is dead” (p. xv). She suggests the ubiquity of the internet has permeated all facets of life and it is justified by its popularity and immediate growth. However, Noveck glosses over the age differential of internet uses and shifting values that are taking place—as the process by which we communication changes our values are consequently influenced. I contend that the power enabled by the internet does not justify its actions. Technology is a means not the end, and Noveck is right to question the role of government with the availability of new instruments. This brings up an often ignored question of “Do we control technology or does the technology control us? I suspect that Noveck does not address this since it enters the controversial realm of values. The externalities of technology enabled government need further addressing.
Lastly, a question lingering within in the book is “Are we ready to reengage government?” Engagement implies more than interaction, it is a commitment which requires time and attention. Noveck cites the idea of the “monitorial citizen” by political sociologist Michael Schudson, who is too busy to take an active role in government. This is a concern she notes briefly and suggests that increasing the entry points for participation should remedy this. I believe Noveck should have addressed this concern more directly as she noted that increasing citizen collaboration is not an issue of technology but of structure. The increased involvement of citizens would require more of their attention and energy while time spent with family and friends is already limited. Moreover, further delving into this provides for the opportunity to revisit the question of the appropriateness of the role of government in defining laws (as opposed to carrying out the rule of law) and creating jobs (as opposed to the protection of job creation) among other actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Noveck provides a refreshing portrayal of a new structure available to government through the use of public-private and public-public collaboration through technology. Her conceptualization of expertise to include both scientific and experiential knowledge provide for balanced participation of self-selected citizens. Government is recommended to incorporate visual deliberation technologies in order to create an immersive environment for building trust and relationships. Lastly, Noveck measures the extent of a government’s ability to serve its constituents as the degree to which it provides an environment for collective collaboration in governance. Thus, citizens are realigned to be the co-creators of society rather than sole consumers of government.
