Upload
mdowney84
View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
1/16
http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/gov20http://www.everyvote.org/http://www.everyvote.org/http://www.everyvote.org/http://www.everyvote.org/http://www.everyvote.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.twitter.com/everyvoteorghttp://www.twitter.com/everyvoteorghttp://www.twitter.com/everyvoteorghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_networkhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edithttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1OevYMLtvnoJt33ac_GGb_0-ZFPTBi9UVesIE6qQGp4c/edit7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
2/16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.phphttp://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://theenergyharbinger.com/2012/07/26/global-energy-consumption-trends/http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-prison-system-is-out-of-control-2012-4?op=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/us/us-drought/index.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/u-s-heads-for-warmest-year-recorded-in-lower-48-states-un-says.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_Top1percentUSA.pnghttp://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+united+stateshttp://www.unicef.org/media/media_62521.htmlhttp://www.unicef.org/media/media_62521.htmlhttp://www.unicef.org/media/media_62521.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.pnghttp://www.usdebtclock.org/http://www.usdebtclock.org/7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
3/16
Gov2.0 is a broad term that describes internet-based tools designed to improve the efficiency,
efficacy, and integrity of government. Gov2.0 technologies make it easier for citizens to learn
about and participate in their government, and enables governments to draw on the wisdom of
its citizens to address issues.
Gov2.0 technologies are being used to help with: Crisis management
Ushahidi
Crisis Commons
Non-crisis management
311 Service Tracker
Adopt-a-Hydrant
Citizen sourcing of government policies
Finland
San Francisco
Government data tracking
OpenCongress
POPVOX
MapLight
Election information sharing
ISideWith
LoveGov
And many other issues...
[another example?]
This essay focuses on a particular type of Gov2.0 technology: opinion sharing platforms
(OSPs), which include sites like OpenCongress, POPVOX, ISideWith, and LoveGov. Basically,a Gov2.0 OSP is any site that allows users to declare support, disapproval, and/or another
position on a government entity or issue. Government entities include officials, candidates,
legislation, committees, organizations, and constituents themselves.
Votes vs Stances
There are 2 basic types of opinions that OSPs track: votes and stances.
Votes only allow Yes orNo responses, although the user may select the strength of their vote
(e.g. Yes +5, Yes +2, No -5, etc.). In general, votes are used when sharing an opinion on agovernment entity. Some situations where vote responses would be appropriate include:
Would you vote fororagainst this legislation?
Do you support oroppose this candidate running for office?
Do you want to upvote ordownvote this users comment?
Stances are used in instances where a range of qualitatively different responses is permitted,
which may include Yes orNo, but could also include Yesin the cases of..., No in the
http://www.ushahidi.com/http://crisiscommons.org/http://servicetracker.cityofchicago.org/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://singularityhub.com/2012/10/24/finlands-next-laws-to-emerge-from-online-crowdsourced-proposals/http://gov20.govfresh.com/san-francisco-citizensourcing-open-innovation/http://www.opencongress.org/http://www.popvox.com/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.popvox.com/http://www.opencongress.org/http://gov20.govfresh.com/san-francisco-citizensourcing-open-innovation/http://gov20.govfresh.com/san-francisco-citizensourcing-open-innovation/http://gov20.govfresh.com/san-francisco-citizensourcing-open-innovation/http://singularityhub.com/2012/10/24/finlands-next-laws-to-emerge-from-online-crowdsourced-proposals/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://adoptahydrant.org/http://servicetracker.cityofchicago.org/http://servicetracker.cityofchicago.org/http://servicetracker.cityofchicago.org/http://servicetracker.cityofchicago.org/http://crisiscommons.org/http://crisiscommons.org/http://crisiscommons.org/http://www.ushahidi.com/7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
4/16
cases of..., or any other answer. Whereas votes provide opinions on government entities,
stances provide opinions on more abstract government issues. Some examples where stance
responses would be appropriate include:
Should the United States end the war with Afghanistan?
Yes
NoYes and only approve future wars through Congress
No and send more troops
What is your stance on abortion?
Pro-life
Pro-choice
Pro-life including in the cases ofrape or danger to mothers health
Pro-choice unless beyond the first trimester
Let each state decide abortion policy itself2
Existing OSPsThe Gov2.0 and government transparency movement is rapidly growing in the US, but there are
only a handful of major OSPs that exist today. They include:
OpenCongress.orgpossibly the longest running, most used (until ISideWith debuted last year),
and most comprehensive OSP. OpenCongress allows users to track and vote (Yes and No) on
US federal-level Congressional legislation and Congressmen, and facilitates communications
between constituents and Congressmen. Non-profit; open-source (Affero General Public
License version 3)
OpenStates.orgonly partially functional, but when it is finished it will be nearly identical toOpenCongress (they are both created by the Sunlight Foundation), except OpenStates focuses
on US state-level data. Non-profit; open-source (Affero General Public License version 3)
POPVOX.com allows users to track and vote (YesorNo) on US federal-level Congressional
legislation, and facilitates communications between constituents and federal-level
Congressmen. POPVOX also allows organizations to share their opinion on legislation. For-
profit; may have advertisements (but the creators of POPVOX receive no pay for their work); is
not open-source.
LoveGov.com debuted in Summer 2012, and allows users to share stances on government
issues, and automatically compares your stance profile against the profiles of US Presidentialand federal Congressional candidates, displaying the result as a % match. LoveGov also allows
you to vote to Support a candidate, but does notgive you the option to Disapprove a candidate.
The stance questions are created by LoveGov, and the assessments of candidates stances are
performed by LoveGov. The website also allows users to share news, questions, discussions,
and petitions with other users. For-profit; may have advertisements; promises to never sell
2 These examples of stance questions were taken from the 2012 Presidential Quiz on ISideWith.com.
http://www.opencongress.org/http://openstates.org/http://sunlightfoundation.com/http://www.popvox.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.lovegov.com/http://www.popvox.com/http://www.popvox.com/http://www.popvox.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/http://sunlightfoundation.com/http://openstates.org/http://openstates.org/http://openstates.org/http://www.opencongress.org/http://www.opencongress.org/http://www.opencongress.org/7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
5/16
information; is not open-source.
ISideWith.com debuted in Spring 2012 and is probably the most used Gov2.0 OSP to date,
with the site claiming 5.8 million voters have used ISideWith to find their candidate as of 11/
06/2012. ISideWith allows users to share stances on government issues, and automatically
compares your stance profile against the profiles of US Presidential candidates, displaying theresult as a % match. The stance questions are created by ISideWith, and the stance evaluations
of candidates are performed by ISideWith. For-profit; may have advertisements; may sell user
information (?); is not open-source.
reddit and Digg are 2 OSPs that seem outside of the Gov2.0 domain, but as all American
students learn in US History class, the free press is the 4th branch of the US government. Both
sites are social news sharing platforms that allow users to submit links (news), and users vote
for which links will receive the most attention, with the most popular links appearing on the
sites home page. Whereas Digg only allows users to vote Yes on links (Digg them), reddit
allows users to vote Yes orNo on links (upvote ordownvote). Also, reddit allows users to
submit and vote on comments, but Digg does not. reddit = for-profit, has advertisements, may
sell user information (?), and is open-source. Digg = for-profit, as of this yearno longer has
advertisements, may sell user information (?), and is not open-source.
[Another currently functional OSP?]
We should also note the data providers that make some of the aforementioned OSPs possible.
Each of these sites offers their data free-of-charge to any site that wants to use it.
VoteSmart.org supplies candidate data for US federal and state elections.
GovTrack.us supplies US federal legislation data.
SunlightLabs.org supplies US federal and state legislation, Congressional data, and campaign
finance data.
FollowtheMoney.org supplies US federal and state campaign finance data.
MapLight.org supplies US federal and some state campaign finance data.
OpenSecrets.org supplies US federal campaign finance data.
[Another data supplier?]
While each of these previously mentioned OSPs and data suppliers have their own strengths
and limitations, what is true of all of them is that too small a fraction of the US population is
using them. According to the OpenCongressAbout page, the site has grown to become the
most-visited government transparency website in the United States, with approximately one
http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.reddit.com/http://www.digg.com/http://www.votesmart.org/http://www.govtrack.us/http://www.sunlight.org/http://www.followthemoney.org/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.opensecrets.org/http://www.opencongress.org/abouthttp://www.opencongress.org/abouthttp://www.opencongress.org/abouthttp://www.opensecrets.org/http://www.opensecrets.org/http://www.opensecrets.org/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.maplight.org/http://www.followthemoney.org/http://www.followthemoney.org/http://www.followthemoney.org/http://www.sunlight.org/http://www.sunlight.org/http://www.sunlight.org/http://www.govtrack.us/http://www.govtrack.us/http://www.govtrack.us/http://www.votesmart.org/http://www.votesmart.org/http://www.votesmart.org/http://www.digg.com/http://www.digg.com/http://www.reddit.com/http://www.reddit.com/http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.isidewith.com/http://www.isidewith.com/7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
6/16
million visits per month and a user community of more than 150,000 members. OpenCongress
is a cutting-edge, insightful resource, but 150,000 members = 0.07% of the adult US population.
ISideWith had great success attracting users in advance of the November 2012 US elections.
If we assume that the 5.8 millions users who used ISideWith were all different US adults, then
2.5% of the adult US population used ISideWith to learn about their presidential candidates.
In order to reach a larger percentage of the US population, OSPs will need to offer people
more incentive to use their services. These next two sections will discuss two ways we can
give people more incentive to use OSPs: by creating a public, comprehensive US candidate
database, and establishing an open, federated OSP network. I will then argue in favor of
establishing an open, federated OSP network to support wise crowd conditions, and in the last
section Ill provide an introduction to EveryVote.org and a tour of its current design diagrams.
3) Building an Open, Comprehensive Candidate
DatabaseOne of the greatest services we can offer American voters today is the ability to learn about
and connect with every candidate in every election they are eligible to vote in---federal, state,
county, and local---all through a single, easy-to-use webpage. As of Dec 2012, Gov2.0 OSPs
provide data for federal and state level elections, but have no data on county or local level
elections. In order for you to see all of your candidates on a single page, someone will have to
make a comprehensive candidate database. This database must be freely available for anyone
to incorporate into their own website, so no one site holds a monopoly on this data and how it is
presented.
There are at least three ways an open, comprehensive candidate database can be achieved: (1)through a government initiative, (2) manually by non-profit organizations, or (3) voluntarily by the
candidates themselves.
Government initiative - The US government assembles the database itself and makes it
openly available to the public. This would require passing legislation that ensures the data
is accurate, comprehensive, and timely. While this could be a viable method of creating the
database, one has to wonder, are US legislators willing to advocate for a program that would
improve the visibility of all candidates, even their rivals? And even if US legislators do support
legislation for establishing the database, how long would it take for it to be completed and
available to the public? Would it be ready in time for our next election? How many US electionswould pass by before the database is available? And if it was made, would it be available for
any site to use, or would only privileged sites be allowed access?
Manually - Non-governmental organizations assemble the database and make it openly
available to the public. This is exactly what VoteSmart.org does for federal and state-level
elections, but does not yet have comprehensive county and local-level candidate data.
Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine VoteSmart.org assembling a comprehensive candidate
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
7/16
database anytime soon, because candidate data becomes exponentially more difficult to collect
at the county and local levels. While there are only 50 states to track, there are 3,130 counties,
and over 25,000 cities in America, each with their own respective elections. With enough
funding and manpower, non-governmental organizations could achieve a comprehensive
candidate database, but it would be an arduous task, and would require much more funding
than these organizations currently have available.
Voluntarily - Candidates add themselves to the comprehensive candidate database. This is
the best possible method for establishing a comprehensive candidate database. It would cost
radically less money than lobbying for legislators to implement a government initiative or hiring
workers to manually enter the data. Whats more, no-one would be excluded from the process,
since everyone would have equal opportunity to add themselves to the database. This would
still require a non-governmental organization or collection of non-governmental organizations
to host the database and facilitate the process of candidates adding themselves to it, so the
hosting organizations would need to make their operations as transparent as possible to protect
against bias and other bad practices.
4) Open OSP Federation for Freedom, Convenience,
and Innovation
Today, if you vote on bills on OpenCongress, you need to manually re-submit your votes on
those same bills if you later use POPVOX. If you told LoveGov you are pro-life, and in favor of
decreasing military spending, you would need to manually resubmit those same stances if you
later used ISideWith. Wouldnt it be great if the voting decisions you made on OpenCongress
could be easily transferred to POPVOX? If the stances you submit to LoveGov could be easilytransferred to ISideWith? If those sites participated in the same federated OSP network, you
could.
In a federated network (also known as a distributed network), each participating website is able
to compatibly share its data with any other website in the network, so the votes and stances
you cast on one site can be easily transferred to or synced with another site of your choosing.
Federation liberates users from becoming locked-in to a single site that hoards data, spares
users from having to resubmit the same data across multiple sites, and encourages users to
experiment with different sites connect with the network.
Examples of existing federated systems:
Facebook Connect -
OpenID -
OAuth -
Disaspora-
Friendica-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Platform#Facebook_Connecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenIDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendicahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendicahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenIDhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Platform#Facebook_Connecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Platform#Facebook_Connecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Platform#Facebook_Connecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
8/16
A federated OSP network would allow users to create their personal civic profile, which includes
a list of all of their formed opinions (in the forms of votes and stances) on government entities
and issues, and any other number of data fields related to civic engagement and beyond.
Potentially, a federated OSP network could incorporate all the interactions of any other social
network, such as messaging, status updates, profile data, and friending.
Elements of your locally-based, federation compatible civic profile can include:
Your name
Your email address
Your voting districts
Your political party/ies
Your votes on:
Government officials
Candidates
Legislation
Committees
Groups
Other people
News (links)
Any other type of entity
Your stances on:
Government issues
Any other type of question
Your friends
Your religious affiliation
Your education historyYour relationship status
Your status updates
Your direct messages to other profiles
Your other profile data
Hometown
Inspirational figures
Favorite quotes
Favorite books/music/movies/TV/sports/etc.
etc. etc. etc.
OSP Open Standards - How We Achieve OSP Federation
In order to create a federated OSP network, aspiring and existing OSP platforms must begin
collaborating to create and coordinating to use the same OSP open standards. Open
standards allow a platform to communicate with any other platform that uses the same
open standards. They would ensure that your vote on a government entity on Site A could
be accurately understood by Site B. Another term for this compatible transfer of data is
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
9/16
interoperability. Sites that use the same set of open standards basically agree to speak the
same language so that their code can be interoperable. Without open standards, each site
would speak a language of its own creation, incomprehensible to any other.
A good way for non-technical people to understand computing open standards and what
they mean to the OSP industry is to compare them with the standardization of a much oldertechnology: the screw.
In the 1860s, William Sellers3 embarked on a campaign to get America to adopt a standardized
screw (which happened to be of his own design). Before the standardized screw, every
American screw had to be handmade by a craftsman. This arrangement worked well for
the craftsmen, because only they had the proper tools to repair what they made, and thus
customers were locked-in to long-term relationships with their original craftsman. The flip-side
of this arrangement was that it worked terribly for the customers and the US economy overall.
Sellers knew that if screws became standardized, customers would have more freedom to
choose their craftsmen, would save money, and industrial mass production in the US would
become possible.
Sellers challenge was not only to create a good design for his standard, but to motivate
craftsmen ---the same people who traditionally make money from the lack of standardization---
to adopt his standard. Sellers believed connections and influence shape peoples decisions, so
Sellers targeted influential customers like the Pennsylvania Railroad and US Navy. Every major
new customer attracted a wave of new customers, and within a decade, his design became the
US standard.
Sellers was convinced standardization of the screw would boost the US economy and speed-
up innovation. Likewise, OSP open standards can potentially help our economy and speed-up innovation by enabling constituents to have a more active and informed role in their
government.
Sellers biggest obstacle to screw standardization was the craftsmen themselves, because
historically they profited most from the ability to lock-in their customers. OSPs that do not
participate in federation also lock-in their customers. Unlike the screw industry though, OSPs
today tend to be driven by civically motivated individuals pursuing the common good more
so than profits, so perhaps OSP open standards today will be easier to achieve than screw
standardization. Still, universal open standard adoption is notoriously difficult to achieve (see
below), and theres still the question, do existing and will future OSP providers see federation as
an advantage or disadvantage to their bottom line?4
3 This account of the standardization of the screw has been adapted from Surowieckis Wisdom of
Crowds.4 More on this in a few paragraphs, but I think OSP federation today would attract more visitors to all sites
participating in the network.
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
10/16
xkcd.com/927
Sellers believed that screw standardization was inevitable, and so raced to have his design
adopted first, but OSP open standard adoption is not inevitable. OSPs are a type of social
network, and social networks have a natural tendency to form monopolies, and to form them
rapidly. This happens because of the network effect, which is the phenomenon of somethings
value depending on how many people use it. If most of your friends are on Facebook, and
fewer are on Google+ or MySpace, then you are more likely to start or continue using Facebook
instead of Google+ or MySpace. The fact that Google invested approx. $585 million in Google+,
and is recently making gains in active users, but has 10% the active users as Facebook5,
illustrates how powerful the network effect can be. OSPs are also influenced by the network
effect, so we should note that if an OSP or several attract a majority of users, but decide not touse a common open standard, the site may hold back successful OSP federation.
Ways You Can Help OSP Federation Succeed
If you want the ability to participate in a federated OSP network, whether youre a developer
or not, you can help the development and adoption of open standards by introducing the
concept of online federation to people. You can tell them that federation allows you to choose
to share your data between websites, so you would only have to make your profile one time,
and your profile could be transferred to any site you want in the network. Also, federation can
allow you to communicate with people who do not use the same website as you but use a site
that participates in the same distributed OSP network. Federation can even allow you to post
a status update to one website, and have it simultaneously posted on any number of other
websites of your choosing. Ultimately, a healthy federated network offers freedom, convenience,
and connectivity for internet users. To support the candidate database, you can mention it would
be nice for there to be websites that offered info on every candidate in every election youre
5 Google+ = 135 million active users / Facebook = 1 billion active users
http://www.xkcd.com/927http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/06/30/google-cost-585-million-to-build-or-what-rupert-paid-for-myspace/http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/google-more-closely-mirroring-facebook-145746http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/google-more-closely-mirroring-facebook-145746http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/06/30/google-cost-585-million-to-build-or-what-rupert-paid-for-myspace/http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/06/30/google-cost-585-million-to-build-or-what-rupert-paid-for-myspace/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://www.xkcd.com/927http://www.xkcd.com/927http://www.xkcd.com/927http://www.xkcd.com/9277/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
11/16
eligible to vote in on a single page.
If you are a developer, you can help by designing with federation in mind, and participating
in public discussions about establishing OSP open standards. You can start by visiting
EveryVote.org and clicking the Federation tab and posting to the forums, helping develop
the OSP Federation wiki (mirrorable), and helping develop the Gov2.0 wiki (mirrorable). Emaillistservs focusing on developing and using OSP open standards would also help, [option A?],
[option B?], [option etc?].
OSPs Are Uniquely Suited for Federation
While attempts at social network federation like Diaspora and Friendica have so far been unable
to attract widespread user participation, there are at least 4 ways in which OSP federation is
better suited for success:
1) Personal civic data is very sensitive information. People are more concerned about
who they share their civic data with than standard social network data. So, users wouldappreciate the fact a distributed OSP network would allow them the freedom to decide
which OSPs have a Terms of Use policy appropriate for them.
2) Most people dont like politics that much. The existing Gov2.0 platforms are not
attracting enough users to support robust, in-depth debates and information exchanges.
Federation would remove barriers to participation on these sites, and potentially increase
participation on each of them.
3) Civic engagement can be a time-consuming process. Users would appreciate the
ability to make a voting selection one time, knowing that the time they invested intomaking that decision cant be wasted, even if they decide to use a different OSP later.
And since civic engagement is not everyones favorite activity, it would be good for users
to experiment with multiple different OSPs to avoid boredom.
4) No OSP today has a monopoly on users, so the door is open for OSP federation.
This is true today, but it may not be true tomorrow. If you like the idea, you should start
advocating for its development today, before a dominant OSP may make successful
federation more difficult tomorrow.
5) Open OSP Federation to Support Wise CrowdConditions
Situations exist where crowds tend to be wiser than the wisest individuals within them. Crowd
wisdom, also known as collective intelligence, is an experimentally verifiable phenomenon,
observed in situations like the following:
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
12/16
When a crowd of people is asked to guess the weight of an ox or the number of
marbles in a jar, the average of all of the crowds guesses is almost exactly correct,
most of the time.
On the TV game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, contestants are given at least3 lifelines to assist the user in determining the correct answer. One lifeline is the 50/
50, which removes 2 of the 4 possible answer choices, giving the contestant at least a
50% chance of selecting the correct answer. Another lifeline is Phone a Friend, which
lets the contestant call their smartest friend for help with the question. 65% of the time
the contestants expert friend selects the correct answer. The last lifeline is Ask the
Audience, which allows the contestant to ask every member in the live studio audience
to submit their guess, and then displays the totals of their guesses to the contestant.
This lifeline is by far the most accurate, with the crowd selecting the correct answer 91%
of the time.
Google revolutionized the search engine industry, quickly becoming the most used
search engine in the world by implementing a method of tapping into crowd wisdom.
When you submit a search to Google, the order of the search results you see are
determined by how often a site is linked to from other sites relevant to your search.
According to Google, their search engine interprets a link from page A to page B as
a vote, by page A, for page B. The pages that receive the most votes are considered
the most important, and rise to the top of your search results. In addition, votes cast
by pages that are themselves important weigh more heavily and help make other
pages important, so although Google derives its strength from tapping into crowd
wisdom, it is actually a democratic republic rather than a pure democracy.
While striking examples of crowd wisdom exist, democratically turning over decision making
or guessing to the crowd does not necessarily result in improved decision making, and can
sometimes reduce the quality of decision making. Surowiecki theorizes that 4 requirements
must be present for a crowds decision to be wise ---diversity of opinion, independence,
decentralization, and aggregation--- and that there are 5 challenges that threaten wise crowd
decisions ---homogeneity, centralization, division, imitation, and emotionality.
Before exploring Surowieckis conditions for wise crowd decisions as they relate to a distributed
OSP network, it must be noted that it may be impossible to scientifically prove wise crowd
decisions were present in a democratic or democratic-republic government. If the goal of a
democratic government is to promote the common good, the definition of common good is
subjective, so different people may have radically different interpretations of what common
good means. Also, for something to be scientific, it needs to be repeatable via experimentation,
but an experimenter can never truly recreate the historical moment a government is situated in.
Still, its intriguing just how much OSP federation would support Surowieckis requirements of
crowd wisdom, and Gov2.0 developers should keep theories of crowd psychology in mind when
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
13/16
designing their platforms. Most importantly, without federation, the public will be less able to
even experiment with new OSP features, because dominant, disconnected OSPs would make it
difficult for the new ones to attract enough users to sample the different features.
Surowieckis 4 Requirements for Crowd Wisdom and OSP Federation
Diversity of opinion - Opinions must be gathered from as large and diverse a sample of
people as possible. This helps ensure that many possibilities are considered, and so protects
the crowd from being blind-sided by an outcome that no-one foresaw. The presence of diverse
opinions also makes it more comfortable for people to honestly share their views, which
benefits Surowieckis next requirement of independence. Federation would offer people more
incentive to share their votes/opinions because they would know every vote they cast
now can be transferred to a different site they may prefer later.
Independence - People in a group must be able to think for themselves and honestly express
what they think. As Surowiecki says, diversity and independence are important becausethe best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus
or compromise. If the members of a crowd are too dependent on each other (for example,
they all work for the same company), then it is less likely that they will express as diverse a
range of opinions as possible, because they dont want to be labeled a bad team player for
giving their honest opinion. Crowd members also must not be coerced to have an opinion by
authoritarian leadership or a hostile crowd. Federation would offer users the highest level
of independence, freeing them to try any OSP they want with no time wasted or strings
attached.
Decentralization - Members of the crowd do not receive their information from all the
same sources, and can exercise their own autonomy on a problem, while still able to add tocontribute to the final crowd opinion (e.g. casting a vote). Federation, is by definition, the
decentralization of a larger entity.
Aggregation - A method must exist for combining the groups knowledge into a collective
decision or guess. For example, taking the average of the crowds marble number guesses or
collecting a vote to determine consensus are each methods of aggregation. With regards to
OSP federation, what OSP can truthfully say they offer the best political aggregation methods?
None can, so we should create an environment that is conducive to developers experimenting
with as many aggregation methods as possible. Federation would make it easier for
developers to attract users to test new and different aggregation methods.
Surowieckis 5 Challenges to Crowd Wisdom and OSP Federation
Homogeneity - Group members are all too much alike, which results in a lack of diversity
of opinion. Without diversity of opinion, groups are more susceptible to being blind-sided by
possibilities that too few in the crowd considered. Federation would open participation to as
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
14/16
large and diverse a crowd as possible, and thus reduce homogeneity.
Centralization - Members of the crowd receive their information from all the same sources,
and only a small number of crowd members are allowed to vote or contribute their opinion.
Federation is, by definition, the decentralization of a larger entity.
Division - If crowd members are unable to share their information with each other, they
cannot fully benefit from the crowds collective wisdom. However, paradoxically, too much
communication can make the group as a whole less intelligent, because members may start
following the herd rather than independently evaluating their information. Federation would
allow users the ability to connect and share information with other OSPs in the network,
but would not require them to.
Imitation - The natural human tendency to imitate others to speed-up decision making. Too
much imitation by members of a crowd results in uncritical group think. Federation would
encourage robust OSP interactions and experimentation with designs meant to minimize
uncritical imitation.
Emotionality - The natural human tendency for emotions to override our rational faculties and
affect decision making. Federation would encourage experimentation with OSP designs
meant to de-escalate emotionally charged discussions and facilitate civil discourse.
Cheating - Not explicitly one of Surowieckis challenges of the wise crowd, but definitely an
obstacle to OSP quality. Cheating in OSPs tends to occur by users creating fake accounts
in order to inflate the number of votes an entity receives, or to negatively misrepresent the
opposing side on an issue. Federation would help users leave an OSP they believe is
vulnerable to or engaged in cheating, and to join an OSP they believe is more reliable.
6) Introduction to EveryVote.org
EveryVote.orgs goals are (1) to help develop and participate in an open, federated OSP
network, (2) to help develop an accurate, comprehensive US candidate database that is freely
available for any website to use, and (3) to develop free-to-use, open source tools designed to
make civic engagement easier and more constructive. Furthermore, EveryVote.org is committed
to providing these services as ethically as possible.
EveryVote.org Principles
Open source -Affero General Public License version 3
Will seek non-profit status
Financially transparent
No advertisements
Will seek donations and grants to pay expenses
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
15/16
Will not sell or share private user data with 3rd parties
EveryVote.org itself will not declare opinions on government entities
Will participate in an open, federated opinion sharing platform network
Supports developing a publicly available, comprehensive US candidate database
Open source - All EveryVote.org software will be provided under the Affero General PublicLicense version 3. This license allows anyone to use, download, and modify EveryVote.org
software, as long as they agree to let others download their modifications of the software. The
reason for selecting the AGPLv3 open source license instead of the MIT License, an open
source license which would not require developers to make their modifications available to the
public, is to support a culture of sharing and mutual benefit.
Non-profit status seeking - EveryVote.org is a non-commercial organization, and will be
seeking 501(c) non-profit status. (To be honest, Im not real sure how this stuff works yet. If you
have any advice as to how EveryVote.org should go about establishing non-profit status, wed
appreciate your input.)
Funding - Will seek donations and grant-funding to pay organizational expenses.
Financially transparent - All spending by EveryVote.org will be available to the public. All
donations and donor names made to EveryVote.org will either be available to the public, or will
be anonymous to the public andEveryVote.org the organization.This committment to financial
transparency is intended to prevent EveryVote.org from giving candidates or anyone else
preferential treatment for donating to EveryVote.org.
No advertisements - EveryVote.org will never sell advertising space, will never give
advantages to candidates who donate to EveryVote.org, and will never give preferentialtreatment to candidates for any reason.
Privacy - EveryVote.org will never sell or share private user data with 3rd parties, unless
required to by law.
Unbiased - EveryVote.org the organization will never declare opinions on government entities
(officials, candidates, legislation, constituents, groups/organizations) or political issues.
Open federation - EveryVote.org is dedicated to helping establish and participating in an
open, federated opinion sharing platform network. EveryVote.org may prompt users with brief
descriptions of the Terms of Use of each site prior to letting the user autorize the transfer or
sync of their data, but ultimately allows users to transfer their data wherever they want.
Comprehensive US candidate database - EveryVote.org is committed to helping develop a
comprehensive US candidate database that is publicly available for any website to use. The
goal of this database is to give users organized access to factual information about every
candidate in every election they are eligible to vote in.
7/30/2019 Gov2.0 Federation in Pursuit of Crowd Wisdom - 01/13/2013
16/16