Government 2.0- and wikis- Jumping in head first

Politicians are moving to include collaborative Web 2.0 technologies in their technology mix. This may be dangerous if not done correctly.

"Obama Plans more open government" was the headline on the BBC website on the 22nd of May 2009. Citizens of America (the country with one of the largest set of Internet users) are getting the chance to have their say about how to make government more transparent. Ideas will be gathered through email, post and a specially designed website, debated on a blog and then the best proposals will be drafted by the citizens on a wiki. Sounds like a great idea. The White House feels that "The process of making policy must benefit from the best available information in society....Much of the expertise we need can be found among the nation's citizens." This is a further example of the bombardment of technology on the electorate. Britain has seen similar attempts at participatory politics (although none as extreme as the Obama administrations attempts above) in the guise of stinted and awkward YouTube clips announcing policies and posing for "intimate chats" with the user.

Embracing the new dawn of technology is good news for politics. The participation of the electorate in policy drafting and formation does seem like a logical step in the world of Web 2.0 technology and high apathy in the electorate. It may even abate the feeling of powerlessness the voter has when governments seem to make decisions on their behalf.

On a personal level I feel it a tad gimmicky. The reason we have elections are to elect representatives who on our behalf can summate the views of the constituency and let the consensus be heard in our parliament. Connecting with the voter through YouTube is one thing (and a good thing in these times of cash strapped parties trying to fight elections) but using wikis in policy drafting is quite another. It makes the part where we have our view heard by our MP in the hope it affects the end policy result meaningless as users compete for their view to be drafted into the policy.

Wikis as tools in democracy have four underlying problems. The first being their fluidity. Wikis are completely editable and amendable by any user. Ideas which may have seemed valid to a democratic party contributer 10 minutes ago may not seems so valid to a Republican. Then much edit war and flaming ensues. This is why we have a parliament, to debate the issues in a civilised manner.

This touches on another oversight of implemeters of wikis, the fact that Web 2.0 applications are intrinsically social. This means there is an element of social psychology in user behaviour. Much thought then needs to go into the norms and identity features of the wiki system before it is to be implemented. Recent research has suggested that anonymity leads to closer adherence to group norms in computer mediated communication. These norms can however be good norms (such as neutrality and respecting others opinions) or bad norms (flaming or mass deletion of others entries). Identification of users has the benefit of giving accountability leading users to think about their contribution carefully but research suggests such identifiability leads users to collaborate less and create a less dynamic wiki site. Wikipedia works because users are identified yet they have a strong unified group norm of contributing and creating valuable information. Politics is divisive and heated with exisiting external group norms which may boil over into wiki behaviour. Republican voters therefore helping to draft policy wording for a Democrat administration through a wiki unhindered is unlikely to happen.

Much research has also shown that very few people actually contribute to such things as wikis and blogs in terms of a representative sample of the population. this may be partly due to the usability issues presented by markup language (although many wikis now have Rich Text Editors) or perhaps a lack of confidence or anxiety towards using technology. Many potential users are alos put off by the fact that they do not have to use it. It is an extra hassle to learn how to use (again the usability issue) and contribute to especially if your interest in the policy/topic for which the wiki is being used is low. The use of such technology may alienate and leave behind users who are anxious about technology and older users who may not be familiar with the technologies being used or feel they can't get their head around this editable thing. The race for high tech supremacy may be alienating the most loyal of voter bases.

This leads to a polarization of the views expressed on the wiki to the most technology savvy and mobilised/enthusiastic voice, not necessarily the most beneficial. For instance many extreme views could gain prominence as the fringe parties see this open government as an opportunity to influence policy whilst others so not contribute because of lack of knowledge how to, or lack of motivation to. It will not gather a representative sample of the electorate.

Wikis I feel are not the best way to connect with voters and allow them into the process because of these issues. A reconnection of parliamentarians with their constituents would be far better than a hotchpotch of IT gimmicks to appear savvy and cool to the younger population. It is about time government thought hard about their IT strategies as such Web 2.0 tools can be used effectively (as Wikipedia has demonstrated) but not all wikis are wikipedia. New technology can open up new ways of participation, it just needs some thought. Something which, when it comes to IT implementation, all political parties seem oblivious to.