What will be the content of the EDem Conference 2020?
Find below the video and, after, short answers to the previous questions:
5 Words to eDemocracy?
eDemocracy is not about making democracy “electronic” (i.e. to use digital devices to perform our usual democratic participation), but how Information and Communication Technologies have transformed democratic institutions — mainly parties and governments — and what will be the role of such institutions and the role of the citizens because of the introduction of these ICTs, digital content, and the Information Society as a whole.
The future of eDemocracy in a nutshell?
The future of eDemocracy is about how to mainstream Democracy in people’s lives. It is usually said that (a) people are not interested in politics and/or that (b) people have other problems more important than democratic participation.
I think that we should be able to “embed” democratic participation in people’s daily lives so that participating (being informed, deliberation, voting, etc.) could be part of your daily “routines”, mainstreamed in your daily activity.
A simplistic though illustrative example of this mainstreaming — helped by ICTs and out of the democratic arena — is what Amazon does with your online behaviour and recommendations: you do not need to take any especial activity besides buying to build your profile upon which Amazon recommends books for you. Is that possible in political preferences?
Your favourite eDemocracy project?
One eDemocracy project that I know of and that I really like is Parlament 2.0, the Parliament 2.0 initiative by the Catalan Parliament led by its president Ernest Benach himself, a project that opens up the whole activity of the Parliament and really enables and fosters citizen participation.
President Ernest Benach wrote a book about this project and other “politics 2.0” reflections: #Política 2.0.
Prospects and risks of eDemocracy?
The main risks are, of course, the digital divide in all its senses (physical access, digital competences, etc.).
Besides the digital divide, we have to rethink political institutions… without necessarily destroying or ignoring or circumventing them.
What will be the content of the EDem Conference 2020?
Did we succeed in transforming political institutions and how?
Did we manage in how to mainstream democratic participation in everyone’s daily life?
During the 250 years of our industrial society, capital owners (capitalists) have been the ones that have ruled the world, the ones that are in power.
Our democratic system is shaped according to this industrial society and its power relationships.
In the upcoming knowledge society, the ones that will be able to manage cleverly knowledge by means of digital tools (digerati) are likely to have a higher share or power in all the aspects of life, especially the government (goverati).
We need to work to make access to knowledge as widespread as possible — access to infrastructures, digital competences, effective usage — so to avoid replacing the existing plutocracy with a new e-aristocracy.
Župa – Grassroots Democracy Revolution on the Web Alois Paulin
We have to find out a way to get rid of inefficiencies, lobby-influenced politicians or sheer corruption in governments.
The Župa — slavic for community — model aims at reducing the size of the government through an intensive usage of Information and Communication Technologies.
You can set up a profile (with your blog, ideas, etc.) and be elected as anyone’s candidate.
[this projecte reminds me of something Ethan Zuckerman explained to me two years ago]
E-Parliaments and novel Parliament-to-Citizen Services: An initial Overview and Proposal Aspasia Papaloi and Dimitris Gouscos
Age group parliaments, social parliaments, thematic parliaments, alternative or counter parliaments, etc. have been initiatives to open up parlaments.
e-Parliaments are a new way, supported by ICTs, to open up the parliaments to their citizens.
Examples of activities taken up in e-Parliaments include participatory budgeting.
For these to work there is needed: political will, strategy planning, etc.
European Status of E-Participation and what is needed to optimise future Benefits? Jeremy Millard and Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen
eParticipation initiatives are quite common all along the European Union, and they are especially relevant at the local level. And while eParticipation initiatives are important too at the national level, we still find crossborder initiatives, aiming at people that communte between countries, are immigrants within Europe, etc.
At the local level, e-Participation initiatives have much more users (in % of the targeted population) and participation decreases as we move up in the scale of the government (regional, national, international, etc.), though the latter are better funded than the former.
Among the tools, e-Voting or e-Petitioning are in the lower end of usage, being websites in the upper part. It is surprising that voting has such a poor importance in these initiatives.
How to optimise e-Participation?
Formalise and mainstream e-Participation as part of a coordinated ‘open engagement policy’.
Help establish or support independent, neutral trusted third party service for e-Participation.
Governments/institutions should listen to and provide frameworks for building citizen participation from the bottom (but not control it).
Unleash the empowering potential of easy to use Public Sector Information for re-use in machine-readable format.
The Policy-cycle is a simplified, ideal-type model of policy processes. It is useful to structure and systematise the complex, though in real-world policy-making does not follow clear-cut stages and chronological sequences:
Problem definition;
agenda setting;
policy development;
implementation;
policy evaluation.
Most e-Participation initiatives focus on the first two stages, while other stages are largely ignored. Notwithstanding, we do not have to underestimate these first stages or the power of “non-decisions”: indeed, many projects went on or were prevented to evolve in these precise two stages. Indeed, agenda setting is but another way to decide what is to be dealt with and, hence, what is to be decided in the latter stages.
[interesting debate difficult to catch on these notes]
Even if petition initiatives are interesting, there still is a very tiny minority that participate in any kind of petitioning, be it online or offline. Indeed, people do have the right to write letters to their governments or their representatives and actually nobody does.
[the speaker assumed that everyone at the audience had read his paper, included in the book of proceedings that was delivered yesterday, and based his speech upon that assumption — I wonder how many people could easily follow his reflections and without the help of visual support…]
Communication without borders Evgeniya Boklage
The political blogosphere is about political blogs dealing with political issues, from a professional or non-professional point of view.
Public sphere: open communication system, based on exchange of opinions, free type of participation, and that includes three functions: transparency (input), validation (throughput) and orientation (output).
Transparency requires openness. But transparency is not about journalism transparency, as transparent journalism can be embedded in a non-transparent (political) system.
Is the blogosphere a significant asset to the public sphere or is it information overload? Is the blogosphere citizen empowerment or is it merely a symbolic tool?
How can blogosphere enhance transparency?
Media-watchdogs
Shed light to obscure topics
Observation of mass media, the political system and the society
Navigation, creation of an embedding context, providing additional materials, raise awareness on immediate and noticeable impact
Access to the public discourse
A tribune for NGOs, advocacy groups and politically driven citizens
Throwing the Sheep’s Long Tail: Open Access Noella Edelmann and Peter Parycek
New Journal of eDemocracy (JeDEM), which will be an open access journal.
We can find a close relationship between open access publishing and e-democracy and transparency.
We can now publish all the information we can without anyone’s permission.
We have to force a policy change where openness is the default, and closeness the option you might choose.
Open Access to Research: Changing researcher behaviour through university and funder mandates Stevan Harnad, Université du Quebec à Montréal & University of Southampton
The common point between open access and democracy has a good example in Wikipedia’s outcome: though the mechanism of meritocracy is not that good. In Wikipedia, the criterion is not truth but notability. If everyone says that cows fly, this is what the Wikipedia will say, even if it is not true. We need some sort of mechanism, of metrics, to measure feedback. And open access can be a good base to that.
Open access means free, immediate, online access to the 2.5 million annual research articles that are published in all 25,000 peer-reviewed journals in all scholarly scientific disciplines. It is not about removing peer-review but, on the contrary, to bring access to scientific outcomes validated, legitimated, credited, certified by this peer-review system.
It is important to note that none of the authors of the 2.5 million articles wants money for their articles: it is attention and feedback they’re asking for. this is a radical difference from other authors that make a living from writing. And that is why open access focuses on scientific publications.
Other knowledge outputs as books, textbooks, magazine articles, newspaper articles, music, video, software, other “knowledge”, data, unrefereed preprints are just not a priority, because they are not peer-reviewed and because these are not all author give-aways, written only for usage and impact, or because the author’s choice to self-archive can only be encouraged, not required in all cases (the cases of data and preprints).
Two ways to provide open access.
Green OA: once the article is accepted, the pre-print referee-accepted version is made open.
Gold OA: open the published version, desirably the journal itself.
Reasons for open access: To maximise the uptake, usage, applications of a publication. Research open on the web has 25-50% more impact, and the better the article, the higher the impact of making that article open.
Surprisingly, despite the benefits still only a tiny fraction of researchers provide green access to their papers, and the only successful way so far has been mandates, mandates to provide green access enforced by funders and/or universities. Indeed, most researchers are for open access, but they just claim lack of time to do so, which means they would not oppose a mandate provided it came with the necessary resources to put it into practice.
Sample of candidate OA-era metrics: citations, CiteRank (like PageRank), co-citations, downloads, citations and downloads correlations, hub/authority index, chronometrics (latency, longevity), book index, endogamy/exogamy, links, tags, commentaries, journal impact factor, h-index (and variants), co-authorships, publication counts, number of publishing years, semiometrics (latent semantic indexing, text overlap, etc.), research funding, students, prizes, etc.
Discussion
Q: what is then the future of journal publishing? A: for the time being, even in the areas where OA is higher, there has been no journal cancellations. Once everything is open access, many journals will have to change their business models, and only peer-review will remain: no archiving, no paper publishing, no online publishing, etc. And they will only need a small fraction of the money to be sustainable, and they’ll get if from funders, governments, universities, authors or whatever.
