Hi Seb, No problem - I'm not sure which bit you didn't get, but let me put my proposal a different way:
GM is already established as a way of crowdsourcing opinion for the use of policymakers (http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/white-house-using-google-moderator-for-town-hall-meeting/ and http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2010/01/11/what-happens-when-you-let-users-control-the-agenda/). However, these were "one-off" operations, while policymaking is an ongoing process. Plus, there are far more people in the policy community than the White House or the Conservatives: other political parties, countless think tanks, etc. Hence my call for a GM-powered system that is long-lasting, and broader-based than the two above. The next innovation is the idea of using existing political content to "seed" discussions, and trying to tie discussions in with existing content. The final one, I think, was to ensure that, in creating this system, we made it "open", so the results could be freely used, perhaps as the basis for new tools and apps. So, inevitably there isn't going to be a site that demonstrates all of the above at the same time - the proposal is to bring all these existing facets together to make a single crowdsourcing package that (a) actually works, and (b) is broader-based than anything else. Hope that helps, Andrew On 24 May 2010 09:46, Seb Bacon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 19 May 2010 15:19, Andrew Regan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Seb, >> >> Think of this proposal as a political crowdsourcing *platform*. We know that >> the White House and the Conservatives have already used GM to capture ideas, >> comments, ratings, etc. and passed on the results to policymakers, giving >> both GM and the crowdsourcing idea a lot of publicity. >> >> Now that GM has its own API, it's going to be a lot easier to integrate. >> Therefore by hooking it up to my existing Poblish, which taps into an >> archive - or rather a live channel - of political content from bloggers, >> journalists, Wiki contributors, etc., and already has an API for political >> content, there's the potential for an open crowdsourcing system that is >> long-lasting, rather than dedicated to 'What should Obama do now' or 'What >> should be in our 2010 Manifesto'. Furthermore, the results will be available >> for the entire political data community, rather than just White House or >> Conservative wonks. >> >> As for what *kind of thing* would be crowdsourced, well, there's a task for >> administrators to frame some discussions, but essentially I think this can >> be open. If a particular organisation would like to frame a debate >> themselves and be seen to be doing this in full public view, that can >> happen. It might also be that a single blog post spawns something: rather >> than concentrating that debate in the original blog's own comment-box, >> hosting on this new platform would open it up to all, it would allow the >> debate to be connected with other debates from different sites, and it would >> allow any user or developer to follow it, either in their RSS reader, or via >> the API. >> >> I'm happy to get this going single-handedly, but it's much more likely to >> succeed if I can get other people to "buy-in" to the vision, offer their >> advice and experience, etc. > > I still don't understand what you're trying to do, I'm afraid. Are > there other sites using GM in this way that you can show? > > Thanks > > Seb > >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sounds interesting. I don't quite understand exactly what you're >>> proposing WRT crowdsourcing + google moderator, though. Could you >>> give me a concrete example of the kind of thing you might crowdsource, >>> and how? >>> >>> Re. collaboration with mySociety: I don't work for mySociety so can't >>> speak for them, but I do know that mySociety time is at a high premium >>> at the moment; if you wanted more formal support / collaboration the >>> best thing to do is wait until the next call for proposals. >>> >>> On the other hand if you went ahead and implemented this and could >>> show its use then I am sure various people on this list would support >>> it through data linkage and the rest, and possibly more. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Seb >>> >>> On 18 May 2010 17:48, Andrew Regan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I'm proposing a political crowdsourcing system - powered by the new >>>> Google Moderator API (http://code.google.com/apis/moderator/) - that >>>> has the following (possibly unique) aims and features: >>>> >>>> * To raise user expectations massively, in comparison to the "speak >>>> your mind", "vote in our leadership poll", and blog comment-box >>>> interaction models. >>>> * Following directly from this: raise policymakers' expectations about >>>> the *quality* and *usability* of crowdsourced content. >>>> * All discussions can/should be seeded with existing political >>>> content, rather than created out of a clear blue sky. >>>> * All discussions to be integrated with, and matched against an >>>> existing political knowledge base: the content from 2000+ top blogs, >>>> feeds, and Wikis, from 2002 to date. >>>> * The results of all discussions to feed back into the knowledge base. >>>> * To be integrated with an existing, long-lasted, non-partisan system, >>>> so users don't feel their contributions may be wasted or abused. >>>> * Wherever possible, the results of all discussions should be freely, >>>> publicly available, and/or queriable, so they can be used by other >>>> tools. >>>> >>>> In short, the aims are to establish the crowdsourcing model, create a >>>> really usable technical solution, feed the results back to the >>>> political data/tech community, and improve policymaking: using what we >>>> already know to produce fewer bad policies, and to make the process >>>> more efficient. >>>> >>>> Is this something MySociety might like to get involved with? >>>> >>>> I'm proposing to implement this system as part of my existing Poblish >>>> system, as I think we're in a great position to deliver all of the >>>> above, and I'm hoping that if some of these goals inspire you guys, >>>> you might be interested in suggesting, advising - here or elsewhere - >>>> or perhaps even deciding to become more closely involved with the >>>> work. >>>> >>>> I guess the main challenges are: >>>> >>>> * Usability (for users) and interoperability (for developers). >>>> * Promotion and community development. >>>> * Newness of the Google Moderator API, and the need for users to have >>>> Google accounts. >>>> >>>> Background reading / what this is all about: >>>> >>>> * >>>> http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2010/01/13/poblish-when-crowdsourcing-new-policies-dont-waste-existing-content/ >>>> * >>>> http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2010/01/26/poblish-better-blogging-and-better-technology-to-help-crowdsource-new-policies/ >>>> * http://theconnectedrepublic.org/posts/467 (and comment) >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew Regan >>>> [email protected] / +44 7906 123390 >>>> http://www.poblish.org/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list [email protected] >>>> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >>>> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> skype: seb.bacon >>> mobile: 07790 939224 >>> land: 020 8123 9473 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list [email protected] >> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: >> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >> > > > > -- > skype: seb.bacon > mobile: 07790 939224 > land: 020 8123 9473 > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
