- From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:33:25 +0000
- To: "Aisenberg, Michael A." <maisenberg@mitre.org>, "public-egovernance@w3.org" <public-egovernance@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SNT406-EAS407FE6FD848DDC65892D76EC5230@phx.gbl>
Electronic Governance Community Group,
Michael A. Aisenberg,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_ecosystem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_and_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-the-job_training
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_assistant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_tutoring_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialog_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_object
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_object_metadata
http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Generative_learning_object
http://iaied.org/about/
http://www.iaail.org/
http://jurix.nl/
Kind regards,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamsobieski
http://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/
http://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/
From: Adam Sobieski
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:53 PM
To: Aisenberg, Michael A., public-egovernance@w3.org
Electronic Governance Community Group,
Michael A. Aisenberg,
I recently think about software processing discussions and other data to provide information to groups, e.g. Office Graph. I recently think about digital assistants for groups, intelligent tutoring systems, personal assistants and group assistants.
I recently think about e-learning technology for civics groups and collaboration contexts, providing documents and video clips to groups, including as new participants continuously arrive to e-democratic venues.
There could be both task-related as well as educational user interface elements filled with documents and videos for users as they participate. There could be hyperlinks on terminology or sentences to informational content (e.g. encyclopedic content). The content available to participants could be the same as that utilized by city government officials.
The instructional design topics, pertinent to a large number of collaboration technology scenarios, include presenting, in response to user gestures or questions, multimedia materials or information with dialogue systems while users remain on-task in various group processes.
Kind regards,
Adam Sobieski
P.S.: http://www.iaail.org/
From: Adam Sobieski
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:26 PM
To: Aisenberg, Michael A., public-egovernance@w3.org
Michael A. Aisenberg,
Thank you for the excellent publications.
As interesting, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0107.xml .
I would also enjoy participating in discussions on these topics.
Kind regards,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamsobieski
http://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/
http://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/
P.S.:
Baecker, Ronald M. Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting human-human collaboration. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
Baltes, Boris B., Marcus W. Dickson, Michael P. Sherman, Cara C. Bauer, and Jacqueline S. LaGanke. "Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis." Organizational behavior and human decision processes 87, no. 1 (2002): 156-179.
Carenini, Michele, Angus Whyte, Lorenzo Bertorello, and Massimo Vanocchi. "Improving communication in E-democracy using natural language processing." Intelligent Systems, IEEE 22, no. 1 (2007): 20-27.
Driskell, James E., Paul H. Radtke, and Eduardo Salas. "Virtual teams: effects of technological mediation on team performance." Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 7, no. 4 (2003): 297.
Holtz, Peter, Nicole Kronberger, and Wolfgang Wagner. "Analyzing internet forums." Journal of Media Psychology (2015).
Osch, Wietske. "Online Business Collaboration." The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society. 2015.
Papacharissi, Zizi. "Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups." New Media & Society 6, no. 2 (2004): 259-283.
Reddick, Christopher G., and Donald F. Norris. "E-participation in local governments: an empirical examination of impacts." In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 198-204. ACM, 2013.
Seymour, George E., and Michael B. Cowen. A review of team collaboration tools used in the military and government. 2007.
Shim, Jung P., Merrill Warkentin, James F. Courtney, Daniel J. Power, Ramesh Sharda, and Christer Carlsson. "Past, present, and future of decision support technology." Decision support systems 33, no. 2 (2002): 111-126.
Viborg Andersen, Kim, Helle Zinner Henriksen, Christine Secher, and Rony Medaglia. "Costs of e-participation: the management challenges." Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 1, no. 1 (2007): 29-43.
Weerakkody, Vishanth, ed. Social and Organizational Developments through Emerging E-Government Applications: New Principles and Concepts: New Principles and Concepts. IGI Global, 2009.
Wright, Scott, and John Street. "Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums." New Media & Society 9, no. 5 (2007): 849-869.
From: Aisenberg, Michael A.
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 1:13 AM
To: Adam Sobieski, public-egovernance@w3.org
I believe that perspective and context are important to this discussion. This is particularly true, for example, with regard to the TRUE digital divide between
technology enabled elites in the United States and a large under-empowered/under enabled fraction (~15-20% of voting age adults)
of the electorate lacking both real access to robust 21st Century broadband programming, and to computer-device enabled interactive
processes supporting inclusion in evolved local participatory systems.
The opportunities offered by technology have been observed for decades. The concerns about factions and un-vetted citizen real time response are
as old as Federalist 16 and discussions of concerns about “factions”. True democratic enablement realizes its value
only, IMO, when it is completely pervasive, serving all category eligibles at whatever level it purports to serve:
neighborhood, “community”, local jurisdiction, Congressional District, state…Costs of such broad delivery of information AND
Real-time response systems are routinely underestimated.
I would be eager to participate in the discussions as Adam has described them. This was broadly the subject of my law review article
In 1975 —Political Speech and the Electronic Soap Box (21 St. Louis Law Journal); I was privileged to have opportunity to
Test some of the theories and my understanding serving on the staff of the FCC’s Fairness and Political Broadcasting Branch from 1977-80.
The potential for (and at the same time, political risks of) electronically enabled real time democratic “referendum” politics was a recurring
theme of many of the early observers of the cable and nascent “interactive” systems touted as the enablers of 1980s-era
eGovernment and eVoting. See for example the chapter contributions to the 1972 Sloan Commission Report on Cable
Television of Ithiel de Sola Pool and his colleagues. Some of these are collected in:
Talking back: citizen feedback and cable technology Ithiel de Sola Pool MIT Press, 1973 - Performing Arts - 325 pages
The works on the History of Broadcasting in the U.S. (3 vols.) by Erik Barnouw are also very instructive about the discussions on participatory democracy from the
early cable era.
Michael A. Aisenberg, Esq
Senior Fellow, The George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security
Chair, ABA Information security Committee
Principal Cyber Policy Counsel
The MITRE Corporation
(202) 409-1509 (cell)..(703) 983-1054
MAISENBERG@MITRE.ORG
Michael@cybsec.us
From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:15 AM
To: "public-egovernance@w3.org" <public-egovernance@w3.org>
Subject: E-Democracy and Encouraging Civic Participation
Resent-From: <public-egovernance@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Monday, October 19, 2015 at 8:47 AM
Electronic Governance Community Group,
Introduction
I would like to broach some topics pertaining to the advancement of technology, political participation and civic engagement.
I recently wrote to the American Philosophical Association, to a number of political scientists and to colleagues at technology organizations, presenting to them that technologies to strengthen and expand democratic participation, technologies facilitating city-scale e-democratic processes, are expected to emerge from capitalist forces. I presented that citizens are proficient in the uses of collaboration software from workplaces and can be well-informed about its applicability to e-democratic processes.
We can think ahead and can explore new practical theory to ensure the quality of city-scale e-democratic endeavors.
Collaboration Software
Collaboration software enhances the performance and productivity of arbitrarily large organizations. Users of collaboration software can envision and discuss its applicability to e-democratic processes and its facilitation of civic participation in the performance of some of the ordinary processes of city governance.
E-democratic models are myriad and include group processes which result in recommendations to mayors, city councils, city council committees or bureaucracies. Topics pertaining to collaboration software for e-democracy scenarios include the dynamics of self-organization, of task structures and of accessing vast information resources. Routing information and deliverables between groups, across sectors, is also a component of e-democratic processes.
Public sector employees at the offices of mayors, of city councilpersons, of bureaucracies and of other public sector organizations can utilize collaboration software interoperable with public e-democracy spaces as 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. participants of city-scale e-democracies. Technology can facilitate interoperation between the public sector and the public. Some public sector reports or documents can be components of broader groups’ scenarios and some public processes, documents or deliverables can be components of public sector scenarios.
Software such as Office Graph can ensure that relevant, fresh, information and documents are available to users including based upon their multiple simultaneous interests, tasks, groups or roles. Items that can be routed include documents, multimedia and data. Office Graph utilizes sophisticated machine learning algorithms to connect people to the relevant content, conversations and people around them. The metadata of workflows, of structured processes and steps of processes, of groups and subgroups, of tasks and subtasks, of topics and subtopics can be of use to algorithms for ascertaining contextual, task-based relevance to route and to present information to individuals.
Incentivization and Acknowledgement of Civic Participation through Social Media
Participation in democratic processes is time-consuming, potentially requiring hours per week or month, involves reading documents, viewing multimedia and participating in group discussions. Some might describe civic participation as volunteer work after 5 p.m.
Social media platforms can strengthen and expand e-democratic processes. Cities can utilize incentivization and validation systems such as integration with professional social networking websites (i.e. LinkedIn) to indicate and to acknowledge excellence of civic participation. New portions of professional social network profiles can be envisioned for civic participation. It could be as easy for users as selecting a checkbox, authenticating across services and configuring the connection between services to synchronize portions of their professional social networking profiles to showcase their accumulating accolades from civic participation. Social media platforms can connect to and synchronize with the collaboration software infrastructures of cities or systems that interconnect the infrastructures of multiple cities to convenience citizens as they move between cities.
Conclusion
There is some work to do. Alongside the New America Foundation, the GovLab at the NYU Tandon School of Engineering, the Sunlight Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the United States Conference of Mayors and its Technology and Innovation Taskforce, I would like to invite each of you to continue to strengthen and expand e-democratic processes and to commence research into new technology, new uses of existing business and collaboration software, and new uses of professional social media websites for e-democracy and encouraging civic participation.
Sincerely,
Adam Sobieski
http://www.phoster.com
https://www.w3.org/community/collaboration/
Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 23:40:55 UTC