Talk:Emergent democracy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Actually, I think Ross Mayfield coined the term based on a discussion I kicked off. I'll have to figure out how to say it accurately... - Joi

I edited the article to reflect Joi's comment, I hope appropriately. dweinberger (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think article is sufficiently NPOV. Davidweman 03:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More NPOV please

Interesting article, but I've added a {{POV}} tag (The neutrality of this article is disputed.) Phrases like Forward thinkers, world order, overwhelming power suggest a definite point of view.

I agree that it definitely read as if it were written by an enthusiast. And even mod the bias, it didn't do the basic job of starting with a definition and then adding details. So I rewrote the opening paragraphs and added a section on the history of the term. dweinberger (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More citations, especially early in the article, would help. --Singkong2005 06:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find 150,000 results for "Emergent Democracy" on Google. --Joi 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the search on Google News or Google Books. That's more likely to result in what Wikipedia policies accept as a reliable source. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Google Books, the search for ("emergent democracy" ito) has ten hits, including Dan Gillmor's "We the Media" (the seminal book on the Net's effect on journalism) and four in German. dweinberger (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this entry is quite misleading. I would suggest to keep this article (though I agree on the fact that the article lacks neutrality and rather presents an idiology) under a more accurate title, as a sub-field under e-democracy. Searching Wiki with the string 'emerging democracy' I expected to find information related to political science and development studies, as this term is used in (UN) policy papers on 'good governance'. --HHelmer 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After revamp by dweinberger, none of the phrases such as "Forward thinkers, world order, overwhelming power" exist. Removed the {{NPOV}}. If you still believe there is an NPOV problem, please add the tag again with information on what the issue is. --Joi (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prod, no.

i removed the proposal for deletion. this article easily satisfies wp:neo... between google and book sales. as for coi, at least the article has editors. it does need improvement to be more encyclopedic, but that's fine. --Buridan 12:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

valuable topic

The need for development doesn't justify deletion, IMHO. Though I've always found the notion a bit under-theorized and a bit utopian, it represents an important strand in 'internet thought' and technology-enabled values that needs to be documented. I would suggest that people who suggest that it be deleted work to balance any of the elements they find problematic. --Jasonnolan 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable for online worlds

In my view the phenomenon described in the article will forcefully manifest itself in online worlds, where the forces in play make the virtual world more malleable. It is worthwile to work on it, and extend it with examples, and apply its finds to tools different from blogs (wikis, for example, or Second Life?), which generate analogous effects. -- David.orban 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent democracy is becoming a sub-field in social science, and will likely become more important over time

Emergent democracy is a term with importance in social science today. The basic concept is understood enough to guide a field of inquiry, which is how new topics in social science start.

The field of inquiry reflects a combination of intellectual traditions.

The first has to do with complexity and the science of complexity. This is a field of systems study that focuses on how properties and systems "emerge" from parts. Stuart Kaufman, Sante Fe Institute, Mathmatica, etc. are pointers for those interested in the rich technical literature and methodology.

The second intellectual tradition is the study of political movements and especially democracy. This is the core of the academic discipline of political science, obviously.

Intellectual cross-roughing and fusion is a tried and true method of innovation. Think of molecular biology--which was once a fusion. I believe that the field of emergent democracy studies has a real future, with plenty of room for field studies, theory, and practice. Woodspoet 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion policy

Not sure I fully understand the deletion policy to delete and start something from scratch because it's a weak article. I do still think the term is still notable. So the way to save the article is just to improve it within the next five days? --Joi (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read up on the process for contesting the deletion. Will do that now... and will try to improve the article. Others please pitch in. Especially since I'm a bit of an "interested party" in this article. --Joi (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the deletion tag, but I think we need to improve this article, otherwise it will probably be proposed for deletion. --Joi (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm also an "interested party," I should be able to help. I'll look at it this weekend. Jonl (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a rewrite of the opening, pretty much from scratch, trying to make it clearer and neutral. I look forward to Jonl and others improving it, possibly by reverting it :) dweinberger (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ito's article ever published in other media?

On looking at Ito's seminal article, currently dated April 2003, I wonder: Was this article ever published anywhere that left a more permanent record than the Web? Or is this strictly a "transient media" phenomenon? --Alvestrand (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in the book Extreme Democracy as well as Glocom's research publication in Japanese. --Joi (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Extreme Democracy was self-published on lulu.com; in other articles, people have resisted citing lulu.com published books as "reliable sources" - but at least it establishes a canonical text and a publication date (2005). --Alvestrand (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Democracy was originally commissioned by O'Reilly Publishing and assembled under the supervision of one of O'Reilly's editors, Allen Noren. O'Reilly couldn't publish the book as quickly as we wanted, and we had the sense that the O'Reilly marketing team felt the book was hard to fit into their catalog. We parted amiably, and started looking for another press. However we were intent on publishing before the 2006 elections, and Lulu was the quickest option we could find to get a hardcopy of the book into circulation. Jonl (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]