Talk:Open-source governance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just a thought[edit]

Open source, direct democracy, et al., don't they all basically hinge on a damn good telco infrastructure? Bitcoin or Swiss online referenda, at the end of the day, if it is going to work then the telco firms need to dogfood the same principles or it becomes a kind of corporatocracy, or whatever the word is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean[edit]

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." The usage of "may" is confusing me here. Has the article been marked as "possibly needing a cleanup" or as "needing a cleanup" but as such unconfirmed? Or is this poor English for "This article needs cleaning up" as you can see "This product may contain nuts" on a packet of peanuts? Wilsonsamm (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Open Source Government[edit]

Governance and government are two separate concepts -- although this article doesn't appear to communicate that. "Open source governance" does deserve its own article, although not as it is currently presented. Unless myself or someone else has the intention of updating this page to differentiate governance from government it should be merged for the time being and reintroduced later. TheArcologist 05:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree. I totally agree, and suggest the merge take place immediately. These articles do not have enough content or source material to remain in separate articles. Jwiley80 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Open source government would be the status quo of "government whose policy is publicly open to revision and comment" vs. open source governance where the public can initiate policy. Basilwhite (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Clearly governance is not the same as government. Let's reflex this in the article instead of merging. Battocchia (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I beleave the content should be kept seperate because then it would be harder to find what you were looking for. i would rather each article to be its own so you wont have to browse through a page of text to find a paragraph your looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a link now to open government for those who want to elaborate on it. Also much better explanation of the various ways this "philosophy" (why is there an article on a "philosophy" that has exactly zero academic publications?) is applied. The best way to divide this would be based on the categories of institution (ruling government, political party, journalistic forum, citizen group) that apply these technologies to propose or scrutinize decisions made by government or (if one extends "governance" to corporate) other public interest decisions. Fat chance getting much traction explaining how Wikipedia itself is governed as an example, exactly how "open" can governance be if the concept of sysop vandalism never gets discussed? (technically it's a variant of official vandalism and was well explained as such in the article of that name). Is Wikipedia ArbCom for instance a good example of this, and did it evolve from bad governance?

The people who used the phrases open government, open politics and open party also seem to be doing more real things than those who use this vague "open source governance" term. Little chance though of explaining what they did without an article on argumentation frameworks or at least a redirect to online deliberation, which are pre-requisites to these.

The "collected wisdom of the people as a whole"?[edit]

Did somebody actually write that with a straight face? Unbelievable. -- (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It's typical of the garbage in recent versions. Look at older versions of open politics to see something a little more operational.

Original research in "Criteria" section[edit]

The section Criteria seems to contain at least some amount of original research, especially the sentences "This is easily accomplished using X". This is especially obvious in "all contributions are recorded and preserved, and these records cannot be altered. This is easily implemented with svn". SVN does not guarantee that records can't be altered. DVCS using cryptographic hashes like Monotone, Mercurial or git do, but not SVN.

Also, the section contains weasel words.

Yoghurt (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought.[edit]

I would think open source governance would look more like a movement. It is easy for most today to spot an attachment or link that is a virus. An ill conceived idea will be viewed much the same as we go along. Common sense will likely rule and those with a motive will be found out quickly. And as there will be no direct leadership politics for gain will fall by the way side naturally. Any person my hold the correct answer on a given day. That happens in my office on a regular bases. But having the best idea does not make that person the leader. It is just the best solution to a current problem so we all gain. (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Type of voting systems[edit]

I have an idea for a voting system. It counts reasons to agree and disagree similar to the way Google counts links. When an argument has lots of reasons to agree with it, and few reasons to disagree with it, it will have more strength when being used to support another argument.

That way when you strengthen or weaken an argument, it will automatically strengthen or weaken all the conclusions built upon that argument.

Of course, you would need to have a "linkage" score and a "unique" score, between an argument and a conclusion. The linkage score would say, if the argument was true would it support or oppose the conclusion. For instance someone could post 1) "the grass is green" and 2) "Hitler is committing genocide" as reasons "to go to war against Germany". Both would be true, but only one of them would have a strong "linkage" score between the argument (#2) and the conclusion.

The unique score would be important also. The arguments "Hitler is bad" and "Hitler is evil" would be tagged as saying "essentially the same thing" and so depending on what their unique score is, they wouldn't each contribute additional points to the conclusion. For instance, I would say they are saying 100% the same thing, and so I would give one of them a 0 on a "unique" score.

Obviously, it would take a little bit of work to get the kinks worked out, but I think tying a conclusion's score to the cumulative strength of their sub arguments, is the only valid way of running an open source government.

I want to start a new party of people running for elected office that promise to use all their money that they raise building this system, and promise to follow the results of these online open cost benefit analysis efforts. I don't know how to explain my plans, or meet other open source government people, but wanted to start. myclob (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)