Timothy Killian and Chad Maglaque are giving a lunchtime talk about MorePerfect.org. They refer to it as “Civics 2.0.” In 1787, Tim says, the 55 men invited to the Constitutional Convention did not represent the full diversity of the population. MorePerfect wants to open up the process, taking the opinions of anyone who wants to participate in the democratic process. “We take the notion that everyone has a good idea.” “Experts are certainly important in any given field, but someone outside that field may have a perfect idea.”

Rather than making laws out of public view, citizens ought to be involved early on in the creation of law and policy. MorePerfect uses Wikimedia, the same software used by Wikipedia. But the application is different. Wikipedia aims at “NPOV”— neutral point of view—and ends up with edit wars on some political topics. MorePerfect is structured differently. (More later.)

The idea came when Timothy’s brother was supporting a medical marijuana bill in Washington state. They took the language of the proposal from Arizona where the measure had passed. The referendum lost in Washington 60-40. So, they went to all sorts of groups, pro and con, with new language and got tons of good suggestions about how to word the proposal better. E.g., the police chiefs, who had opposed the measure, explained that they would need a way to tell if someone they’ve stopped on the street is a medical or recreational user of marijuana. They took these suggestions and crafted better language. In the next election, they won 60-40. It worked because they collaborated.

While they’ve built tech, tech is not enough, they say. So, beyond the online component, they intend “to conduct face-to-face conferences wherein citizens can learn more about specific policy issues directly and interace with policy advocates.” Each conference will present multiple issues. These will be local, but they also want to do a nationwide whistlestop tour.

Chad is frustrated by the way most of the online media have worked, scrolling great ideas down the page, rather than providing persistence of discussion and improvement.

They’ve posted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an example, enabling people to wikily edit it.

Q: [me] I’ve played with the Bill of Rights wiki and it’s a good marketing gimmick to get people in, but it’s actually not a great example of how the system will work because you can’t fork it—people who don’t want gun control are constrained to come up with a Second Amendment that works also for pro-gun folks.That’s not the way the rest of the site works
A: Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and insists on having a single article for a topic, whereas we’re happy to have multiple pages representing different points of view. Our corrolary to NPOV is “constructive, not destructive.” So, if it’s a gun control measure, we ask that you only be constructive about it. If you just fundamentally disagree with it, then start your own page. We have “the flip side” page for any policy: If you fundamentally disagree with a policy, you can go there and tell why.

In Seattle there’s a leading conservative and a leading progressive blog. We’ve sat down with both of them and we’re going to put up a joint page where each of them is working on their priorities for government. Then we’re going to ask them to try to merge them.

Q: How do you prevent there being many, many pages on a single topic?
A: Only a few of them will take hold, we think.

They give as an example a coalition with a proposal for Seattle’s Alaskan Way Viaduct. The group came in with a policy about it, but invited people to comment on it. People are constructively engaging. Their page also lists other options, so if you disagree, you can go there.

Q: (ethanz) It becomes obvious how difficult it is use to a wiki for this if you look at the discussion of the Bill of Rights. You should have access to the original. You should be able to see the history of edits for particular sections. Wiki is probably the worst solution you could come up with, except for every other solution. To what extent are you committed to the Mediawiki software?
A: We’re not committed. We like that people are used to it and it’s open source.
Q: Maybe you should be rolling your own…
A: The key is iterative development. Get people working with it and find the problems.

Q: (Gene) It might help to adopt a code of good process. And your story about the medical marijuana bill sounds like success came from pulling together the right folks, whereas MorePerfect is opening it up to the public.
A: We’re trying different things. And we’re not saying that what the public comes up with will be the final draft. Instead, a group proposing a bill can learn the trends and get some good ideas.

Q: (Lewis Hyde) In the 18th Century, people would use pseudonyms and anonymously. In your system, do reputations emerge?
A: We allow pseudonyms but not anonymity. We require a valid email address and a zip code. We encourage people to provide a real name. We don’t yet have ratings for users or edits. In the next rev, we want to build in the civic networking capabilities, with users who have ratings and locales.

Q: (Amanda Michel ) Typically there are a few people who contribute a lot, and lots of people who are drive-by contributors. I wonder if by centralizing things in MorePerfect.org if you’re limiting its potential.
A: I think there are upsides to the centralization. I work in the drug reform movement in Washington State. We have conferences all the time. We’re speaking to the choir all the time. I’d like to have a conference with maybe three big issues that are diametrically opposed. So, maybe you came for an education policy discussion, but there’s a drug reform discussion you would never have gone to. There’s a potential for that online because of the centralization.
Q: The functionality of the site is clear, but the community isn’t. People may show up for one issue they care about and not come back for years. The cost of getting people to MorePerfect is higher because it’s centralized. Perhaps people could replicate it…
A: We’re thinking about letting people create their own branded “wing” within MorePerfect. The Seattle City Council is thinking about this.

Q: How do you get people to know your page?
A: We’re writing grant proposals to get funding. We hope to do a whistle stop tour where we get in an RV, go town to town, and teach people how to use this tool. And finding groups who have pre-existing policy needs is key. We want to start small so we can figure out exactly what people need.

Q: I love the idea. In terms of political effectiveness, how are you thinking about explicitly making links to policy makers, including them in the discussions. It would be wonderful to engage more democratic participatory, but this is the wrong medium: technology, language and time are barriers. I’m glad you’re thinking of f2f, and you can think about them in some similar ways. Can you partner with other groups that can help you think this through and do the design?
A: Wikimedia does look stark and technical. In terms of engaging policy makers, it helps that I can talk with just about any of the political leaders in the state.

Q: (ethanz) The lead seems to be “Let’s draft legislation through a wiki,” but I think that’s the wrong one. The medical marijuana story’s point isn’t about wikis but about a consultative process. Maybe it should be about how to build ballot initiatives. It would be more focused and probably have a higher chance of success. By putting it in terms of a wiki, you attract online assholes like me [hah!] to poke holes in it. Focus on the purpose, not the technology. What’s cool about you’re doing is that you can build a ballot initiative in public, get input from people who agree and even disagree…
A: I think there’s room for lots of silos. You’ve been thinking about wikis since Ward developed them, but most people have never been there.

Q: (Erica George) For local political organizations that are trying to make internal decisions, maybe you could limit it to particular people, e.g., Somerville Democrats. I’m excited about where MorePerfect could go at the hyperlocal level.

Q: In your presentation I sense a naive belief that people will just come to your site. But political parties already have tools and don’t have an interest in opening it up. I’d focus on the ballot initiatives.
A: Policy drafting is the most tedious process imaginable. We’re talking to the Washington State Democratic party about this.

A: We think this will better at the state and local level.

Q: The stories are really helpful.

Q: (me): (i) Post the final drafts of bills that have been finalized. (ii) Drop the Constitution as an example because it’s misleading, albeit clever. (iii) I think it’s too early to focus on a single application, such as public initiatives. (iv) Wikipedia works because of its dedicated community. Do you need that? How do you facilitate it and the development of norms and pollicies?
A: This is a multiyear project. It’ll take that long for norms etc. to emerge and settle. But as far as this being too complex, I see this as fundamentally democratic.

Q: Business model?
A: Now, grants. We have various ideas for how to make money.

[Tags: politics e-democracy berkman moreperfect policy wikis democracy]

Categories: Uncategorized dw