May 2003 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

CfP E-democracy workshop at ECSCW03, Helsinki
by Whyte, Angus 08 May '03

08 May '03

~ With apologies for cross-posting ~ ECSCW'03 Workshop 7 ~ Monday 15 September, Helsinki, Finland ~ Call for Participation CSCW@E-Democracy: Supporting Conversation and Collaboration in Policy-making Conference website: http://ecscw2003.oulu.fi/ * Aims This one-day workshop aims to initiate a research forum to explore common ground between CSCW and e-democracy. Participants are invited to submit a short position paper (5 pages max.) on prior research or work in progress relevant to one or more of the themes outlined at the end of this call. Each of 3 workshop sessions will be led by experienced researchers and structured to encourage discussion. Workshop submissions should outline the nature of the author's proposed presentation, and will be peer reviewed. The workshop does not aim to arrive at a single consensus position, but to elaborate a limited cluster of themes relevant to the evaluation of e-democracy systems. We plan to publish the proceedings as a special issue in a major international journal and/or as a book. Submissions should be sent to a.whyte(a)napier.ac.uk by June 16, 2003. * Intended Participants (max. 16) Participants should have evaluation experience of e-democracy or related public fora such as civic networks and online communities. We hope to bring together different disciplines in addition to computer science, especially political science, sociology, and organisational science. * Topic The workshop focuses on tools and research approaches concerning the organisation of discourse or conversation, and in particular those that participants consider relevant to 'e-democracy' evaluation. For example the Zeno 'discourse support' platform has been adapted for applications in a number of relevant contexts (Gordon and Richter, 2002). We define e-democracy here as the use of network technologies to promote collaboration between actors for policy-making purposes, whether acting as citizens, their elected representatives, or on behalf of administrations, parliaments or opposition groups. The "W" in CSCW has in recent years breached the confines of the workplace to include other forms of collaborative activity in domestic and public arenas. Activities carried out in the name of democracy span each of these settings, and e-democracy systems are claimed to enhance them according to a logic that welds increasing Internet access and connectivity to increasing public participation in policy-making. Debate and speculation continues among political scientists, yet detailed empirical work remains rare. Descriptions of the fit between technology and practice that approach the richness of CSCW workplace studies are almost absent from e-democracy research. Nor are there many instances of innovation demonstrating the re-invigoration of democratic institutions and constituencies, or perhaps more accurately, there are no widely accepted methodologies to test such claims. The potential scope of e-democracy technology and methodology is wide. Many governments are actively experimenting with web applications that are intended to enhance public participation in policy-making, at local, national and international levels of government. These are often 'vertical' applications of generic tools. For example threaded discussion fora are being widely deployed by governments to inform policy, and by civic groups to articulate positions and influence agendas. Generic fora tools are embedded in policy information and guidance to pre-structure the conversations between citizen-users and moderators that purport to relate to this information and to a policy theme. Thus many applications structure discussion according to a policy-making life cycle model that begins with an agenda-setting phase, progresses through evidence gathering and analysis, followed by policy drafting, implementation and monitoring. The structure provided by e-democracy tools and their moderators/facilitators is almost invariably in pursuit of 'effective deliberation' and 'enhanced participation'. Collaborative discourse appears then to be an appropriate model or metaphor for e-democracy design. Yet little work has been done to validate e-democracy approaches against the perspectives and practices of the actors involved. What evidence is there of a 'fit' between approaches to structuring discourse and e-democracy contexts? To help initiate our discussion we propose the themes below. These may be redefined based on the workshop submissions, and used to structure the day's proceedings around 3 sessions. * Scaling up from 'the group' CSCW tools have largely been designed for 'the workgroup', framed in terms of roles, tasks, processes and/or practices. What is transferable from the 'traditional' CSCW methods of seeing and supporting work settings? How is e-democracy different? One connotation of e-democracy is of collaboration and conflict among large collectives. Yet few approaches to collaboration have seriously tackled how to structure online discussion so that large numbers (thousands) of participants can enjoy equal access, and maintain a coherent overview of the process. Visualisation is seen as key to success (Turoff et al, 1999), and interesting prototypes informed by Conversation Analysis have been described (e.g. Erikson et al, 2002). Collaborative filtering techniques employed to sustain 'online community' may also be relevant here. But is there empirical evidence of particular demands or constraints in applying these techniques, already used for community and intra-organisational needs, for e-democracy purposes? * Deliberation fora: Asymmetries and alternatives The threaded discussion forum has become a common denominator of governments rush to enhance citizen participation. But does the focus on deliberative models of participation promote asymmetries- 'double standards' for citizens and policy-makers? Citizen's comments are frequently moderated according to deliberation rules, then subject to post-hoc content analysis to assess the quality of deliberation (cf. Wilhelm, 1999). How are facilitators themselves made accountable? Can evaluation criteria and methods be considered 'democratic'? Are they applied equally to discussions among policy-makers themselves? The goal of informed deliberation has so infused e-democracy thinking (e.g. Coleman and Gøtze, 2001) that it is seldom questioned. Is there evidence that support for e-democracy 'deliberation' requires anything more (or less) than support for the turn-taking patterns of everyday conversation (Sacks et, al 1974)? Does deliberation place an onus on citizens to 'be informed' about official rationalisations for policy? The notion of testimony has been proposed as an alternative criterion for democratic participation (Sanders, 1997), and emphasises the communication to representatives of citizens versions of policy needs and effects, grounded in personal and collective experience. How do these approaches to political communication and other alternatives translate into workable e-democracy design and evaluation criteria? The policy-making cycle: grounding e-democracy in democratic practice? Policy-making may be seen as a cyclic process, beginning with agenda setting, ending with policy monitoring, and encompassing stakeholders' dialogue throughout. Yet despite the number of government online consultations of citizens (or 'e-rulemaking') there is little evidence of a good 'fit' to practice. A pay-off in greater transparency appears an elusive goal rather than a reality. More evident, or perhaps just more newsworthy, are dramatic political changes engendered by mass protests; publicised by broadcast media but apparently initiated and amplified by ad-hoc groups using messaging technologies (Rheingold, 2002). Is the net effect of 'e-participation' greater when initiated outside the policy-making loop by 'self-organising' networks of civic groups? Can new paradigms of network organisation be accommodated within systems run by and for governments? Are process modelling approaches rich enough to provide a 'fit' with democratic practice? If categories 'have politics' (Suchman, 1994), are they any more evident when democratic processes are re-engineered in order to render them computable? Workshop organisers: - Fiorella di Cindio, Computer Science Department, University of Milan - Elisabeth Davenport, Social Informatics Group, School of Computing, Napier University. - Judith Gregory, Institute for Informatics, University of Oslo - Peter Mambrey, Dept. of CSCW, Fraunhofer Inst.for Applied Information Technology FhG-FIT - Volkmar Pipek, International Institute for Socio-Informatics, Bonn - Angus Whyte, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University. References Coleman, Stephen and Gøtze, John (2001) Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation online at: http://www.bowlingtogether.net/intro.html Erickson, T., Halverson, C., Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M. and Wolf, T. (2002) "Social Translucence: Designing Social Infrastructures that Make Collective Activity Visible." Communications of the ACM (Special issue on Community, ed. J. Preece), Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 40-44, 2002. Gordon, Thomas F., and Gernot Richter (2002) "Discourse Support Systems for Deliberative Democracy." eGovernment: State of the Art and Perspectives (EGOV02). Eds. Roland Traunmüller and Klaus Lenk. Aix-en-Provence: Springer Verlag, 2002. 248-55. Rheingold, Howard (2002) Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution Perseus Book Group, Cambridge, MA. Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, G. Jefferson (1974) 'A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation' Language 50(4), 1974, pp. 696-735 Sanders, Lynn (1997) 'Against Deliberation' Political Theory 25(3), 1997, pp. 347-384 Suchman, Lucy (1994). Do Categories Have Politics? The Language /Action Perspective Reconsidered. Proceedings CSCW'94, 2(3):177--190. Turoff, M., Hiltz, S. R., Bieber, M., Fjermestad, J., & Rana, A. (1999). Collaborative discourse structures in computer mediated group communications. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(4). Wilhelm, A., 'Virtual sounding boards: how deliberative is online political discussion?' in: Hague, B. and Loader, B. (eds.), Digital Democracy. Discourse and decision making in the information age. pp. 154-177 Routledge, London, 1999 Dr Angus Whyte, Research Fellow International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University 10 Colinton Rd Edinburgh EH10 5DT, U.K. a.whyte(a)napier.ac.uk www.teledemocracy.org +44 131 455 2544

1 0

Re: internet linguistic variety citations desired
by Bram Dov Abramson 08 May '03

08 May '03

elijah wright (elw(a)stderr.org) 07-5-2003: >that the amount of English used on the Internet doesn't >(or will rapidly cease to) matter for the following >reasons (or anything similar): > >(1) The Internet is global and distributed, so people will >use their own languages on it, (2) The growth of >non-English users exceeds in rate the growth of >English-speaking users, (3) The technical affordances of >the internet (Unicode, translation, etc.) have solved the >language problems. > >These seem to be popular conceptions, for which there may >be very slim published evidence. Maybe you'd consider taking a more nuanced approach to "the Internet" -- a connectivity platform, after all -- by looking at how the posited single public space plays out differently across the different popular Internet applications. The Web, for example, as not identical to e-mail. Instant messaging, as not identical to online gaming. And so forth. Surely the formation of languaged (to mutilate English ;-)) social networks in each of these media has its own, as you say, affordances. >we've chosen not to rely on Global Reach's statistics or >reports because they have a vested interest in providing >statistics that encourage people to... surprise... *BUY >MORE STATISTICS* from them. (...) >global reach sells a lot of things. ;) one of their >other big markets is translation services - they would >love to help translate your corporate site into twenty >languages, if you can afford it. Whether it's selling more statistics or selling translation and localisation services: yes, it's certainly a good idea to try and understand the biases of one's sources, and to think about the direction in which those biases might lead said sources to err. But I am skeptical of this idea of avoiding or discounting sources where biases can be identified, presumably in favour of better sources untainted by bias. Most knowledge is produced by people with opinions, biases, etc. The key is to evaluate in light of this, not search for that which is free of it; such a search might take a long while indeed. As for the methodology behind this particular source, there is nothing sophisticated here. This is path-of-least-resistance stuff: Internet user numbers are drawn from a variety of sources that used various methodologies on various dates, I suppose via NUA; all of the inconsistencies in this are then multiplied by what-language-they-speak assumptions which map official language(s) (save in a couple of cases, where available national demographics are substituted) onto Internet user population, introducing . And so forth. In other words a nice little project for someone -- on a part-time basis, I suppose -- which collates obtainable data into something meaningful and provides full documentation as to source data, assumptions, and methodology. And which is neither capital-t Truth, nor pretends to be. The sort of positivism which faults data sets for being imperfect or unmimetic representations of the world has always surprised me. Necessarily, statistics (and maps, and pictures, and photographs, and ...) are trade-offs. Finding out that they are trade-offs is not really the point imho; identifying what has been traded off, and using appropriately given those limitations, is. Hence: >how many of these internet users are multilingual with >english and some other language readily accessible to >them? how many are multilingual with at least minimal >competence in four or five of the top 100 languages >spoken/written worldwide? how are these people being >counted? these are the fun questions...] Sure. As long as these are understood, not as oversights which the compiler couldn't cotton onto -- the opposite seems more likely to me -- but as a degree of complexity outstripping the resources which the compiler was able to expend. In which case the fun of asking these questions is not in the triumphal aha! found holes! but, rather, in thinking about how these change the questions we ask, and the answers we come up with. (For example, why this is the only free data set available on the Web, indicating a distinct lack of interest from certain corners in reproducing or improving on it. On which, I think I remember Angus Reid here in Canada doing something similar, but more of it in-house; their Web site likely has contact details and a press release or two.) Interesting ideas, in all cases; good luck with it! cheers Bram

1 0

Fwd: CHE-Academe Today, "A glance at the spring issue of "Dissent": Race and the Internet"
by Steve Jones 07 May '03

07 May '03

ACADEME TODAY: The Chronicle of Higher Education's Daily Report for subscribers _________________________________________________________________ MAGAZINES & JOURNALS A glance at the spring issue of "Dissent": Race and the Internet Will the Internet change our perceptions of race? Jerry Kang, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles, says that depends on how we construct our online environments. Mr. Kang writes that, at this stage, most Internet communication takes place through text, in which participants' races may remain invisible. "This prompts giddy speculations about Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream Version 2.0 -- to be judged by the content of one's text-characters, not the color of one's skin," says Mr. Kang. But ultimately he sees only limited use for Internet environments in which all mention of an author's race is excluded. While acknowledging that "zoning most marketplaces for 'abolition'" could be useful, he suggests that the Internet's real promise may not be in eliminating racial perceptions, but in changing and enriching them. "Virtual communities are centered around common interests, experiences, and fates," he writes. A focus on common goals may allow people to relate to those of other races in ways that change their perceptions of race. This is especially likely, he says, if information about people's race is not revealed until they have already established a relationship. Constructing a positive environment for racial interaction on the Internet will become even more challenging as online environments come to rely heavily on graphics as well as text. Mr. Kang hopes that those who build these new online environments will consider their potential to improve or harm race relations. "If we are coding a new 'cyburban' reality," he writes, "let us at least make new mistakes." The article is not online. Information about the journal is available at http://www.dissentmagazine.org/

1 0

Introduction and question
by Phil Hall 07 May '03

07 May '03

Greetings List, Short introduction prior to a question. Phil Hall Anthropology BSc from UCL in 1998 - final dissertation an Ethnography in an early Avatar based Multi User Environment. Became hooked by the potential for automation of information delivery via embedded Chatterbots in the game. Since then have worked in IT, set up Elzware a specialist Chatterbot design studio last year. So, why this email ?? I am, as a side line, helping out with an online discussion group known as eMint. This is a collection of UK and EU community managers, academics and commercial interests. Further to this I am representing eMint at a Government Task Force which is discussing moderation in online environments. The objective is to understand and present some information publicly that might assist in the reduction of risk to children online from Paedophiles and other aggressive users of discussion groups. To further this conversation I am hoping to touch base with anyone currently, or recently, working to Ethnographic principles in online environments either text or avatar based, real or lapse time. I was advised from another Anthropology list that this might be a good place to ask for some views. I have had a review of the archive found a 1st Call for Papers: Deviance on the Internet: New Challenges for Social Science so the conversation would seem to be appropriate. If anyone can help out or give some pointers on this I would appreciate it. Thanks and regards, Phil Hall www.elzware.com

1 0

internet linguistic variety citations desired
by elijah wright 07 May '03

07 May '03

Howdy folks - a co-conspirator and I are seeking citations regarding the dominance of the English language on the internet. Specifically, we are looking for media citations (popular media more than acceptable - !!!WONDERFUL!!!, in fact!) of instances where individuals have said: that the amount of English used on the Internet doesn't (or will rapidly cease to) matter for the following reasons (or anything similar): (1) The Internet is global and distributed, so people will use their own languages on it, (2) The growth of non-English users exceeds in rate the growth of English-speaking users, (3) The technical affordances of the internet (Unicode, translation, etc.) have solved the language problems. These seem to be popular conceptions, for which there may be very slim published evidence. Please respond off-list, and I'll post a condensed summary. thanks, elijah wright school of library and information science indiana university bloomington

3 5

virus x 2
by Barry Wellman 06 May '03

06 May '03

In what Reuters says is Not a Joke, Microsoft has announced the world's first Internet loo, coming this summer in an outhouse that will tour the British summer music festival circuit. Given what often gets left fecally lying around outhouses, this offers the possibility for getting three bugs at once: bio virus, computer virus, and buggy Win software. Barry _____________________________________________________________________ Barry Wellman Professor of Sociology NetLab Director wellman at chass.utoronto.ca http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 455 Spadina Avenue Toronto Canada M5S 2G8 fax:+1-416-978-7162 "For a couple of old-timers, they're quick." Undergraduate, after losing 320-150 to the 1962 undefeated Lafayette College Bowl Team [quiz show] in a 40-year reunion match, April 2 2003. (B Wellman, team captain) _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

Information Technology in Regional Areas
by jeremy hunsinger 06 May '03

06 May '03

The Organising Committee of the Information Technology in Regional Areas Conference (ITiRA) invites submission of papers for its 2003 Conference. Dates: 5 - 7 November 2003 Venue: Rydges Oasis Resort, Caloundra, Queensland, Australia Deadline for the submission of full papers: 6 June 2003 Further details available at: <http://itira.cqu.edu.au/2003> or please email enquiries-itira2003(a)cqu.edu.au The ITiRA 2003 Conference explores strategies that link ICT enhanced economic, social and cultural development efforts with emerging opportunities in such areas as electronic commerce, community and civic networks, telecentres, electronic democracy, on-line participation, self-help and virtual health communities, advocacy, cultural enhancement and others. We see ITiRA 2003 as being of interest to practitioners, and policy makers in both developed and developing countries, and are particularly interested to share ideas across practice, research and policy. Hence, ITiRA 2003 encourages submissions for double blind refereed papers as well as practitioner case studies and policy development. Tracks * Community Informatics * IT for Developing Countries * Indigenous Voices on IT for Indigenous Peoples * IT for Regional Culture, Media and the Arts * IT for Regional Education and Training * IT for e-Democracy * IT for Regional Health * IT for Regional Industry and e-Commerce * IT for Tourism in Regional Areas * IT for Social Marketing in Regional Areas Important Dates: Full papers due: 6 June 2003 Notification of Acceptance: 12 July 2003 Final print-ready papers due: 15 August 2003 jeremy hunsinger jhuns(a)vt.edu on the ibook www.cddc.vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy/blog () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments

1 0

Reply: Broadband statistics Norway
by Svein Bergvik 06 May '03

06 May '03

Though you would prefer data on each country from same source, this could be of interest. Probably the best source for such data in Norway. http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/03/inet_en/ Good luck! Svein Bergvik Telenor R&D Norway Visiting researcher at Center for Management of Information University of Arizona

1 0

Re: Help needed about statistics
by catherine middleton 06 May '03

06 May '03

>I am preparing an article on internet penetration. I have been looking for= >=20 >some data because I am interested in getting the percentage of households=20 >connected to the Internet over the total of households and the percentage=20 >of households with a broadband connection over the total of households. I=20 >would like to get the statistics from one source, because otherwise=20 >comparison among different sources is not very accurate. >The countries in which I am interested in are Korea, USA, Hong King,=20 >Singapur, Taiwan, China, New Zealand, Norway, Australia. Broadband researchers usually use OECD data, but not all the countries you've listed are members. A chart with September 2002 stats is available at http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-41-1-no-4-39262-41,00.html. catherine middleton

1 0

Rerarding "Help needed about statistics"
by Mete Yildiz 06 May '03

06 May '03

Dear Isabel, UNDP World Reports (www.undp.org) provide data about the telecommunications structure status of all the countries in the world. I also remember seeing an article by Ezster Hargittai on (if I do not recall it wrong) connectivity in OECD countries published I guess in 1999 in "Telecommunications Policy" journal. You might want to take a look at the methodology section. Best regards, Mete

1 0