Talk:Open-source governance

Just a thought

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 83.208.165.249 (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean

"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

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 170.185.49.19 (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"?

Did somebody actually write that with a straight face? Unbelievable. --76.217.116.74 (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

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.

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.75.129.15.216 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Type of voting systems

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)

DIfference with Wiki Government?

Hello, Looks like it is the same to this: https://www.brookings.edu/book/wiki-government/ Should we update the article? --Garçongrande (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.(non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Open-source governance → Open governance – I believe open governance is a better name for this article. There is already an open government article here, and after search this, it seems that term open governance is more common and 'Open-source governance' is not even mentioned in the current sources of the article. See for example the following research article from Frontiers Media: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsc.2019.00003/full+Avoinlähde (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Likely to be opposed the same as at Talk:Open-source software#Requested move 2 March 2022 and Talk:Open-source hardware#Requested move 2 March 2022. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Those two are about information technology, so these should hardly be confused. Compare to Open government, check this article sources and Google 'Open-source governance'. --Avoinlähde (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Open governance does redirect here currently but probably should be a synonym for Open government, which is about transparency in government. This article is about a distinct concept, that also adds elements of direct democracy. MrOllie (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Goverment and governance are different things. Also read the discussion above about this. --Avoinlähde (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Open governance seems to be more used. Search engines give the following as the first search results: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsc.2019.00003/full, https://www.transparency.org/en/projects/open-governance-helping-citizens-engage-with-government, https://www.globalintegrity.org/2016/01/21/the-value-of-open-governance-adaptive-learning-and-development/, https://opengovinstitute.org/. ClarkLuis (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Seems too easily confused with Open government. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If the topic of the article is considered to be the same enough, perhaps articles can be merge. However, we also have goverment and governance, the difference is clear to everyone, what makes this different? --Avoinlähde (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Confused oppose. The proposed title doesn't seem to be clear about what the article is about. Red Slash 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ReasonRank

I would like to add something like this:

A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria.

This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.

Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting. Myclob (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References