Mass online deliberation 20x20 presentation for budapest
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Mass online deliberation 20x20 presentation for budapest



This talk was presented at the FET 11 presentation. It was not recorded there, so it has been re-recorded to present it on the internet....

This talk was presented at the FET 11 presentation. It was not recorded there, so it has been re-recorded to present it on the internet.

Mass Online deliberation, how to make it happen.

Alternative Title:
Procedural And Algorithmic Aspects of Mass Online Deliberation

Authors: Pietro Speroni di Fenizio, Alois, Paulin, Cyril Velikanov

If a really topical and controversial problem is proposed for public deliberation, and there are solid expectations that the results of deliberation will be at least influential if not decisive - then we can expect that really many citizens (thousands, tens of thousands...) will consider it worthwhile to join an open online deliberation over that issue, and will actively participate in it.

However, such a mass online deliberation (MOD) raises several problems, related to how a very large number of users' one-to-many interactions can be coordinated and aggregated. These problems can only be solved by using a carefully designed MOD support system (MOD-SS).

We analyse those problems and propose our solution to them, based on the principles of fairness and self-moderation, and using a special kind of two-parameter evaluation of participants' proposals. This makes it possible for the support system to cluster proposals according to how similar they are perceived by other participants.

Our system will be implemented as a server cloud application with an open API and several alternative client applications for different use-cases.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 66 65 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Mass online deliberation 20x20 presentation for budapest Mass online deliberation 20x20 presentation for budapest Presentation Transcript

    • PROCEDURAL & ALGORITHMIC ASPECTSOF MASS ONLINE DELIBERATION An R&D project by Pietro Speroni di Fenizio (Coimbra University, Portugal) Alois Paulin (Faculty of IS, Novo Mesto, Slovenia) Cyril Velikanov (Memorial Society, Moscow, Russia, & Fondation Euractiv/Politech, Brussels)
    • Mass online deliberation: the context Govern- ment Parliament Regional Council Agenda-setting Citizens, or other stakeholders Solution(s) Problem or or answer question (s) MASS ONLINE DELIBERATION SYSTEM Probably, alsoExperts Citizens other stakeholders
    • Deliberation system type will depend on: Number of Participants <12 10-150 150-1000 >1000 One Answer (How should we do this?) Whatare we Multiplelooking Answers for (What should we do about this?)
    • MOD: Citizens’ Actions Many MASS ONLINE to DELIBERATION Many SYSTEM Proposing Commenting VotingModifying Appraising Citizens
    • MOD Principles: FairnessEvery proposal should be appraised bythe deliberating community according toits intrinsic value,regardless of:- author’s personality- friends’ support- submittal time- etc
    • MOD Principles: ScalabilityThe deliberation process should beable to host thousands of contributorsMOD Principles: Informed opinionUninformed opinion is of littlevalue.Information should come fromindependent sources.Experts (academics?) shouldprovide data, but not opinions
    • MOD Principles: Economy of effortsParticipation should be possible to everyoneat leisure time – not as a full-time occupation. MOD Principles: RobustnessWe value deliberative actionsof well-intentioned citizens.So we must protect them fromconcerted disruptive actions(“mob attacks”)
    • MOD Principles: No External ModerationThe system should be self-moderated byparticipants’ own actions, with no need forexternal agents that can bias the result. Self- moderated Moderation Unmoderated
    • Problems related to self-moderation• Endless ramification of the discussions: as in an ordinary online forum • Trolling: Open discussion on a topical issue is prone to all kinds of concerted disruptive actions (“mob attacks”)• Claque voting: A proposal can easily win if its author is supported by his/her many “online friends”
    • Main problem of MOD: Making sure all are heard• Attention limit: • Minority voices: Out of a very large If the whole “heap” is “heap” of proposals presented as one or opinions, ranked list, only the everybody will read most supported voices just a few ones will be heardOUR SOLUTION: Random appraisal of proposals, and then clustering them according to whether they are supported mainly by the same participants 10
    • Our solution: random two-parameter appraisal • Initial appraisal: Every participant’s contribution is first sent to few randomly selected participants (a “peer review”) • Two-parameter appraisal: “h ow w ” qu t is w t: it? el ee en al ex li ith gr m ity pl I a ree : ain ag ed o “d ?”
    • Aggregating Several Appraisals Quality Agreement Ranking t Closeness en between qu em proposals al between ity proposals re ag bird’s-eye view:“best” contributions Clustering for each cluster
    • Proposals Experts ? Proposals Proposals Proposals Proposals Proposals Writin g Citizens & Stakehold Appraising ers Clusters Clusters Clusters
    • MOD: authorship vs. confidentiality• Rewarding participants: • Confidentiality: Many participants would Though, many like to be rewarded for participants would their efforts and for their like not to disclose time spent in deliberation; their real names. authors would like to have proofs of their authorship. SOLUTION: Unique registration under user- selected pseudonym with digital signature
    • Collaboration within online deliberationDeliberation should comprise collaboration, otherwise it will remain fruitless.This raises several issues:• Authorship: Who should be considered the author of a collaborative proposal?• What incentives should be provided to convince authors to collaborate?SOLUTION: Several workgroups in parallel; every workgroup is self-governed according to one of a choice of policies
    • Collaborative Working Groups of two types:1.Clarity seeking WG: 2.Integration seeking Working Group with WG: WG with people only people that agree from different with the proposals clusters, trying to inside a cluster, with integrate different the aim to edit a single ideas from those proposal that clusters, with the aim represents the whole to elaborate a final cluster proposal3. Among the proposals written by each i-WG, a ranking is established using Condorcet Voting
    • Clarity WG Clarity WG Clarity WGCluster Cluster Cluster Integration Integration Integration WG WG WG Final Proposals VOTING
    • Proposals Experts ? Proposals Proposals Proposals Proposals Proposals Writin g Citizens & Stake- Evaluations holders Clarity WG Clarity WG Clusters Clarity WG Clusters ation Clusters p artici p WG ng Voti Final Final Ranked Integration WG Integration WG Integration WG Proposals Proposals Results
    • Realisation: MOD Cloud (engine + storage) 19
    • Realisation: Multiple Equivalent MOD Clients MOD Cloud (engine + storage) API http://… 20